Avoid the precepts of those thinkers whose reasoning is not confirmed by experience.
LEONARDO DA VINCI, Thoughts on Art and Life
Larouche's method (the "highest of the highest hypothesis") is the same as the creationists':
It is a top-down v. bottom-up
|10-06-2012, 01:08 AMTarquin10|
I attended Lyn's classes in 1969-70. He said nothing about any "discovery" or method other than Marxism: he, L. Marcus, understood the real Marx, the true discoveries in Capital Vol. 3 and Theories of Surplus Value. His shtick was his 1958 "depression ahead" thesis from his SWP days -- the trigger for a new "mass strike" era or a "conjunctural crisis."
Lyn leeches off the ideas of others. I don't think he knew anything about Riemann or Cantor until he met Uwe. BTW, in those days, Lyn still claimed to have mastered Kant, not Leibniz, in high school. It's painful to admit, if you were involved for any time in Lyn's organization, but there's nothing there that isn't, at best, a commentary on something originally contributed by someone else.
LaRouche's supposed discovery is in this Jan/Feb 1976 issue of the Campaigner. Uwe Parpart wrote it, not Larouche!
>< Larouche "Automation" (-> his Computron biz!) = "Computron Technologies Corporation", one of New York's fastest growing computer software houses... Project of computerizing the intelligence sector's thousands of files and dossiers.
LaRouche's fundamental "discovery": refuting Wiener
Jonathan Tennenbaum wrote: "Through examining the true story of the SDI, we can grasp and learn from Lyn's unique personal role in this ongoing period of history. That role is inseparably connected with the fact, that Lyn accomplished back in 1946-52 a fundamental scientific discovery. And everything he has done since then, his rise to predominance as a maker of world history, has been based on nothing but that original discovery and on his own, constantly improving mastery of the method by which he was able to make that discovery." from How The SDI Was Created:The LaRouche Method and "New Physical Principles"- speech Given at the Schiller Institute Conference, March 20-23, 1993.
Tennenbaum carries on:
The basic assumption of Boltzmann, which Wiener took over, was that all processes of Nature could be described mathematically as systems of particle-like entities interacting according to fixed laws. And Boltzmann demonstrated, what already Newton had remarked, that such mathematical systems are afflicted with the inevitable tendency to ``run down'' toward states of increasing chaos. Out of this came Boltzmann's claimed proof of a purported law of universal entropy.
Wiener noted that living processes, and the effects of human intelligence, show exactly the opposite tendency. But rather than understanding this fact as a devastating refutation of Boltzmann's statistical approach, which it implicitly is, Wiener chose to define the manifest negentropy of living processes in terms of a progress toward what statistics regards as more orderly arrangements of particles. Similarly, Wiener implied that human intelligence could be defined essentially as the ability to arrange objects in an orderly manner -- one of the few definitions according to which beetle-collector David Rockefeller might be considered to be "intelligent"!
Lyn immediately saw the folly of this whole approach, recognizing in it the same devastating flaws of assumption which Leibniz had pointed out earlier in Newton's work, in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence Lyn had studied as a teenager. In his 1988 autobiography Lyn emphasizes:
In other words, LaRouche et al refute the existence of a universal law of entropy... only of negentropy! contradicting themselves (why would the world run down then?)
Note: creative ideas v. knowledge (information). You don't need to know how a light bulb works or how it was discovered, to light one up! It s ludicrous!
Johnathan Tennenbaum: unlike his father Stanley never published any scientific/ mathematical paper since he s working for Larouche! On Stanley Tennenbaum and Godel: Stanley Tennenbaum's Socrates by Curtis Franks + http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/04/26/that-does-not-compute/ and http://www.cancerdisaster.org/
|05-26-2009 10:12 AM #18|
LaRouche Debunked by Stanley Tennenbaum, a PURE Mathematician and Educator
In LaRouchian nomenclature, this post is a "world-historical event" as it represents the first public release of materials from the late Stanley Tennenbaum's Nachlass, a vast collection of his unpublished writings, letters, notes, audio and video -- a veritable multimedia smorgasbord of mathematics, education, cultural analysis, and humor.
Because of security concerns, the entire collection has been digitally copied and is now stored under lock and key in multiple underground locations around the world. If I meet an untimely death these, and other materials, will quickly surface from friends and colleagues the world over.
