-From the mind of Echa:
-Subtitle: a rallying call for a change in how we do science.
The science journalist, John Horgan, in his great and controversial book: “The End of Science”, published in 1996, proposed the bold conjecture that science has hit its limits and that there will be no revolutionary theories like relativity and quantum mechanics any longer.
While this article is not a critique of the book since I haven’t read it myself, however, I have read his articles and I understand his position.
I have introduced his thesis or conjecture as it sympathizes with the growing sentiment in the scientific community of the end of science despite the influential dissents of Horgan’s view. So, this article aims to directly criticize this growing sentiment conceptualized as Horgan’s thesis.
It is evident that the growing sentiment of the end of science is as a result of the compounding mysteries of today’s science and the seeming unresolvable challenge of unifying physics despite long years and varied attempts to solve these problems.
So, in a sense, Horgan and the scientific community that think we have approached the end of science are justified but not completely.
John Horgan..source: wikipedia
However, even though the overwhelming heap of problems and mysteries confronting today’s science and which appear irresolvable seem to consolidate Horgan’s thesis, to me, Horgan’s thesis and the growing sentiment of the end of science are incomplete and are at most vague. Horgan’s thesis or conjecture is vague because it does not clearly stipulate the kind of science it addresses.
What do I mean? Let me proceed to inform you of my opinion by making a vital reference to the Principia. In the Principia, Newton, however inadvertently, distinguished between two fundamental kinds of science, one is absolute science and the other is relative science.
This he accomplished when he set out to define two kinds of space and time, one is absolute, metaphysical space and time and the other is relative, physical space and time. He proceeded to define absolute space and time as follows:
“Absolute space, by its own nature without relation to anything external, always remains similar and immovable…”
“Absolute time, true and mathematical, flows equably in itself and by its nature without a relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration.”
And relative space and time he defined as follows:
“Relative [space] is some mobile measure or dimension of this [absolute] space, which is defined by its position to bodies according to our senses, and by ordinary people, is taken for an unmoving space…”
“Relative, apparent, and common time is some sensible external measure of duration you please (whether with accurate or with unequal intervals) which commonly is used in place of true time; as in the hour, day, month, year.”
So, let’s just outline the two kinds of science:
- Absolute science
- Relative science
From the foregoing, Newton made it clear that absolute space and time have independent metaphysical existence and are distinct from the means or methods by which we measure them, and these methods he referred to as relative space and time.
After which he then proceeded further to elucidate absolute motion as motion from one absolute place to another absolute place and relative motion as motion from one relative place to another relative place.
So, importantly and in summary, Newton informed us that physical ticking or operations of a clock do not mean true time and the physical extension of a meter stick does not measure true space.
And amidst his dissatisfaction with the fact that absolute space and time do not come directly under physical observation, he was, however, certain of their existence and he proposed the famous bucket experiment to prove his thesis of absolute space and the existence of a preferred reference frame.
However, since the principia, and especially after the 20th scientific revolution of quantum mechanics and relativity, this marked distinction in scientific investigation espoused by Sir Isaac Newton has gone almost unnoticed, and is now only useful in the study of scientific history and for philosophical debates and musings.
This is partly because Newton himself set his laws of motion upon the canvas of relative, physical space and time even though he was aware of absolute, metaphysical space and time which served him as a deep guiding notion.
So, I want you know that despite the fact that Newton distinguished between absolute science and relative science he only proceeded to show us what the laws of the universe are in relative space and time and not what they are in absolute space and time, which if he had done would have founded absolute science just as relative science is founded.
These two kinds of science really exist, and so we cannot assert the end of science without clearly stipulating the kind of science we are referring to.
Newton revealed to us the laws that govern the motion of bodies from one relative space to another relative space, but I have come to reveal to you the laws that govern the motion of bodies from one absolute space to another absolute space. This is the driving purpose of this website.
Today, we have further compounded the fundamental problems of science by proceeding heedlessly to view space and time as been only physical and are even just mathematical concepts by which we model physical reality and not also as metaphysical entities with any form of objective existence.
Disappointingly, we cannot dare to conceive that there are deep and profound set of scientific laws which unlike Newton’s laws are founded directly on absolute, metaphysical space and time. What these deep metaphysical laws are is the concern of Echa and Science.
