Übermensch or Last-Man?
Before anything else, any Hyperhuman would reject Climate Alarm and Malthusian Environmentalism because of what it says about humanity. As Jason Ross put it in this week’s science discussion at LPAC:
“It’s child abuse. You take a child, with unique potential, a personality that has never existed before, different from anyone who will come in the future, and you take this child and tell them: ‘You’re a virus on the Earth.’ ‘Your goal is to have no impact.’ ‘And there should be less of you.’
“It’s all about ‘You’re ugly.’ ‘Your existence is ugly.’ ‘Nature is better without you.’ “
Only damaged, endarkened, non-Illuminated, Last-Man souls find the ideology of climate alarm appealing.
Then if you look at the science, the actual data and the criticisms, there are two ways to respond. One group of people become so sensated (i.e. overwhelmed with sensation) by the emotional hysteria of climate alarm, that no criticism matters because “it’s worth going along with just in case it is right, and even if it is not right“. These are the people who need Abrahamism in their life but are autists, atheists, agnostics and scientific materialists, and so they go with a feeling schema that replicates most of the Abrahamist archetype: you’re a sinner, apologize for existing, repent of your sins, silence the heretics who affirm existence, seek less, do less, pursue Burden not Becoming, etc. There’s lots of sensation in that for them…they just love the sensations it gives them. It’s full of contradiction, punishment, cognitive dissonance, abuse, internal conflict, external conflict, etc. It’s thrilling for them…absolutely thrilling and enthralling. It enraptures them. I’ve written elsewhere that it seems as though Climate Alarm was intentionally designed as a psychological fill-in of the Abrahamist archetype for autistics, agnostics, atheists, scientific materialists, and “Social Justice Warrior” millennials. They’re simply applying the Precautionary Principle to belief and obedience in Climate Alarm from belief and obedience to Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah.
And then the other group can think rationally, and the least bit of reason and logical competence applied to climate alarm science will quickly expose its sophistry…if the disgusting stink of its last-manism hasn’t rightly turned you away already.
How do They Know?!
This question has been coming up a lot lately in the discussion of the radiative greenhouse effect upon which climate alarm is based: “How do thermal photons from a cold object know not to heat up a warmer object?”
It actually comes down to Climate Alarm being based on this premise, that:
“Since a thermal photon from a cold object can not know that it is not supposed to heat up a warmer object, and likewise a warmer object can not know that it is not supposed to absorb and be warmed by thermal photons from a cooler object, then a cool object must heat up a warmer object, and therefore the colder atmosphere heats the warmer surface, and we call this the radiative greenhouse effect, and it justifies anthropogenic climate change alarm.”
Therefore, would the finding that thermal photons from a cold object do not warm up a hotter object indicate mental agency, i.e. the ability to know and act on that knowledge, in photons?
Or is there some other mechanistic process or restriction which can be referred to which doesn’t require a photon to do something as “radical” or “woo-woo” as having mental agency? But think about that for a minute: Why should a photon follow a mechanistic process? Why should any laws of physics exist at all? Why do they? What produced them? Where are they stored? How can they exist if the laws themselves aren’t even stored anywhere? What do they exist in? How do they see to it that anything obeys them at all? Are the laws of physics stored in matter? What is matter? Quarks? Why and how are laws stored in quarks? What about non-material phenomena such as a photon…where does it store laws and how and why does it follow them? Are the laws of physics stored in the fabric space-time? How do the laws effect themselves through space-time? How do they make objects and energy in space-time obey them?
It seems that only something with mental agency can do something as strange as follow any law at all. I know I have scientific materialists reading this blog, but they have to admit that there are no materialist answers to the above questions. And they are legitimate questions despite the anti-intellectual insistence of the materialists that they should simply not be asked.
If you truly grasp the relevance of those questions, you will be forced to conclude that the only place that these laws could be stored and the only reason that they could have their effect is through mental knowledge and mental agency. The Laws of Physics can only be mental laws, laws held within mind and which have their relevant mental agency to effect them. Only mind can effect something absolutely consistent and regular, such as a law of physics, else why shouldn’t everything fundamentally behave completely unpredictably all the time? Even in the case of simple Newtonian mechanics: why exchange momentum in a perfectly conservative way when there are an infinite number of ways to not conserve? Why travel in a straight line when no other forces act when an infinite number of other ways could be traveled? And why behave mathematically, in a way that allows mathematics to explain laws and nature, when an infinite number of other ways including no way at all could be acted?