Barring any near-term collapse of my personal physical infrastructure, large portions of this collection will soon be released on the World Wide Web -- in waves, perhaps shockwaves -- at www.cancerdisaster.org
As owner and curator of this collection, I believe it's wildly and entirely apropos that the first snippet of Tennenbaum's Nachlass appear here on FACTNET, given the recent statements by LaRouche attacking Jonathan Tennenbaum, his "former" Science (sic) Advisor (see, for example, Chator's questions about the motivation behind LaRouche's attacks: http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=379148&postcount=2179] and XLCR's release http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=379168&postcount=2186 of a purported copy of the Morning Briefing from Monday, April 27, 2009 -- a briefing which contained extended remarks by LaRouche at the NATIONAL LEADERSHIP MEETING, Saturday, April 25, 2009.
LaRouche is quoted as saying:
"And the so-called pure mathematician is purely insane. Because they’re using a form of language, without the content, as the basis for communication."
For the record, I believe that the only authentic "pure" mathematician that LaRouche ever spoke with was Stanley Tennenbaum, who often visited Leesburg during the 1980s and 1990s, sometimes snoring through various meetings held by LaRouche and various "scientists" at locations around town, including LaRouche's home. Tennenbaum's main "contact" in the area was Chuck Stevens, a man he loved dearly, although he was close with a few others, including the late Robert McLaughlin.
Below is the text of a letter that Tennenbaum wrote to Stevens on May 4, 1997. It contains a list of numbered items that address both LaRouche's attempts and the International Caucus of Labor Committees attempts to use the work/words of Cantor, Riemann, and Gauss for self-promotion. Simultaneously, there was an effort to promulgate LaRouche's name and associate it in people's minds with expressions such as "discoveries in economics". Without further adieu, I bring you Stanley Tennenbaum:
"1. You may call a if you wish. But if you maintain that the term "transfinite" which you are here employing is employed in the same sense as "transfinite cardinals" is employed in Cantor's mathematics you are simply in error -- that is of course just my opinion, since we do not appear to have the same axioms. Cantor, if he does use the term transfinite for general conceptions, is hardly the first to have such a philosophical notion, but that is hardly the issue. If it is for you then someone is trying to appeal to something other than reason.
2. I don't think LaRouche intends to use transfinite . He probably has in mind rates of growth about which nothing has been published which connects their theory with Cantor's numbers, at least as far as I know. Applying Cantor's theory of cardinals to rates of growth would be a great creative advance (in my opinion). If LaRouche has made it I take my hat off to him.
3. As far as Riemann's conception of manifoldness goes, the increase in dimensions certainly yields an increase in freedom of action, degree of freedom, but I, for one, don't think Riemann in his paper had in mind infinite dimensional spaces. Anyhow degree of freedom can mean many things. Language, I believe, is primarily used to communicate ideas. I've not succeeded in understanding the behind LaRouche's use of higher manifoldness to help understand the creative growth of society from one stage of production to a "higher" one.
4. I don't think there is any interesting or important analogy between congruences and "circular action" though I have no clear conception of the later. See enclosure for the best I know of.
5. The geometric interpretation of complex numbers was known at the beginning of the 19th century as far as I know. Finite fields were almost unknown, so forming congruences "mod a complex number" which is what I believe Gauss is referring to was rather unfamiliar as it still is."
[The enclosure mentioned in #4 was a copy of pages 76 and 77 of the book Solved and Unsolved Problems in Number Theory written by Daniel Shanks (see: http://www.amazon.com/Solved-Unsolved-Problems-Number-Theory/dp/0828412979). The item in question is "The Circular Parity Switch", an unusual switch invented by Shanks in 1956. Using this switch, he reproves a theorem of Fermat and, with its aid, he reproves a combination of Euler's and Gauss's Criteria for determining whether a given integer is a quadratic residue modulo a prime; the "combination" criteria refers to different results that occur when a certain factor in an equation is even or odd.]
Readers unfamiliar with Stanley Tennenbaum's style should note that I, for one, believe he is "gently" indicating to Chuck Stevens that:
LaRouche does NOT use language to communicate ideas, at least not scientific ideas. Perhaps he is incapable as he lacks understanding.
LaRouche often uses the tactic of BYPASSING reason and appealing to people in "other" ways.