This gross and collective negligence of absolute science is the bane of today’s science and also why it cannot unify physics or be concerned about scientific truth, and now, I want to inform you that the ever growing mysteries of science and the present halt in the progress of fundamental science is because we have approached the limit of relative science.
I must honestly let you know that we ironically approached this limit a century ago when the early 20th century physicists were mystified by the behaviour of light and the atom.
Our present inability to unify relativity and quantum mechanics suggests undoubtedly that the questions raised by the conundrums of the early 20th century have not been properly addressed, and this is because the answers lay in absolute science and not relative science.
Ironically, progress in relative science for the past 400 years has only been undermined and counteracted by ever increasing mysteries, and so despite the entire edifice of today’s relative science, we are finding embarrassingly that 95% of the universe has not been investigated, and listen, this 95% cannot be investigated using relative science.
This situation undermines relative science and exposes the lapses of the current scientific tradition.
I want to inform you that we cannot understand the true operations of the universe through our physical clocks and meter sticks, and that the current halt in the progress of fundamental science and the increasing hyperbolic nature of today’s scientific theories call for the return to base, for the real recognition and investigation of absolute science and its new attendant scientific tradition which are more in harmony with the inner metaphysical operations of the universe.
The practice or recognition of absolute science will qualitatively reverse this non-progressive situation fundamental science has found itself and bring us to the kind of progress characterized by ever decreasing mysteries and true ever increasing knowledge.
It is admissible to say that absolute science is the higher metaphysical science and it deals with the unobservable spirit of the cosmos, whereas relative science is the lower physical science, and it deals with the observable body of the cosmos, and just as spirit and body are interconnected so are absolute and relative science.
The time has come for mankind to begin to investigate and do this higher metaphysical science and I have shown you how in the theory of the universe.
We are at the point in history where we must chart a new course for science, when we must construct a new scientific tradition that will ensure that we resolve all the confronting mysteries by engaging our minds in uncustomary and illuminating manners.
This new course is absolute science and I have laid down five of the seven core principles or pillars of absolute science to assist us tremendously on this path.
The remaining two absolute principles of the cosmos will be presented in the scientific article on FORMS: Mind and Matter which will be available soon. These seven core principles are indispensable to the scientific understanding of the universe and they lie behind all the principles of relative science.
So, I want to let you know that we have approached the end of relative science, and since it is in this context Horgan defines science like the rest of modern physicist then his thesis is right. There can be no further progress in relative science.
But today marks the beginning of absolute science, when we shall no longer build our understanding of fundamental science on the relative knowledge of the cosmos but on the absolute knowledge of the cosmos.
It is in the proper illumination of absolute science rests the unity of all things and the currently unexplored metaphysical aspect of the universe which underlies relative science. The true laws of the universe were written upon the canvas of absolute space and time and not relative space and time. Understand this.
We are proceeding to the greater illuminating science that exposes the true laws behind the operational behaviour of our clocks and meter sticks which are physical metaphors for our entire technological edifice. I want you to also know that absolute science constitutes the science a priori, unlike the relative science which constitutes the science a posteriori.
So, taking note of these two kinds of science and their marked distinction reveals excitingly to you that there are ample unexplored aspects of the cosmos, and so the progress of fundamental science is far from finished, in fact, we are only just beginning!
However, this progress will not come through just changing or modifying our current scientific theories, but by a total overhaul of how we do science or seek to understand the universe.
This is the purpose of this great article which calls for the practice of absolute science. This is the underlying indication of the current halt in the progress of fundamental science.
So, the time has come when physics will no longer be divided into classical physics and modern physics, but into absolute physics and relative physics. This is the big picture that I want you to see and I trust that you already do.
In our emerging understanding of the universe, we will be traversing between absolute and relative physics, between the metaphysical universe described by Echa & Science and the physical universe described by Newton.
The mysteries of dark energy, dark matter, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity etc. are only resolvable by absolute science. So, there is a revolutionary theory as great as relativity and quantum mechanics, and it is even the most explanative of the three theories, and it’s just a click away.
Finally, we have not come to the end of science, rather we have come to the end of relative science. We shall no longer continue to base our understanding of the universe on physical space and time, but on metaphysical space and time.
– M. V. Echa