Why does anything exist at all rather than not exist? Existence itself must in fact be the mental object in-itself in order for there to be intangible laws at the substrate of existence which govern everything else tangible. That’s the only solution: Existence has to be a mental object. It’s a mental form, a mental entity. Only something with mental agency can produce and effect the functioning of a permanent law; otherwise, there’s no sufficient reason for any consistency to be found at any time or any where, for it is self-evidently absurd to claim that a quark holds and effects the laws of physics, or that the vacuum does so, etc. The only alternative is the scientific materialist’s which is simply to ignore the problem of the philosophical fraud of empiricism, which thus tacitly appeals to magic, to nothing at all(!), to explain how laws could exist at all – they really don’t even recognize that this is a question, and if they do, they make fun of it!
So now consider this mental object of existence itself: Only something with a consistent structure can be a mental object. If the mental object was fundamentally inconsistent then it could be anything at any time. If it was fundamentally random then it would be lawless and it wouldn’t exhibit any form of identity or quality or character at all, it would just be pure noise. This wouldn’t be identifiable as mind or as anything else. It would be non-existence as easily as existence. So this mental object of existence must be structured and be consistent, and the simplest possible structure one can have is that 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2, 1 – 1 = 1 – 1 = 0, etc; there are an infinite number of things less structured than that…and there is nothing more structured.
Boundary Condition Ideology
Where else to look for evidence of mental agency in nature but in the place where the solution to the Cartesian problem of mind-matter dualism was first solved? There is no known indication that Joseph Fourier understood that the mathematical Transform he discovered was the answer to the apparent dualism of mind vs. matter during his research into fundamental thermodynamics, but this is indeed the solution. Reality must be an actual monism, because true substance dualism between mind and matter would be impossible. Either mind or matter must be produced as an epiphenomenon of the other.
Having established that existence is a mental object, there needs to be a way for intangible unextended mind to produce tangible extended space-time and the impression of matter within it. The Fourier Transform accomplishes exactly that: sets of wave-frequency energy spectra can be inverse-transformed to extended energy signals in space-time. The energy frequency information is fundamental, and space-time and matter are its epiphenomena produced by the (inverse) Fourier Transform. Given a Nyquist Frequency limit in the accuracy of the transform, i.e., a fundamental sampling rate at which the mental object ceases the computation of the transform of frequency information into space-time and matter signals, then in the extended space-time domain you will witness an apparent uncertainty in the positions, energies, and momenta, etc., of extended quantities, and given an incredibly fine sampling rate, extended objects will generally appear particle-like but exhibit a fundamental wave-like nature in scenarios of incredibly high spatial and temporal resolution.
If thermodynamics is where the mathematical solution of mind-matter dualism was first discovered, even if this was not the intention behind the discovery, then perhaps thermodynamics is where evidence of fundamental mental agency may be found?
The mathematically illiterate might imagine that there is only one solution to Fourier Mathematics and the heat flow thermodynamics problems it solves, but this isn’t true. That is, the mathematics is the same, the computations are the same, the equation is still the same equation, etc.; however, in solving the equation, something needs to be known about the state of the system it describes in order to get the exact solution. In the mathematical field of partial differential equations and Fourier solutions, these are called “boundary conditions”.
The solution itself can not tell you what boundary conditions you’re supposed to use – you need to know the boundary conditions separately before you can determine the final exact solution. The boundary conditions are a-priori and these determine the resultant behavior or “topology” of the mathematical Fourier solution. Different boundary conditions can produce wildly different behavior.
Boundary conditions are chosen. Nature knows them already, but the mathematical practitioner needs to figure out and choose the ones that nature is using when he inserts them into the mathematics. If you get the boundary conditions wrong, your mathematics will not describe nature as you intended. This is of course all directly analogous to philosophy and mentation: if you’re thinking within the constraints of a false metaparadigm, then all extrapolations and propositions made within that paradigm will be false.
Climate alarmists choose mathematical boundary conditions corresponding to their statement above that thermal photons from a cold object can not know that they’re not supposed to heat up a warmer object, and hence that they then must. They choose boundary conditions for their mathematics such that a cold object can heat up a warmer object. They choose these boundary conditions simply because they fit their ideological metaparadigm of Malthusian Environmentalism, that humans are bad, that there is no reason in mathematical physics (i.e. the false claim that (P/4)*4 is the same as P), and most especially, that Scientific Materialism is correct, that mind doesn’t exist, that matter is all that exists and that the Laws of Physics exist “just because they do”.