LaRouche is incompetent as a communicator although he "may" have made a great creative advance that is not decipherable to a highly trained "pure" mathematician who, at the time, was one of world's experts in both rates of growth of functions and Cantor's contributions to mathematics
LaRouche's use of Cantor, Riemann, and Gauss is entirely superficial and/or fraudulent and based on words, not ideas or concepts.
LaRouche and the ICLC have do not present an accurate view of scientific history.
Note, of course, that others are free to interpret the letter as they please. I simply have the added benefit of having discussed these particular issues with Stanley Tennenbaum for thousands of hours between 1976 and 2005.
Peter Tennenbaum May 26, 2009
|02-10-2009 11:42 AM #272|
New Revelations of Terror Part 2
In any case, before I moved from Sacramento back to Berkeley (in anticipation of my trip to the East Coast where my mother lived and then onto Denmark at the start of 1977), my father arrived to visit. He helped me move and we spent about a month together in Berkeley. Sometime during this period, Jonathan and my father talked about a Campaigner article on Cantor and the Transfinite, published by the NCLC. My father and I looked all over town for a copy but found nothing in any of the usual bookstores. After I arrived on the East Coast -- on an extremely inexpensive bus ticket, not Greyhound or Trailways but a new service run by a handful of people -- I visited friends in NYC and Princeton.
The Princeton people had located the Cantor Campaigner article and even forwarded a copy to Professor Gödel, along with an assortment of other materials. Gödel's reply: I can't comment on anything substantive because all I have seen are "advertisements".
Amazingly, and in the first sign of a weird historical connection between the Tennenbaum family and LaRouche's organization, it turns out that Uwe Parpart -- one of LaRouche's hot young scientists -- wrote the Cantor Campaigner. But where did he learn those things?
He attended a class of my dad's on set theory when my dad taught at Penn in 1965.
This explains the sane part of that Campaigners content; the part that impressed many people because it represented a point of view seldom if ever put in print before -- a point of view basically lifted from my father's talks at Penn. My father told me that the other part of Parpart's article was simply confused nonsense. Indeed, he (Stanley Tennenbaum, note) had such a low opinion of Parpart (from Penn in 1965) that he said he probably wouldn't bother to cross the street if he saw Parpart walking on the other side. And this was a comment from an extremely gracious incredibly social person. He simply regarded him as a creep.'
See: HOW WIENER ATTEMPTED TO KILL SCIENCE (Only Diseased Minds Believe in Entropy) by Creighton Cody Jones, LaRouche Youth Movement - EIR January 4, 2008.
Acc. to LaRouche; Prof. Norbert Wiener was one of the chief exponents of a fraudulent dogma called information theory: the idea that you could reduce the content of ideas in communication among human beings to a statistical procedure.
However, LaRouche never published his "refutation of Wiener"!
In his "Dialectical Economy" (1975); glossary p 465 on negentropy/entropy. In the 490 pages there is not one single reference to Wiener! Not even in the bibliography!
In his first biography The Power of Reason (1979), Wiener is mentioned once!
From "On LaRouche’s Discovery" by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; November 21, 1993.
In fact LaRouche took Wiener's views and mimicked them! :
Shortly after he arrived in the Big Apple, for example, "Lynn Marcus" published a long article entitled "Automation" in the spring 1954 issue of the SWP's theoretical journal Fourth International 82. In the piece - which includes citations from both Norbert Wiener's Cybernetics and Karl Marx's Capital .
LaRouche argues that
a new industrial revolution, automation, has entered upon the scene - a consequence, again, of capitalism's lust for relative surplus value. Automation raises the contradictions of capitalist industrialization to a new intensity: technological unemployment beyond yesterday's wildest fears, astronomical quantities of constant capital for each worker directly employed, and a plummeting rate of profit. . . . Automation, a qualitative change in the means of production, hastens the doom of an outdated society. Automation carries with it an intensification of the social and political forces that will drive the working class to take power and reorganize society from top to bottom.
The fact is that Wiener was the founding thinker of cybernetics theory and an influential advocate of automation!
LaRouche's alleged discovery of "Human creative powers" vs. Wiener's statistics is proved wrong by LaRouche's own writings in his Automation ("The New Industrial Revolution: Automation" by Lynn Marcus, Published quarterly by the Fourth International Publishing Association, Spring 1954) where he proposes a human society inspired by that of ants'!!!:
The intelligence of the ant colony is greater than the intelligence of all its members; it is the product of all the ants functioning in a social organism; this intelligence is a social product.
