As a student attending a scientific logic lecture during my youth, the class was taught the folly of arguing from the particular to the general. The example given was about this four-legged cat who lived in the university, without ever leaving it. This was exactly the same situation as a table also with its four legs, the argument being that the cat was a table. I started mentally changing the jack and the table in very technical terms to confuse the thinker and blurted out a physics concept that I thought was illogical. For my brilliant interruption, I was told to leave the class and report to the vice chancellor. Fifty-five years later I am able to prove my point of revenge, having secretly sulked for more than half a century at suffering such humiliation, inflicted by a teacher I considered to be a pretty boring guy.

Unbeknownst to most of the scientists in the world, Sir Isaac Newton disagreed with the old wife’s tale about mechanical gravity causing an apple to fall on his head. A proof is now required to explain this. It is taken from Query number 28 in the second edition of Newton’s famous journal Opticks, which discusses the nature of gravity acting through mechanical means. Says the following:

And to reject such means, we have the authority of the most ancient and celebrated philosophers of ancient Greece and Phoenicia who made the vacuum of atoms and the gravity of atoms the first principles of their philosophy, tacitly attributing gravity to some other cause. than dense matter. Later philosophers banish the consideration of such a cause, feigning hypotheses to explain everything mechanically. The main task of natural philosophy is to argue from the phenomena without feigning hypotheses and to deduce the causes from the effects until arriving at the first cause, which is certainly not mechanical. Obviously, Newton was looking for a first cause generalization because he knew that only nonsense science can occur if someone infers by not following the logical rule of arguing from the general to the particular.

The world’s earliest known mythological and mathematical writings are found in the ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. His ethical ethos was used by the Greeks to invent ‘Science for Ethical Purposes’, as a first-case cause to explain gravity. Anaxagoras used the primary cause of emotion to derive a theory of creation, which for some two hundred years, the Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy used to eventually invent the original Western science. If that science was logical, then Eistein’s quantum mechanics must be nonsense. Due to the ingenious complexity of quantum mechanics, it is almost impossible to detect the illogical use of stupidly arguing from the particular to the general within its structure. This is such a crucial human survival observation in the history of science, that attempts should be made to make it known to the general public in as simple and obvious a way as possible, hence this article.

The ancient Egyptian demi-urgency of spewing sperm into the cosmic ovum is a sentimental phenomenon used to describe ancient Geek gravity. Thus, we can add something else to Descartes’s famous statement, ‘I think, therefore I am’, which was absolutely crucial to the mechanical view of words, later established by Einstein’s quantum mechanics. We now have ‘I feel and think, therefore I am’ as a new basis from which to define the scientific world view.

Einstein’s quantum mechanical steam engine logic, which governs all of conventional science, is certainly correct for the operation of steam engines, but it is utter nonsense to insist that it governs human evolution, forcing it into inevitable extinction. A steam engine wears out due to friction, but the pleasure of electromagnetic friction is what created life in the first place, extending its evolutionary purpose far into the future. Mathematically, the infinite fractal logic of life is the exact opposite of the mathematical logic that governs our absurd mechanical science of life. Yesterday this idea might well be a way of referring to a steam engine lacking an immortal soul, today quantum biologists might refer to the energy of the steam engine lacking entanglement with the information energy of an evolving holographic universe.

In 2002, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Royal Danish Consulate held an international symposium to inform the world of the significance of the electromagnetic Golden Age of 19th-century Danish science. This Golden Age was invisible to mainstream science because most of its theories were written in Danish and not otherwise translated. Scholars are generally unaware of the social importance of this Golden Age of Danish science, nor of its association with Immanuel Kant’s divine electromagnetic ethics for perpetual peace on earth. However, conventional scientific logic cannot grasp its social significance unless it first grasps the fundamental message contained in this article.

One of the great heroes of the Golden Age of electromagnets was the philosopher-scientist Friedrich Schelling, who changed the physical principle governing existence to Immanuel Kant’s electromagnetic ethics of space-time. From that modification can be deduced a much-needed supra-technology of human survival. The principal cause principle used by Shelling was the same one that Newton wrote about to complete the mechanical description of the universe in his Heresy Papers. These were published by Cambridge University in 1962 and later referred to as the work of a criminally insane Isaac Newton. The stupidity of that comment is that Newton certainly wasn’t a lunatic when he wrote Question 28 in the second edition of his internationally revered genius, Opticks magazine, which fully endorses his deepest, branded insane philosophy.

In writing a scientific paper, one does not misbehave with constantly strident critics, who for more than fifty years have been outraged by anyone who referred to their theories of quantum mechanics as nonsense. If one explains that his work becomes logical when it gets involved with quantum biology. then they could start figuring out how to build the simple supratechnology associated with the first-principle ethics of electromagnetic physics. On reflection, for all these years, I wish you all a happy day, as I no longer want to be upset about being told by a hysterical professor to get out of the room and not be able to discuss the scientific difference between a four-legged cat and a four-legged cat. paws. table with legs

© Professor Robert Pope,

Advisor to the President Oceania and Australasia of the Einstein-Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics and Advanced Mathematics (IFM)