Joseph Fourier and his friend Horace-Bénédict de Saussure constructed a device which would test these boundary conditions, vs. an alternative which we will get to in a moment. This device used plane-parallel panes of glass which would admit solar radiation but block infrared radiation inside. If you use the climate alarmist, environmental Malthusian boundary conditions, which is their Radiative Greenhouse Effect upon which their alarmism is based, in the Fourier Mathematics to model this device, then the following behavior is what you get:
With a 1000C input of a short-wave thermal radiation temperature, then 3 panes of glass amplifies the temperature on the bottom (left-most) receiving plane from 1000C up to 5000C. (Solar heat input is removed near the end of the sequence and this is why the temperature suddenly drops…simply inserted this for effect.) This is an amazingly useful result. For example, as a camping or survival tool we could use 3 stacked panes of glass placed on top of some wood to light a wood fire since wood autoignites at 3000C. This would work even better than a magnifying glass if you increased the number of panes to 5, say. If you increased the number of panes of glass even more, you could smelt iron ore and turn rock into lava just by placing stacked panes of glass on top of it. It is a wonder that someone hasn’t accidentally placed a few panes of glass on a driveway somewhere to then come back and find the place totally incinerated. It’s physically and immediately dangerous to stand near something which is 5000C.
For some reason though, we don’t actually have devices which use this Radiative Greenhouse Effect boundary condition function. So let us ask a question: Most people are familiar with stacked panes of glass in the form of double or triple glazed windows on your house. Why do we use stacked panes of glass in such a way? Do these windows amplify the heat inside your house? Do they make it so that incoming solar light gets amplified to multiples of its temperature? What is the word that we use to describe what these windows actually do?
These windows actually insulate. Stacked panes of glass have the function of insulating, not amplifying heat and temperature inputs. The function of insulating is a different but valid alternative boundary condition to the Radiative Greenhouse Effect boundary condition believed in by Climate Alarm. You can insert insulative boundary conditions into the Fourier Math and see what this does to the model of de Saussure’s device. Here is the result, using Fourier Mathematical Thermodynamics:
Does anyone care to know what Joseph Fourier, and his friend Horace-Bénédict de Saussure, found with their device they constructed to test which outcome transpires?
They found the 2nd result, the insulating result, thus empirically demonstrating the logical truth that a simple pane of glass can not amplify heat. And thus of course, that the Radiative Greenhouse Effect of Climate Alarm is false.
Do they Know?
The Radiative Greenhouse Effect solution is indeed what one would expect with a simple mechanistic and materialistic conception of things, where photons, and anything else, can’t know what they’re supposed to do. But of course, there’s a fundamental contradiction in that because if nothing can know what it is supposed to do, then how does anything follow the Laws of Physics and mathematics and do anything at all? And then how can Laws of Physics even exist in the first place if nothing is able to have knowledge of them, and they don’t exist anywhere that a materialist can empirically point to, and it is inexplicable how they effect themselves tangibly? The materialists just say that the laws “are” and that they “do”…but that’s no answer. As Stephen Hawking pointed out in “The Brief History of Time”, even if the laws of physics are all discovered this still doesn’t explain what gives them their fire, what makes the mathematics real, and to exist and to occur tangibly.
This entire of question, coming from the Malthusian Scientific Materialists, is dissonant: On the one hand they claim that there can be no mental agency to ever cause anything to happen, thus leading to their hatred of apparent mental agency in man and their wish to deny it, yet, how can laws which have no tangible or even intangible ontological existence or agency themselves have an effect on anything? They reject the concept of intangible mind and its mental agency, but then defer to intangible laws with non-existent agency to cause things to happen!
If we take the Scientific Materialist’s statement as a valid test of mental agency, repeating that:
“Since a thermal photon from a cold object can not know that it is not supposed to heat up a warmer object, and likewise a warmer object can not know that it is not supposed to absorb and be warmed by thermal photons from a cooler object, then a cool object must heat up a warmer object, and therefore the colder atmosphere heats the warmer surface, and we call this the radiative greenhouse effect, and it justifies anthropocentric climate change alarm.”
then does the finding of the opposite result indicate mental agency in the interface between light and matter?
This is a very simple thermodynamic scenario, but imagine if someone were constructing a computation device with various differential feedbacks that they hoped might simulate the behavior of mind, or the interaction of light with matter. They would need to use the correct boundary conditions, the Ontological boundary conditions, because as you can see even in this extremely simple scenario a very different resultant behavior in the mathematical model is found. One choice of boundary condition doesn’t do what reality does even if one might think that it is the only logical and mechanistic boundary condition available within the mindset of Scientific Materialism.