The intelligence of the ant colony is derived from the organic evolution of ant colonies, as the intelligence of a human being is a function of matter organized through organic evolution, an effect of natural selection. There is nothing mystical about it; as any dialectician knows, when you put a lot of similar objects together you obtain a whole which is something quite different from its parts. The intelligence of the ant colony does not reflect an average intelligence in each ant, but arises from the particular organization of ants as a whole..
A similar "law" holds: when individual workers are put together in a factory.
LaRouche's 1954 "automation" paper seems inspired by a Wiener's book: "The Human Use of Human Beings", first published in 1950 and revised in 1954. Indeed this Wiener book argues for the benefits of automation to society.
It analyzes the meaning of productive communication and discusses ways for humans and machines to cooperate, with the potential to amplify human power and release people from the repetitive drudgery of manual labor, in favor of more creative pursuits in knowledge work and the arts. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Use_of_Human_Beings)
Entropy and Negentropy
LaRouche's "dialectical" method (Lenin):
Entropy = "negative" v. Neg-entropy (negation of negation). There is here no concept of complementary with leninist LaRouche. Only a radical opposition (war)... to the point of even denying the existence of Entropy's Law!
Lenin (1961a [1914-15], 141) becomes very enthusiastic over having discovered this (“internal contradictions” of a given society = changes which develop as a process of self-development and self-movement), not in Marx, but directly in Hegel:
"Aphorism: It is impossible fully to grasp Marx’s Capital, and especially its first chapter, if you have not studied through and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, none of the Marxists for the past 1/2 century have understood Marx!!” (Lenin 1961a [1914-15], 180). This is the most dramatically explicit statement by Lenin anywhere on the centrality of Hegel to Marxism.
Neg of neg could be read in two ways:
Hegel: thesis /anti-thesis -> synthesis (fascism/ mussolini) >< communism (capitalism v socialism), no middle term (eg social democracy). It requires the elimination of capitalist class // same attitude re: "entropy".
Hegelian dialectic (“Contradiction is the root of all movement and life”)
See IT IS A WAR!
The concept and phrase "negative entropy" were introduced by Erwin Schrödinger in his 1944 popular-science book "What is Life?". Schrödinger addressed the problems of genetics, looking at the phenomenon of life from the point of view of physics. In chapter VI Schrödinger states:
...living matter, while not eluding the "laws of physics" as established up to date, is likely to involve "other laws of physics" hitherto unknown, which however, once they have been revealed, will form just as integral a part of science as the former.
The inspiration for this theory sparked from the observation that living organisms possess the ability to remain in a state of order, or low entropy, against the natural tendency for all things to decay into disorder, or high entropy. Schrodinger proposed that living things feed on matter which contain what he calls “negative entropy”, or negentropy, and use them to avoid decay. Schrödinger explains that living matter evades the decay to thermodynamical equilibrium by homeostatically maintaining negative entropy (today this quantity is called information) in an open system.
Wiener believed that communication of information, because it relies on organizational structures, is essentially negentropic, meaning it resists entropy. There are two kinds of possible disorganizational forces, passive and active: "Nature offers resistance to decoding, but it does not show ingenuity in finding new and undecipherable methods for jamming our communication with the outer world" (35-36). Nature's passive resistance is in contrast to active resistance, like that of a chess opponent. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Use_of_Human_Beings)
In this book, Wiener wrote:
"The metaphor [of negentropy] ... is one in which the organism is seen as message. Organism is opposed to chaos, to disintegration, to death, as message is to noise. To describe an organism, we do not try to specify each molecule in it, and catalogue it bit by bit, but rather to answer certain questions about it which reveal a pattern; a pattern which is more significant and less probable as the organism becomes, so to speak, more fully an organism. We have seen that certain organisms, such as man, tend for a time to maintain and often even to increase the level of their organization, as a local enclave in the general stream of increasing entropy, or of increasing chaos and de-differentiation. Life is an island here and now in a dying world. The process by which living beings resist the general stream of corruption and decay is known as homeostasis ... We are but whirlpools in a river of ever-flowing water. We are not the stuff that abides, but patterns that perpetuate themselves. "
The quantity we here define as amount of information is the negative of the quantity usually defined as entropy in similar situations. The definition here given is not the one given by R. A. Fisher for statistical problems, although it is a statistical definition; and can be used to replace Fisher's definition in the technique of statistics. (Cybernetics, 2nd edition, pp.61-62)
Wiener's "negative of the entropy" led Leon Brillouin to coin the term negentropy.
