Chalenging the guard rails of sanity.
Chalenging the guard rails of sanity.
The early history that led towards the qr discovery.
B M J C Bieżanek, publication #431.906, 4th June 2018.
Extracted from the 2018 book "The Last Tango of the Finite Graviton"
There is a thin invisible plane lying between insanity and the genius of new discovery. It seems insane to have taken a small sailing ship thousands of miles into the ocean to discover if it was truly endless or if there really was an America. A sailing ship runs on fresh water and the sailors drink it, when it is all gone one dies a terrible death. Ocean navigators have known that the Earth was a globe for many thousands of years before mathematics and science caught up with their little trade secret. Any mariner can work out the diameter of the globe merely by observing the distance off at which the top of a mountain of known height above sea level dips below the horizon. Vegetable debris crosses the Atlantic Ocean from the Caribbean on the Gulf Stream and lands upon the beaches of Portugal. Insane; no, brave; incredibly, inspired intuition; most definitely.
In order to discover new physics theory, one is forced to abandon the dry shores of other people's reason and experiment with having no reason at all. Where does this lead, is there good dry reason on the other side of the waterless wastes of oblivion? In order to find out, someone has to first try it out on their own. Once one finds something new, that is when one's problems really start. Did Boltzmann die of insanity because no one would acknowledge what he had discovered? It takes courage to stick to a new reality when everyone else is so confident of their so called “ideas”. Thinking outside the box is a very lonely and dangerous game, but for me it is the only game that could possibly be worth the candles.
The problem is not the new discovery, that is the easy part and typically takes only fifteen misty seconds, the problem is communication of the discovery once one is made. It helps to be a bit like Sir Isaac Newton and not to give a damn. Physics bores me senseless. I do not care what any body else's “physics” is. My only interest is in explaining how hyper intelligent people can become so embroiled in utter insanity; for instance the utter insanity of allowing two different and incompatible sets of theoretical physics.
I never set out to tackle the theory of everything and I was not even remotely interested in any such endeavour, I merely tripped up over the theory of everything as an accidental by-product of my exploration into the workings of the human mind. My mother was trained as a clinical psychiatrist and helped me as a teenager with my exploration into psychology. She mentored me and advised me of sensible authors for me to read and study. A few years later I went to university to study electrical engineering and for the next forty years I put aside my psychology studies and research.
Failing eyesight caused me to retire from my own electronic systems business in about 2005. I did enjoy a two-year sabbatical, but by age 57, over eleven years ago, I decided to take up psychology again. I had been to business school at Cranfield and learnt there the discipline of the case study. Practical working business model theory is all built up using case studies. I decided to build a working model of the healthy generic adult human mind using case studies. I was only interested in case studies exhibiting what I call human mind performance anomalies. My model had to explain every case that I could find of known human mind performance anomaly. At one point I had a clinical case load of many hundreds of cases. From the known logic of AI engineering, I built up a two part human mind-model that explained every human mind performance anomaly in my case-book.
My cases consisted of air accident investigations where pilot or aircraft design engineer performance anomaly was indicated. There are positive and negative performance anomalies that need to be explained. The two polarities arise from the genius of performance breakthrough such as sudden invention and the anti-genius of incredible errors. To fully understand the human mind one needs to look at and explain all anomalous performance. We think we are rational and for most of the time we are, it is in explaining all the irrational exceptions where progress in understanding the human mind is achieved.
My other case study set was in the financial world. Both in the aviation world and in the financial world, when people make big mistakes it leads to a very serious forensic investigation and a lot of hard published facts emerging about each important case. I will explain a tiny bit of my meta-cybernetician’s (
footnote 1 ) general-human-mind-model here and then demonstrate the model working in action with a well-known case study.
Within the model I explain human mind dynamics by explaining the behavioural logical exceptions with sanity-guard-rails. A sanity- guard-rail is a logical mask that blocks the subconscious mind from reporting forbidden logical conflicts. Forbidden logic is anything that contradicts the cherished emotional belief structure protected by any sanity-guard-rail. We do not know what our sanity-guard-rails are; both the position of the guard rails and the logic that they protect is elected into existence subconsciously by complex subconscious logical inferencing taken from subconsciously felt emotional values.