The other boundary condition requires a choice to be made about the way the system should behave. Is this where agency enters into science and mathematics, into the Fourier Transform, into the transition between mind and matter (via light)?
Would it do any good at all to remind you it’s not the source of the photon that is important, but rather the total energy in Joules delivered by that photon and myriad others — as well as energy delivered by conduction — to a target object, minus the total energy in Joules removed from that same object by emission and conduction, that determines whether the target object heats or cools?
The energy of a single photon is determined by its wavelength, but other than that, who cares what its wavelength is if the object’s emissivity profile is accepting of that wavelength?
It’s not about the photon, it’s about the total flux. T^4 takes care of “who gets to warm who”, and that exponential relationship is why a hot object completely surrounded by a cool object cannot increase the total energy of the hot object. The 2nd law is an observation of the exponential relationship between temperature and emission, not a declaration of what sort of decisions are required by photons or objects.
Yes I agree with that Tom although the alarmists and GHE believers say that it’s not enough, that photons can’t know all that! What *makes the Laws be effected?
Sorry to have skipped most of the article, but I urgently need to share the solution to the imaginary photon problem “how they know”. It is very simple: photon, whatever it means, is such a thing that warming a warming object by a colder object is impossible, because otherwise it would be equivalent to creating energy out of nothing which is physically impossible. Any step beyond this explanation leads to infinite trolling, as we very well know.
Thanks Joe. Can’t get the video clips to work on your web site. Do on Youtube though?
Hmm…they are set to public and allow embedding…and work on my browser. They should work on Youtube for sure.
You put way too much sophist philosophy into that rebuttal of “how does a photon know”. It’s my only criticism of your posts.
You paint the answer to the question of why as an either or scenario. Just two possible answers, yours or that of the Malthusians. The truth is, there are as many variations on ‘why’as there are people and the real answer could be ‘none of the above’.
Stephen Hawkins is correct in a Brief History of Time, that even if we understand everything there is to know about how the Universe works it won’t tell us a thing about why. Some people are frustrated by this and spend their lives trying to figure it out. The one answer. The ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. 42. Just think how unispiring that would be! How dull! No more questions to ask. Everyone with the same answer. I could think of nothing more abhorrent.
Did I not convey my point? The photon knows nothing, and does not “need” to know anything. It will be absorbed if the object is at any temperature absorptive of that wavelength, and the result of the object becoming warmer or cooler is the result NOT of the wavelength of the photon being absorbed, but of the total energy absorbed versus being emitted.
Why would anyone think a photon must behave differently than just to be emitted, travel, and be absorbed, oblivious to its source and target?
wickedwenchfan, you are an INF type, intuitive introverted feeling, and so you are a mystical feeling type. The idea of a final answer abhors you because of this. I am an INT type and so the idea of a final answer is perfectly logical and desired for me.
We are both object and subject, as souls. As object, there is a definite, fixed, absolute nature and quality to us, our existence, our purpose, etc. We all have the same answer, as object. However, as subject, we all experience that answer uniquely. We all have our own unique path and our own unique experience. The final answer, though universal and totally objective in nature and singular, is experienced entirely uniquely and individually.
Yes I get that Tom…but the alarmists and GHE people don’t see how it can happen without a photon knowing. But this begs the question, theirs and yours: how can anything do anything at all? Why is anything doing anything at all? If there is no fundamental structure to existence, then why does anything happen at all, let alone 100% repeatedly and consistently? If there is fundamental structure to existence, then what causes it, and what is it, and what makes it have effect? We can not say “just because”.
In a science blog, I’ll stick to the observation of what is created, not the why. If confined to a 2-dimensional world, we may see a circle but cannot know whether it is a slice of a sphere, a cone, a cylinder…. The why, ultimately, is held a bit outside our frame of reference, and therefore a bit outside of the science of it all. The only reason we observe, and take note, is that we expect the “why” is not capricious, but orderly.
“Thanks Joe. Can’t get the video clips to work on your web site. Do on Youtube though?”
Both videos are playing for me on Firefox and on Windows 8.1, I will try my Chromebook and my Macbook later when time allows.
Joseph, you now make a second error, that of assigning character to someone else. You do so based on a single sentence and do me an injustice in the process.