Brillouin was inspired by Norbert Wiener's new book Cybernetics and its connection of the new information theory with entropy and intelligence. From http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/brillouin/:
One of the most interesting parts in Wiener's Cybernetics is the discussion on "Time series, information, and communication," in which he specifies that a certain "amount of information is the negative of the quantity usually defined as entropy in similar situations.'
This is a very remarkable point of view, and it opens the way for some important generalizations of the notion of entropy. Wiener introduces a precise mathematical definition of this new negative entropy for a certain number of problems of communication, and discusses the question of time prediction: when we possess a certain number of data about the behavior of a system in the past, how much can we predict of the behavior of that system in the future?
In addition to these brilliant considerations, Wiener definitely indicates the need for an extension of the notion of entropy. "Information represents negative entropy"; but if we adopt this point of view, how can we avoid its extension to all types of intelligence? We certainly must be prepared to discuss the extension of entropy to scientific knowledge technical know-how, and all forms of intelligent thinking. Some examples may illustrate this new problem.
Take an issue of the New York Times, the book on Cybernetics, and an equal weight of scrap paper. Do they have the same entropy? According to the usual physical definition, the answer is "yes." But for an intelligent reader, the amount of information contained in the three bunches of paper is very different. If "information means negative entropy," as suggested by Wiener, how are we going to measure this new contribution to entropy? Wiener suggests some practical and numerical definitions that may apply to the simplest possible problem of this kind. This represents an entirely new field for investigation and a most revolutionary idea.
("Life, Thermodynamics, and Cybernetics," American Scientist, 37, p.554)
The origin of our modern ideas about entropy and information can be found in an old paper by Szilard, who did the pioneer work but was not well understood at the time. The connection between entropy and information was rediscovered by Shannon, but he defined entropy with a sign just opposite to that of the standard thermodynamical definition. Hence what Shannon calls entropy of information actually represents negentropy.
(Science and Information Theory, 2nd edition, pp.159-161)
In his 1956 book Science and Information theory, Leon Brillouin coined the term "negentropy" for the negative entropy (a characteristic of free or available energy, as opposed to heat energy in equilibrium). He then connected it to information in what he called the "negentropy principle of information."
THE NEGENTROPY PRINCIPLE OF INFORMATION by BRILLOUIN, Leon
Publisher: Journal of Applied Physics
Date published: 1953
Léon Nicolas Brillouin (August 7, 1889 – October 4, 1969) was a French physicist. He made contributions to quantum mechanics, radio wave propagation in the atmosphere, solid state physics, and information theory.
// Cybernetics and Leibniz...
In "The Essential Role of ‘Time-Reversal’ in Mathematical Economics" by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (Winter 1996 issue of FIDELIO Magazine):
Note: "time reversal" ie "negative time" is an implicit recognition of the existence of "positive time", associated to the law of entropy (2d Law of thermo)!!!
Proof of 2d Law: the impossibility of building a perpetual motion machine! -> LaRouche believes in "eternnity" (mind). See "The Truth About Temporal Eternity" by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; March 14, 1994
The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis is an article written by Alan Turing in 1951 describing the way in which non-uniformity (stripes, spots, spirals, etc.) may arise naturally out of a homogeneous, uniform state. The theory (which can be called a reaction–diffusion theory of morphogenesis), has served as a basic model in theoretical biology, and is seen by some as the very beginning of chaos theory.
+ Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction. The results of these men's work were still not widely disseminated, and were not known in the West until a conference in Prague in 1968. Belousov was posthumously awarded the Lenin Prize in 1980 for his work on the BZ reaction.
NOTE: falling rates of profit = proof of capitalism doom (Lyn Marcus).