Our mind works by an adaptive neurological networking process. The adaptive network is built from achieving subconscious goals. The goal of our subconscious mind is to give emotional pleasure and avoid emotional pain for the conscious emotional master. Our subconscious mind will show us exactly what we want. Just like some sycophantic political hack pleasing his political master; it shows us exactly what we want to observe and anaesthetises our consciousness to all observed contradictions; hence the need for utter scepticism. We have a basic human need to be loved or admired by at least some of our colleagues and fellow human beings. Utter scepticism is admired by nobody. In the interests of achieving at least limited peer approval, we almost always and everywhere become lazy or limited in our scepticism.
Within my model there is a conscious-emotional-master-being driving a subconscious hyper-intelligent adaptive neurological slave.
For master and slave to exist in perfect harmony and exhibit constant genius at the conscious surface, all sanity-guard-rails would have to be removed. This is quite impossible; everybody has beliefs and needs certain anchors. Another name for a sanity-guard-rail could be a sanity anchor, but I do not like that term because it implies an absolute truth. All sanity-guard-rails mask deeper logical contradictions that we have simply elected not to explore. When two people share approximately common sanity-guard-rails relating to a shared issue, they will regard each other as sane. They are only sane relative to each other; the depths of their shared common mode insanity are simply never explored.
Want to discover a paradox? Just ask the mind to find an annoying paradox and plan to reward it by being happy when it succeeds. Want to please other people? Then ignore all paradoxes.
A précis of a typical case study.
My mind model must fully explain any observed anomalous behaviour by any healthy rational person. For instance, it must explain how Captain Robert Piché (
footnote 2 ), a highly competent pilot, came to deliberately empty both the fuel tanks in a dual redundant fuel tank system with all the fuel going down a single fuel leak. My human mind model was built to explain just this kind of thing. I noticed from the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) transcript that Piché temporarily hypnotised himself by declaring his dual redundant, airworthiness certified computers to be making crazy errors.
When his co-pilot, reading out loud from a check list, clearly suggested that they had a fuel leak, Captain Piché did not notice because his problem was two crazy computers. Captain Piché had built a short term sanity-guard-rail protecting the logic “my computers are telling me nonsense”. Of course, this trance lasted only until the dual engine flame out at zero fuel remaining. Only then did he wake up to the reality of two fuel gauges both showing empty, both engines flamed out and two air worthiness certified computers with not the slightest thing wrong with either of them. Then Piché became a pilot again and glided some 70-nautical miles with a dead-stick to achieve one of the greatest feats of airmanship ever recorded in aviation history. No one was badly hurt and the airframe was easily repaired from the hard landing.
My model is powerful because it explains why the co-pilot's suggestion of a fuel leak was ignored by the captain. The situation was that fuel indications in the starboard wing tank were indicating very low compared to what ought to have been there and compared to the correct expected amount being in the port tank. Piché believed the computers were telling him nonsense. The only way to explain Piché's apparently insane behaviour in ignoring the suggestion of a fuel leak is the sanity-guard-rail.
At a superficial level Piché went through the motions of hearing his co-pilot because he asked a stewardess to go back and confirm that there was no leak in the starboard engine by peering out into the night using a tiny torch. He knew exactly what the stewardess would see; nothing; because he knew that there was nothing there for her to see. Had he had the slightest worry of a real fuel leak, he would have gone back to look for himself; stewardesses are not trained to look for evidence of a fuel anomaly. In asking a stewardess to do this on her own, he was effectively declaring the engineer’s check list to be a-load-of-old-cobblers. He did not send his co-pilot back to do this because he was far too busy trying to fix a faulty pair of dual redundant, airworthiness certified computers by deliberately cross feeding many tons of fuel; insanity upon a mind boggling, other worldly dimension.
The sanity-guard-rail mechanism is so powerful that sentences are not even de-constructed. What happens is that the subconscious neural networks start to attempt a grammatical deconstruction and logical arbitration of the meaning of the spoken sentence. The subconscious slave mechanisms detect a logical guard rail challenge and deals with the contention by early termination of the grammatical deconstruction and meaning arbitration. The subconscious slave then reports the net effective meaning to the conscious master. The net conscious meaning reported in this case could be; “I did not make any sense of that”; “the writer was deluded, he did not know about insane computers”; “the list mentions the possibility of a fuel leak which is actually just claptrap of course, caused by insane computers”.
