Found a really great quote in an undergraduate thermodynamics textbook I pulled out from my library the other day, which is a tacit approval of Ontological Mathematics. Before we get to that part though, I’ll quote more of the section since it also has some other remarks relevant to the purpose of this blog. We begin the section on “Heat & Work” in “Thermal Physics” by Daniel V. Schroeder:
“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”
That is precisely the problem we find with both the climate alarmists and the skeptics: the confusion between energy and heat. They (confusedly) equate energy to heat, and then proceed to incorrectly make the extrapolation that since the atmosphere must emit some radiant thermal energy, that this energy must therefore heat the surface, or, stop heat from leaving the surface. Of course, by getting their founding definitions wrong via their confusion of the definitions, i.e. their ontology wrong, the extrapolations they then make must be faulty by simple logical consequence: the atmosphere can not send any heat to the surface since it is colder than the surface, and, the atmosphere can not block heat or energy from leaving the surface since heat flow and energy emission is spontaneous. Later in the section we find the definition of heat:
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth. The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.”
The radiative greenhouse effect is the most basic, trivial, and easy to spot violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. It truly is a trivial mistake. The “science” of climate alarm, based on the radiative greenhouse effect, is all of a scientific error in definitions and mere confusion of concepts.
And now for the Ontological Mathematics:
“To further clarify matters, I really should give you a precise definition of energy. Unfortunately, I can’t do this. Energy is the most fundamental dynamical concept in all of physics, and for this reason, I can’t tell you what it is in terms of something more fundamental. I can, however, list the various forms of energy – kinetic, electrostatic, gravitational, chemical, nuclear – and add the statement that, while energy can often be converted from one form to another, the total amount of energy in the universe never changes. This is the famous law of conservation of energy. I sometimes picture energy as a perfectly indestructible (and unmakable) fluid, which moves about from place to place but whose total amount never changes. (This image is convenient but wrong – there simply isn’t any such fluid.)”
It really is a shame that so many scientists are philosophically illiterate, else this author may have been familiar with the philosophical concept of substances. His “fluid” is nothing less than the philosophical substance of ontological mathematics. The “fluid” is the philosophical substance of ontological mathematics that fills the entire universe and is in fact what existence itself is made out of, and he gives an almost perfect definition of it: “perfectly indestructible” (immortal), “unmakable” (uncreated), and nothing for which something more fundamental exists.
We can see that his empiricist bias is to attempt to explain an abstract mental concept (energy) in terms of something sensory, whereas if he were a rationalist he would be able to see that something which can not be sensorily defined or identified, yet exists everywhere in different forms, and is fully described by a single abstract language throughout its forms, is in fact the language itself. The language itself is the non-sensory, mental, abstract substance. One simply needs to reconsider the elementary question of whether mathematics is created or discovered, and if you had some reason to think that mathematics is created, then one now has discovered the logical justification to instead conclude that “a mathematics of existence” is in fact discovered by the study of existence, i.e., by physics.
The fundamental thing we study in physics and science is energy, but instead of being undefinable and having no explanation, energy is more fundamentally the thing that describes it: mathematics, which is totally definable and understandable. That is, ontological mathematics, i.e., the mathematics of existence. Existence itself is a language, and has to be a type of universal language in order that it can communicate with its own parts – the language manifests in the fundamental forms we call energy in physics, but this language, and this energy, is ontological mathematics in and of itself.
Since we are in the universe, that we can study it rationally, that we are made of the same parts of the universe around us, that we cannot be a separate substance than the universe, then we are the universe itself, that is, energy, that is, ontological mathematics, becoming aware of itself.
In “Cosmos“, Carl Sagan said: “We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” In fact we are not just “a way”, but with the development of Ontological Mathematics we are the final, ultimate way, since there is nothing beyond what the universe is made out of and what that knowledge tells us about its purpose.
Since we are the universe, and all of our parts must be the same as the universe, then as we are alive and have cognition the universe itself must be alive and have cognition. Our own ability to think, to find meaning and purpose, to be rational, being minded, can not be a separate substance as to what the universe is made out of – the universe has to be made out of the same things, the same substance, that it expresses. Thus, existence itself is about finding meaning, purpose, to be rational, and being minded.
For more on Ontological Mathematics, see Mike Hockney’s Amazon page.
Thermodynamics is the most fundamental of the physics, being the field where the fundamental properties and behaviour of energy (i.e., behaviour of mathematics) is studied. That says a lot about how important the field will be in the future development of Ontological Mathematics.
Remove mathematics from science, from energy, and what would be left? Total and absolute mystery. It is only mathematics that provides understanding. This is not an unimportant fact.