LaRouche takes on Schroedinger et al:
According to the popularized, statistical approach to such subject-matters, the prevailing assumption is, that: a) universal negentropy does not exist; b) processes which appear, statistically, to exhibit negentropic behavior, are able to do so only by increasing the rate of entropy in the environment in which they operate. Ludwig Boltzmann's development of ideas in that direction, and the impact of Boltzmann's influence upon his students, notably Erwin Schrödinger's pathetic views on the principles of living organisms, are a notable illustration of the point. [...] The paradoxes which show prevailing dogma on entropy/negentropy to be pathological, compel us to recognize that the principle of life is a universal physical principle in and of itself, in the sense that the revolutionary work of Carl Gauss's student and follower Riemann defines the notion of a multiply-connected manifold. I have added my own original contribution to the science of physical economy, that the principle of cognition is also a universal physical principle.
Note: My initial focus, from early 1948, was against the use of the term "negentropy" by Norbert Wiener. That same year, my attention broadened to include the problematical systemic features of Professor Nicholas Rashevsky's mathematical biophysics, and also that of Oparin. [...] All of my relevant work of the 1948-1953 interval, was principally a reflection of my earlier refutation of I. Kant's attacks on the work of Gottfried Leibniz; hence, my recognition of the popularized notion of universal entropy as the fruit of neo-Kantian Romanticism.
From On a Basket of Hard Commodities: Trade without Currency by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; July 18, 2000
Fact is the universe will eventually die (stars switched off) once all their hydrogen (fuel) is exhausted, transformed into "matter", the atoms as listed in the Mendeleev Table. The Universe is a very unwelcoming desolate place for Life. Hence it s rarity! The Universe expansion is not a proof of "negentropy" no more than a bomb is "negentropic"!
All predictions of the future of the Earth, the Solar System and the Universe must account for the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy, or a loss of the energy available to do work, must increase over time. Stars must eventually exhaust their supply of hydrogen fuel and burn out; close encounters will gravitationally fling planets from their star systems, and star systems from galaxies. Eventually, matter itself will come under the influence of radioactive decay, as even the most stable materials break apart into subatomic particles.
Implicitly Larouche is an ardent defender of the Anthropic_principle. (! circular reasoning)
In "Sputnik of the Seventies: The Science Behind the Soviet's Beam Weapon" (Dr. Morris Levitt - May 27, 1977):
during three and a half decades."
Note: In the course of the civil war the new Bolshevik government embraced and endorsed Vernadsky’s vision of science and in 1922 reprinted as extremely important the collection of his addresses and proposals regarding science policy.
Manicheanism: entropy v negentropy...
"In 1951 during the high point of late Stalinism, the Soviet Institute of Philosophy launched an attack on cybernetics entitled Against the Philosophizing Henchmen of American and English Imperialism. In one essay, a Soviet psychologist named Mikhail laroshevskii took Wiener's remarks about the devaluation of the human brain due to automation to claim: "From this fantastic idea, semanticist-cannibals derive the conclusion that a large part of humanity must be exterminated. [...] In March 1955 a Soviet government commission under the direction of Deputy Minister of Defense, Engineer Admiral and Academician Aksel' Berg - who would later lead a public campaign for cybernetics - put out a secret report entitled On the State of Radioelectronics in the USSR and Abroad and Measures Necessary for Its Further Development in the USSR. This report described cybernetics favorably. [...] Next, in 1958 two of Wiener's books, Cybernetics and The Human Use of Human Beings, were translated into Russian. [...] All these developments set the stage for Norbert Wiener's triumphal 1960 visit to Moscow to attend a mathematics conference."
More at "Machines of Communism": The USSR, Cybernetics, (and the CIA)
In the attempts to establish an ideologically acceptable view of science, the new physics became a matter of considerable controversy in the young Soviet Union. Physicists and party philosophers discussed the problematic relationship of relativity theory and quantum mechanics to Marxist-Leninist philosophy.6 However, it was not only the new physical theories that might seem to be opposed to Leninist thought, the same might be the case with parts of classical physics, such as the second law of thermodynamics. The law of entropy, including its cosmological implications, became a matter of dispute in the Soviet Union, where it was discussed in a variety of ways, not all of them relating to physics. To some revolutionary minds, entropy seemed opposed to revolution.