At a deeper level his subconscious is also warning him that a real fuel leak would mean that the starboard engine was toast, too horrible to even think about, balance the fuel, keep that engine going at all costs, stick with your “insane computer” idea, it is far nicer for you.
It was the co-pilots job not to be drawn into a folie-à-deux with Piché. He was young and Piché is totally awesome, a legend. Piché kept the co-pilot very busy. The situation was very strange and frightening for him, so he clings to the daddy of them all, he will get me out of this, trust Piché, not the computers, not the self.
As soon as Piché acted insanely by asserting cross feed towards the failing side, his sanity-guard-rail locks in hard and fast due to action confirmation bias. Because he has succeeded in drawing his co-pilot into a folie-à-deux, only death or a miracle can rescue them now, they both became at that time clinically insane, certifiable. Of course the slave has no consciousness and does not think at all, but it can be helpful to imagine the slave as if it were conscious and salient. The mind internal nuero logic goes like this: it is not my function to tell him that he is insane, only the master being decides about that. It is my function to keep him happy and mask him from insane contradictions so as not to make things even worse by presenting my own master being with evidence of my own master being’s insanity, my own life is at stake too, I will stand-to and fight my own battle-line to the death.
In fact all they had to do was nothing. Stop and think calmly for twenty minutes and the logical answer was the leak. The starboard engine would flame out empty. It was inevitable. If the starboard fuel gauge was faulty, then the starboard engine would simply fail to fail. By panicking, they made a bad situation a hell of a lot worse. Pilots have a bias for action; air instrument failure? "Act now or die." Complex engineering problems? "If it ain’t broke don’t fix it." Never ever cross feed fuel in the air, unless one is cross feeding away from a failed or failing engine, end of story. Retain that dual power plant independent redundancy until it is certain that it will cease to even exist in any case, then cross feed in the opposite direction.
If ever there was a case study showing human genius and human anti-genius from the same individual all within one hour, then this case is it. Nobody had ever flown so far in a large passenger jet without power; the pilots are not even trained to do this. The airframe total kinetic and potential energy management on the dead-stick approach into Lajes field from out of darkness and from 33,000 feet, 70-nautical miles out over the wild North Atlantic, with no cabin pressure, limited passenger oxygen, no flaps, no lift dumpers, no gear hydraulics and only back up instruments, was in the very highest traditions of true cool and genius human inventiveness.
Was Piché just lucky to have Lajes near his path? Absolutely not, Captain Piché had diverted hundreds of miles south of the great circle route because he knew that this particular flight might go pear-shaped. He knew this as soon as he saw “low oil temperature” and “high oil pressure” on the starboard engine (
footnote 3 ).
If we think that we are more logical and more rational than one of the best airline pilots ever, then please think again. There are billions of highly transient, or in some cases almost ossified, sanity-guard-rails inside our mind protecting our view of what we call “reality.” Just because we share sanity-guard-rails with many others, does not show that we are sane. All it shows is that we share a common hypnosis state, trance state or insanity with our crowd.
Engineering or mathematical discoverers choose to destroy a sanity-guard-rail by deliberately refusing to believe the absurdity “this problem is unsolvable.” We know billions of things and most of what we know is correct. Randomly ceasing to believe things that are almost certainly true, is potentially dangerous, one could go mad. Hence the relatively common observation of the “mad-genius”. Think for instance of Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel or John Forbes Nash (
footnote 4 ). Thinking outside the box is very dangerous ground. My model’s sanity-guard-rails are named for a reason; they are natural guards against insanity. Unfortunately, they have the effect of rendering us utterly blind to anything that contradicts our cherished beliefs. Alternatively; as is well-known already; “we believe in whatever belief that we wish to believe in”. We humans are thus rendered utterly blind to the difference between sense and nonsense.
