Beam Weapons

More documents

Recommendations

Info

axiomatic assumptions. As you logical positivists yourselveshave so often insisted, in defense of Russell, of theViennese pathology, and of similar cult doctrines, the factthat you have assumed ontologically self-evident discretenessas the most fundamental axiom of arithmetic, meansthat wherever you naively interpret reality by means ofyour own algebraic constructions, you are able to adducemathematical proof of the existence of entities whichoften, in fact, have no real existence, even as the discretemanifold of visible space."This same problem has a simple demonstration in economics."Mr. Accountant, please inform us how youcalculate depreciation for today on one of the pharaonicpyramids of Egypt." The historical cost of an object is notdetermination of its proper depreciation value today. It isthe cost of replacing a functional equivalent in terms ofthe costs determined by modern technology. If our accountantattempts to develop an historically based depreciationvalue he would probably be very much pleasedwith his own accomplishment if he conducted the followingfoolish exercise.He would normalize ancient Egypt's prices to today's bycomparing market-baskets of labor costs then and now.With aid of such "constant dollar" calculations, he wouldarrive at a "constant dollar" capital valuation for each ofthe pyramids. He would have ignored entirely the truedifferences in productivity of labor, the differences inpotential relative population-density of the two societies.One can not proceed from historical accounting valuationsfor depreciation to determine the "energetics" ofan economy or section of an economy. Nor, in a saneeconomy, do we expend funds to simply replace thebricks and machinery of yesterday's investments. Rather,in a sane economy, we run old industries into salvage andscrap, and replace old machinery with modern, technologicallyadvanced machinery. It is the ratio of "freeenergy" to "energy of the system" expressed by currentoutput relations which determines values—and propereconomic policies—including maintenance and investmentpolicies. It is the negentropy of the system, not itsaverage "energy of the system" levels, which determineseconomic values and proper maintenance and investmentpolicies. In a sane economy, we do not maintain productioncapacities to resupply obsolescent forms of capitalgoods. We learn such sanity from the practice of theComposer of the continuing, negentropic creation we callthe universe."Energy" must nonetheless be the appearance of themost important of all of the phenomena of the visiblemanifold. Energy reflects, in apparent terms of the thermodynamicstate of the existing system, the negentropicprinciple underlying all action in the continuous manifold.It is the lawful unfolding of the negentropic continuousmanifold, in terms of negentropic action which is theorigin of all action in the universe, which obliges us tointerpret all lawful features of the universe, including theappearances of the visible manifold, in terms of negentropy.Hence, thermodynamics, properly understood, isphysics, and the theory of functions of a multiply con-24 November 1982 FUSIONFred J Maroon"Mr. Accountant, please inform us how you calculatedepreciation for today on one of the pyramids of Egypt."nected continuous manifold, as a theory of negentropicthermodynamics, must be the only valid form of physicstoday.Correspondingly, as mankind increases its mastery ofthe universe, as measured in terms of potential relativepopulation-density, man's progress is in the form of increasesof negentropy of human practice. It is onlythrough that ordered process of successive discoveries,through which the potential relative population-densityof society is maintained and advanced, that man proves acorrespondence between the ordering of his discoveriesand the lawful ordering of the universe, for which theempirical proof is man's increased power over the universe.The universe is therefore proven to be negentropicallyordered.Disproof of the "Second Law"The Second Law of Thermodynamics pertains to a kindof imaginary universe which could not exist. The personwho defends the assertion of such a "law of universalentropy" is saying, implicitly, "Ignore what I say, since ifyou believe what I say, neither you nor I believe thateither of us exists." That is key to the true meaning ofLeibniz's "This is the best of all possible worlds," in whichan evil Voltaire could actually exist to circulate wickedfalsehoods about that statement. It is not necessary that aVoltaire know and accept negentropy in order that aVoltaire might exist to babble nonsense, any more than adog or a bacterium needs to know science truthfully inorder to exist.Naturally, some will retort angrily, "I can prove theSecond Law!" It is amusing to hear that persons todaytake pride in proving that they themselves do not exist toprove such things.Admittedly, we are rubbing salt into intellectualwounds. Even numerous among those who share to somedegree our hatred against Malthusian arguments for genocide,will imagine themselves to be angered by such
ostensible insolence as categorical repudiation of suchwidely accepted notions as the Second Law of Thermodynamicsand Conservation of Energy. Some of the objectorsdirectly defend the "law of universal entropy." Othersobject to our presumed indiscretion in giving allegedlygratuitous and presumably politically counterproductiveoffense to the first group of objectors.Although we have already identified, explicitly or byimplication, all of the conclusive proof need to show thefallacies of the "Second Law" and of "Conservation ofEnergy," the opposition to our arguments, even amongeducated persons, springs from deeply embedded, suchstrongly conditioned views, that the argument wants summaryrestatement here and now, as a precondition forproceeding to our concluding arguments respecting systemsanalysis as such.The presumption that there exists established or newexperimental proof in support of the Second Law, or ofthe related fictional presumption, "Conservation