Although the Russian author Yevgeny Zamyatin came to disagree with the Communist Party, before 1917 he was a committed Bolshevik and in his novels he continued to praise the revolutionary spirit. In an essay of 1923, entitled On literature, revolution, entropy, and other matters, the engineer-trained Zamyatin described the revolution in Russia in the language of thermodynamics. To him, the law of entropy was conformist and anti-revolutionary because it promised a dull equilibrium state from which no new revolution could ever emerge. The law of revolution is red, fiery, deadly; but this death means the birth of new life, a new star. And the law of entropy is cold, ice blue, like the icy interplanetary infinities. ... The Sun ages into a planet, ... if the planet is to be kindled into youth again, it must be set on fire, it must be thrown off the smooth highway of evolution.'7 Like some nineteenth-century scientists in the materialist tradition, he appealed to stellar collisions as a means of countering the consequences of increasing entropy and thereby catalyzing new revolutions: Two dead, dark stars collide with an inaudible, deafening crash and light a new star: this is revolution.''8 But this was not to happen, neither in the stellar nor in the social world. Stalin's Soviet Union was meant to be the beginning of the end stage of society, not the catalyst of further revolutions that Zamyatin had hoped for.
In part because of Engels's opposition to finite space and time, and because of the long tradition of associating these concepts with idealism, clericalism and bourgeois thought, infinite space and time became incorporated in twentieth-century dialectical materialism and in this way obtained status as official doctrines in communist thinking. According to the ideology of Soviet communism, as it was formulated in the late 1930s, cosmological models with a heat death, and hence a finite upper time scale, had to be rejected because of their theistic implications. Of course, models with a finite lower time scale were even worse. V. Shafirkin, a communist party philosopher and cosmologist of the 1930s, were among those who firmly rejected the heat death as a bourgeois myth. The universe was surely in eternal flux, as Engels had so brilliantly realized. Shafirkin's means to avoid the heat death were unoriginal: first, it had never been proved that there are no counter-entropic processes in the universe; second, the entropy law can only be applied to finite systems, not to the
6 See Vucinich 1980 and Graham 1972.
7 Zamyatin 1970, p. 108. See also Clarke 2001, pp. 78-81, 136-51. s Zamyatin 1970, p. 107.
infinite universe.9 The doctrine of the eternity of matter, an axiom in Soviet dialectical materialism, was taken to imply a world view closely similar to the one advocated by Engels and other nineteenth-century materialists. On the other hand, while some materialists had supported cyclic or recurrent cosmologies, these were rejected by most Soviet philosophers.
Although the political and ideological aspects of cosmology were also discussed before World War II, it was only during the period of the Stalin cult that the communist party took an official interest in the matter. Andrei Zhdanov, Stalin's notorious chief ideologue, said in a speech of 1947 that Lemaitre and his kindred spirits were Falsifiers of science [who] want to revive the fairy tale of the origin of the world from nothing ... Another failure of the 'theory' in question consists in the fact that it brings us to the idealistic attitude of assuming the world to be finite.10 In another address of the same year, he attacked Eddington, Milne and 'many of Einstein's supporters'. 11 At a meeting in Leningrad (St Petersburg) the following year, Soviet astronomers confirmed in a resolution the need to fight against the 'reactionary-idealistic "theory" of a finite widening of the universe ... [and] to expose tirelessly this astronomical idealism, which helps clericalism'.12
The communist dogma of an infinite material universe even became enshrined in the officially approved definition of cosmology. One such definition from the early 1950s reads: Cosmology is the study of an infinite universe as a coherent, single whole and of the whole region embraced by observation as a part of the universe.13 Although there was no official ban on cosmology - it was not needed - the field was widely seen as politically suspect, with the result that it practically ceased to exist in the Soviet Union until the early 1960s when ideological constraints loosened.
Many of the charges against Western-style cosmology had roots back in the cultural struggle of the nineteenth century. It was not only that particular models and concepts of cosmology were attacked - including Big-Bang models, the finite universe, the heat death and even the steady-state model - the very application of physical theories to the universe as a whole was regarded as suspect and unmarxist. Soviet authorities and party philosophers claimed that it was unscientific and against the spirit of dialectical materialism to extrapolate local laws of physics, such as relativity theory and the second law of thermodynamics, to the entire universe. Whether or not there were political motives behind, Soviet physicists and astronomers conformed to the dogma of the communist party either by abandoning cosmology altogether or adapting to the party line.
Several Soviet authors sought to refute the idealistic hypothesis of the heat death, either by arguing that it was illegitimate to extrapolate the second law to the entire
9 Haley 1980, pp. 75-81. See also Wetter 1953, pp. 323-6.
10 Quoted in Kragh 1996, p. 260, which includes a brief account of cosmology in the Soviet Union. See also Mikulak 1955 and, for a full discussion of Soviet dialectical materialism. Wetter 1953.