Sanity-guard-rails protecting logical errors are generally only destroyed by wake-up-calls imposed upon us by natural law. In the above case study, Piché was awoken from his self imposed trance state by the wake-up-call formed when both engines flamed out as they naturally ran out of fuel. All sanity-guard-rails create a trance. The human mind is an emotional arbitrageur of its own trance states; hard logic hardly gets a look in and can only operate within the observable entranced-logic field. In my case study, the genius pilot Piché destroys the nonsense “we will all certainly die” by the simple expedient of finding and then stopping short of the end of the runway at Lajes military airfield.
The search for new clinical cases.
There are only so many air crash and financial crash incidents to analyse and I ran out of new cases. This resulted in a systematic search for new case studies to add to my clinical case load. I searched for scientific articles containing words like “mystery” and “unexplained” and I happened upon this little gem: The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem (
footnote 5 ) in the nebular disk model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery.
Now I find most people to be moderately innumerate, but I am not. What I noticed immediately is the vast scale of this failure to explain. The language is utterly hypnotic. The linear size difference between 1 cm and 1 km is 10^5, but the volume and mass difference is 10^15. Nobody has ever seen a 1 km planetesimal; by declaring that it is a mystery how they form, the above statement hypnotically suggests that it is proven that they existed in the first place (
footnote 6 ).
Astrophysicists have only one theory for how stars form and they are failing to report that they cannot justify their nebula hypothesis by fifteen orders of magnitude. I later discovered that there are only two kinds of planets that astrophysicists cannot explain the presence of; these are the rock planets and the gas planets. Presumably a “planet” that is neither rock nor gas, but perhaps flying-pigs, is very easy to explain. I later discovered that all this is absolute peanuts because they cannot explain any star formation either.
Here was a giant so called “profession” of so called “physicists” who cannot explain the gravitational formation of a single massive object seen in the entire universe. Refusing to face up to this fact like real men, represented to me abject sniveling cowardice (
footnote 7 ) upon such a vast scale that it simply took my breath away.
My first thought was that they can't explain the formation of stars and planets, but then neither can I. I would have quite liked to know, but nobody knew, it was just a mystery. I made a mental note to myself that rock planets really do form from quite routine natural causes. I also noted to myself that the entire astrophysical narrative was coming from a crowd exhibiting clear and present evidence of a prototypical systemic crowd mania. I chose to unlearn everything that I had ever learned from astrophysicists and start again; no knowledge at all being worth infinitely more than any hypnotic mumbo jumbo and claptrap.
One morning, about a year later, I awoke with an idea buzzing inside my mind. In this idea or mind picture, there was a vast thin disk of warm highly fluidised and highly charged dust in self orbit, with the whole fluidised dust disk in orbit about a star. I noticed straight away that the fluidised dust disk was behaving a bit like a gas body and was losing self rotation angular momentum to tidal braking from the star's gravitational field.
As the dust disk cloud transferred self rotation angular momentum into stellar orbital angular momentum through the tidal braking effect upon its own body and the matching tidal acceleration affect upon its orbit of the star, it was falling in diameter, increasing its particle fluidisation energy, becoming warmer, increasing its self orbital spin rate and becoming more compact. Bingo! It took me about two years to sort out all the little details, but by then I had a generic model of protostar and rock planet mass compaction mechanics. What started out as a mere clinical case study into a prototypical mass-insanity or crowd mania, turned for two whole years into my main focus of interest.
About four years ago I published a book called “Mass Compaction Mechanics”. That book fully explained the simple classical mechanics of young stellar object gravitational mass compaction. It also explained the simple mechanism involved in generic rock planet formation. At the end of that book, I inserted a couple of chapters explaining the basics of what I now call qr. This relativity model was important, because without it the dark matter initial conditions for young stellar object and subsequent protostar formation, could not occur.
My assertion that the existing cosmological model was simply wrong because it could not explain dark matter or star formation, fell upon deaf ears. These so called “astrophysicists” are more attached to their patently absurd and simply wrong so called “cosmological model”, than they are to explaining dark matter or star formation. I could explain the generic classical mechanics for the gravitational formation of every massive object observed in the entire universe, including a full description of the dark matter, and the astrophysical community was not even interested. Trying to explain the simple classical mechanics of primordial dark matter formation and the subsequent vastly more recent young stellar object formation to a so called “astrophysicist”, is like trying to explain about Thanksgiving Dinner to a farmyard turkey.