of Energy,"depends entirely upon two arbitrary fallacies respectingexperimental proofs. In the last analysis, both ofthese two, widespread fallacies prove to be identicalfallacies, although at first we must approach each as if itwere distinct from the other. These two, ultimately congruent,fallacious assumptions, show us that ndpast experimenthas ever proven a Second Law of Thermodynamicsand that no future experiment is required to provethe contrary principle. All the experimental proof hasalready been accomplished; it is the interpretation of theexperiments which has seemed to buttress belief in theprevailing fallacy of assumption.We predict that, despite what we have written here, wewill be strongly denounced for attacking the Second Law.We predict that those denunciations will overlook moreor less entirely the proof we give here against the SecondLaw. We predict that some among the attacks will be inthe form of attacks of one sort or another against thiswriter's personality, thus avoiding response to the proofgiven. We predict that others among the attacks will be inthe form of simple, emotionalized explosions of outrageagainst the attacks upon the Second Law, and that thesewill make no effort actually to refute the proof given inthis report.The two, ultimately identical fallacies underlying allarguments in support of the Second Law may be respectivelydefined as "ontological" and "formal."The ontological fallacy is, essentially, the assumptionthat the physical universe is adequately represented bythe phenomena of a visible, discrete manifold. This subsumesthe presumption that any inference of efficientprinciples of action must situate those principles withinthe axiomatic structure of a discrete manifold of the sortone imagines oneself to see. Typically, this means theeffort to define efficient action in terms of either bumpingor action-at-a-distance between ontologically self-evidentforms of discrete objects.The formal fallacy is properly argued to be the pathologyintrinsic to the axiomatic view of algebra. The axioms ofthe Russell-Whitehead cult 13 are admittedly a radical versionof the dogma of algebra, yet Russell is correct insofaras he represent? that view as being a faithful representationof the underlying view of all empiricism and positivism.The assumption that only the simplest comparisonamong two discrete magnitudes, comparing these only asto scale, is the axiomatic root of algebra, cannot be deniedas their own by the empiricists over the centuries to date.In other words, algebra so defined limits the possibleuniverses to those kinds of discrete manifolds which sharepermeation by such an "hereditary principle" of reductionistalgebra.It was the celebrated, central feature of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, that Newton freely admitted thatNewton's universe was entropic, that it was a universewhich must necessarily have been like a clock runningdown the accumulation of work in its "mainspring," fromthe beginning of its existence. Therefore, either the essentialform of action in the universe must be Cod windingthe universe up, periodically, from outside that universe,or Newton's sort of universe is one which could neverhave begun to exist in the first place. This issue was notoriginal to the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence; Philo ofAlexandria had already conclusively refuted the Aristoteliandogma in these terms of reference nearly 2,000 yearsago.The classical, Neoplatonic proof of the absurdity ofAristotle, by Philo and the Christian Fathers, is worthy ofand useful for reconsideration in this context. Not only isthe argument devastatingly valid against the Second Law,but it was a well-known argument to all educated personsat the time such nonsense as Descartes's and Newton'sabsurd physics was concocted in defiance of such a wellknownproof.If the universe was created by a "big bang," as theAristotelian (Apollo-Lucifer) cultists have insisted then andnow, and if it is assumed that the universe so created isabsolutely ordered by what the Jesuit agent FerdinandLassalle termed "iron laws" (parodying Goethe), thenAristotle and the Aristotelians are insisting that God ceasedto be an efficient existence by virtue of the Creation. That,indeed, is the underlying logical theorem for the Nietzschean"God is dead" thesis. For, if God were efficientthereafter, he must violate his own "iron laws," makingthe universe unlawful.If we assume a universe which depends upon repeatedinterventions by an efficient Creator, as Isaac Newtonexplicitly admitted his knowledge of the problem we haveidentified here, we have assumed a variation of the alternativecase, in which the Creator's interventions are continuous.In either case, we have the subsuming, generalcase, that the Creator's interventions are themselves lawfullyordered, that the efficient will of the Creator andlawfulness are one and the same: consubstantiality. As wenoted earlier in this report, man's manifest capacity toeffect technological progress, as increases in potentialrelative population-density, is man acting efficiently imagoviva Dei— in the image of the living God—according tothe Filioque principle intrinsic to the notion of consubstantiality.FUSION November 1982 25
Page 1 and 2: FUSIONSCIENCE • TECHNOLOGY • EC
Page 3 and 4: FUSIONVol. 5, No. 5 November 19822.
Page 5 and 6: ack on the last resort of its therm
Page 7 and 8: to Stop Nuclear Warsame time making
Page 9 and 10: The two modes of deploying beam wea
Page 11 and 12: SYSTEMSANALYSISWhite Collar Genocid
Page 13 and 14: universe is fundamentally negentrop
Page 15 and 16: any alternative method for describi
Page 17 and 18: Figure 2KEPLER'S PLANETARY GEOMETRY
Page 19 and 20: Figure 4THE LOGARITHMIC (SELF-SIMIL
Page 21 and 22: second variable is a stretching and
Page 23 and 24: "By shifting the production ofnonag
Page 25: ~THere, a turn of the century Westi
Page 29 and 30: the universe must emphasize those c
Page 31 and 32: Imagine a worldwithoutFUSIONMAGAZIN

Beam Weapons

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?