You seem to think that just because your philosophy has sound internal logic that it is representative of reality. That you can postulate beyond the known with this logic does not mean that you are accurately describing reality of the un observed. I can think of many great minds who do the same and who come to different conclusions based on equally well articulated logic. And because they all purport to have found THE answer I dismiss all of them, including you. Perhaps it is the curse of the educated. The more education you have, the harder it seems to be to admit the simple truth of “I don’t know”
The Taoist in me says that the Tao is what it is and the Tao does as it will do. We are to “go with the flow” and not fight the Tao. (ok, this is all simplified for a blog comment)
In my view, we discover the way things work and then we come up with “laws” like the laws of thermodynamics. I was introduced to those laws a long time before James Hansen started this CAGW nonsense that needs “back-radiation” to warm the earth’s surface 33C (if they have not changed that) … Well, the first time I saw what they were saying I thought to myself that this can’t be right. How would the atmosphere warm the planet after the planet warmed the atmosphere? That would mean that the planet warmed itself up! That can’t be right!
The laws are what they are simply because they are supported by overvaluation and experiment over and over and over and . so on. So the climate guys decided that the laws could be broken by the magic molecule and the mystical back radiation. Don’t they need to prove the law is no longer a law??? If they want to overturn the laws of thermodynamics, then they should be required to show evidence that the law was false and we were all deceived all these years.
If cold things can warm up hotter things (sorry for the sloppy language) then, by the gods, we will be able to engineer solutions to many of mankind’s woes. Why won’t they show us real proof that we can violate thermodynamic laws?
Well said Tom, regarding what science is about.
“We expect “why” is not capricious, but orderly.” I like that! I really, really like that statement. Maybe we can find out why it is such.
Exactly Mark. Their day to recede into the night is coming.
I can live with that quote too. Anyway, apologies for knit picking above. Re reading it, it’s not where I wish to go on this site. I have a lot of respect for what you are doing here Joseph and I shouldn’t be sidetracked when you write from a broader perspective that I may differ in viewpoint from.
Have you also recreated the work you have done explaining Earths atmosphere with the planet Venus? I first heard about the Greenhouse Effect in the 80’s in regards to Venus, not Earth and it was Venus that gave me my wake up moment two years ago that I had been lied to about the science when I looked in to it. James Hansen certainly used conditions on that planet to try and scare everyone about what could occur on Earth.
Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.
Pingback: Photonic Mental Agency | ajmarciniak
Well I don’t know what to do to help John. They work on my browser. Maybe try cleaning your browser cache etc? I can email them to you as they are small videos.
For sure wickedwenchfan, I cover Venus here on pg 10.
Was meaning, more in the blog format for this site. I believe I have come across your paper a few years ago. Probably when I was first researching CAGW. Will give it another read tonight.
Lol. Well it got me to read your paper again at least! 56 pages and one tiny reference to Venus on page 10.
“No additional radiative GHE heating mechanism is thus necessarily required to explain the near-surface air temperature because the average cloud-top height is what is principally responsible for determining the altitude of the surface of 0.3 albedo; the resulting near-surface-air temperature is then exclusively due to the lapse rate/cloud-height-forcing alone. The correlation here to the situation on Venus is thus relevant and obvious: it has a cloud-top deck at approximately 70 km  which reflects 67% of the insolation , and has an effective blackbody temperature less than the Earth’s at -250C. But we certainly would not say that Venus’ physical surface would have an average temperature of -250C if it had no atmosphere and no GHE, because its real surface “soil” albedo will be much less than 0.67. So the case of Venus makes it very clear how incorrect such a comparison is, as it is for the Earth. With a cloud deck so high in altitude, and a lapse rate of 10.74 K/km, there’s more than enough depth between the radiative/cloud-top surface and ground surface to reach a near-surface-air temperature of 4620C on Venus without any need for a heat-amplifying GHE. The same physics can be expected to occur on the Earth, but to lesser extent given the more rarefied and shallow atmosphere.”
Pretty much sums things up, but I’m sure you could delve deeper if you wanted to.
Ever tried transposing the values given for CO2 by faux climate science earth onto Venus along with the retrofitted GHE mathematics to see how well it fits on our sister planet? My maths is only good for basic arithmetic, but my approximations show that calculations used for Earth’s GHE are totally off the mark when one applies them to Venus. It would be cool to know the exact error.
I think you would find a whole new level of debunking to explore.
Just noticed a couple of typos in that paragraph. “-250C” and “4620C”. I’m assuming the zeros don’t belong on either figure?
The extra zeros are supposed to denote degrees.
A cube one cm on each side will not fit through a circle one cm in diameter. Does the cube “know” this?
It would know about it if you hit it with a hammer, Geran.
Pingback: Mental Boundary Conditions | Climate of Sophistry