That experience started me doing a lot more work upon what I now call qr. I discovered that some quantum physicists, the ones who stick to actual quantum physics and avoid paying too much attention to “astrophysicists” and “cosmologists”, still sought a rational integration of physics. I decided that I must appeal only to them. It sort of grew from there. This is about my eighteenth attempt to write this book. Every time that I write my ideas down, I learn more about them. Every time that I read what I wrote only a few months earlier, I find that I now need to start all over again because I have had new ideas about how to explain myself even better, or yet stronger confirmation of qr.
As I write, I am forced to use what is to me new language, and this new language has to be tuned to make it as acceptable and comprehensible as possible to a quantum physicist. This is somewhat hampered by the fact that I have never even spoken to a quantum physicist. As an electronics engineer, I had to study the basics of quantum mechanics of course. In 1973 I got a first in electrical and electronic engineering. In fact I have very little to say to quantum physicists, other than that I admire, follow and have employed their work. They are a useful and sane court of appeal for me and hopefully they would like to form a grand integration of all of theoretical physics.
If ever the physicists take up the ideas that I try to kick start with this book, then I will leave it all to them and then go back to my lonely and rather odd psychology work. I might write a book called “the general theory of the human mind”. In fact that book is not available yet only because of my ceaseless six years of work upon this single clinical case study into a prototypical crowd-mania.
Footnotes:
1. A meta-cybernetician is a cybernetician after the understanding described by Norbert Wiener in 1948, but who also acknowledges the possibility of, and allows for potential errors in the latest macro cybernetic state of all of the human intellectual reference position achieved to date. In formal Platonic terms; a “steersman” who can ”jibe the boat about” and retire from an untenable “ship’s position” to fall back to the safety of some previously achieved known sounding position, and from there try once again to “steer the ship” for “safe harbour”. In contemporary yachtsman’s language; a yachtsman who, in a westerly force-12, with no GPS or radar functional and zero visibility, would prefer that he died trying, than risk falling foul upon the horrors of a lee shore reef such as the Crim and Bishop’s rocks of our Western Approaches. To be destroyed by the sheer power of wind and sea is an honourable death, to be smashed to pieces upon the Crim is absolutely unacceptable, a coward’s quick way out. Are we the worthy inheritors of our ancestor, “a girl of 12 who bore us in the ice and gave up her life that we might live”, or poor unhappy buffoons?
2 Air accident case study; Air Transat Flight 236, 2001.
3 The starboard engine oil cooler was being cooled by a massive cold liquid fuel leak in a high pressure fuel line, instead of by the usual thin stratospheric air. Piché seemed to be unaware of the logic; low oil temperature, hence higher oil viscosity, hence the higher oil pressure. He thought the two readings to be crazy. He spoke to a so called “engineer” on the ground in Toronto and that so called “engineer” did not contradict his notion of crazy indications. That “engineer” was saved from my courts martial and death by hanging for mass man slaughter, by a miracle.
4 Three of these individuals died while clinically insane. Nash is the true hero of the four because eventually he consciously chose to stop listening to his own inner “voices”; then, over a period of a few years, he gradually became a well-man again and went back to teaching mathematics. Do our so called “psychiatrists” pay any attention to the Nash case study; not in the slightest, they are far too confident that their trade is a doctrine of despair to pay any attention to the fact that a deeply schizophrenic 30-year case can consciously chose to recover. There are four kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, statistics and psychiatric theory. (after Benjamin Disraeli).
5 The statement “biggest unsolved problem” is hypnotic claptrap, the biggest problem is that after 50-years of hyper-intense numerical modelling work, this disgraceful so called “nebular hypothesis” has completely failed to explain any star formation what so ever.
6 They do exist of course, but think of 100,000 km diameter thin disk clouds of highly fluidised and highly charged dust particles in vacuum, experiencing self orbital cloud angular momentum loss through the tidal breaking effect caused by the gravitational field of the vast majority young stellar object mass.
7 Although some men can turn out to be nothing but sniveling little cowards, I was unhappy with the concept that all astrophysicists must be cowards. Of course this hypothesis of cowardice is contradicted by my model which merely would describe them all as “self hypnotised zombies”.