11 A German translation of Zhdanov's address is included in Wetter 1953, pp. 594-616.
12 Kragh 1996, p. 262.
13 Haley 1980, p. 151. Emphasis added.
universe or by claiming that there existed anti-entropic processes counteracting the decay processes described by the entropy law.14 As we have seen, both strategies can be traced back to the nineteenth century. The physicist J.R. Plotkin argued in 1950 that the law of entropy increase was invalid for an infinite universe, irrespective of its concrete structure. Hence a state of equilibrium for the whole universe not only is impossible, but does not make any sense at all. ... Attempts at applying to the whole universe the conclusions of the second law of thermodynamics have no scientific foundation.15 In their important textbook on statistical physics, the two eminent Soviet theorists Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifschitz reached a somewhat similar conclusion, if based on strictly scientific arguments: The Universe as a whole must be regarded not as a closed system but as a system in a variable gravitational field. Consequently the application of the law of increase of entropy does not prove that equilibrium must necessarily exist.16
It was not only in the Soviet Union that the ideology of Marx and Engels coloured cosmological views. Evry Schatzmann, a French astrophysicist and communist, wrote in 1957 a book in which he emphatically denied the heat death and the finitude of the universe. 'Any attempt to apply the second law of thermodynamics to the universe is without foundation', he argued; There is ... no reason for considering as well-founded the theory of the "heat death" of the universe. Quoting Engels in support, Schatzmann criticized the extraordinary confusion between the finite and the infinite, which consists in attributing properties of a finite system to the infinite universe.17
During the Kruschev era a few philosophers and scientists suggested that spatially finite models did not necessarily conflict with dialectical materialism as espoused by Lenin. This was a minority view, though, and temporal finitude continued to be anathema. Following Engels's original warning against the entropy law, many Soviet scholars claimed that it, and the heat death in particular, was in effect a theological plot. Much like their materialist comrades in the nineteenth century, they claimed that the universe is characterized by an equilibrium between forces of order and disorder. Only about 1964 did the traditional party line meet substantial opposition from scientists and philosophers, some of whom argued that finite world models were neither more nor less materialistic than infinite models. Within a few years, Soviet cosmologists, lead by Yakov Zel'dovich, were hard at work investigating and improving Big-Bang models.
14 See titles (in Russian) in Graham 1972, p. 500.
15 J.R. Plotkin, 'Increase of entropy in an infinite universe'. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 20 (1950), 1051-4 (in Russian). Quoted from the abstract in Physics Abstract 54 (\95\). 1101.
16 Landau and Lifschitz 1968, p. 30. Landau was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962, for his important contributions to the quantum theory of condensed matter. During the Stalin era he was accused by Marxist critics for idealistic interpretations of modern physics, which involved not only quantum mechanics and relativity but also the second law of thermodynamics. According to one critic, he supported the myth of the heat death, thereby ignoring that Engels had dealt it a mortal blow many years ago (Vucinich 2001, p. 113).
17 Schatzmann 1966, p. 272 and p. 203 (French original 1957).
See also The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric J Lerner, a former Larouche associate.
+ Information society: the number of scientific publications is exponential!
Yet, laRouche et al. haven't managed to publish one single paper (outside their own publishing companies of course!)
From Article 50 Million: An Estimate of the Number of Scholarly Articles in Existence By Arif E. Jinha; Faculty of Post-Doctoral and Graduate Studies, University of Ottawa.
Not only didn't LaRouche refute Wiener, he didn't understand him!
From "Norbert Brainin On ‘Motivführung’" by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (Winter 1995 issue of FIDELIO Magazine):
"As a case in point, consider summarily my own single fundamental discovery, known today as “The LaRouche-Riemann Method,” effected over the course of the years 1948-52.
Prior to 1952, I had made what has turned out to have been one of the most important scientific discoveries of this century, a fundamental principle of the science of physical economy. This discovery has been summarized in various locations over the years, most recently in “Why Most Nobel Prize Economists Are Quacks”2 and “Non-Newtonian Mathematics for Economists”. This discovery led, in turn, to a fresh view of the discoveries of Georg Cantor, and, that, in turn, to a fresh view of the most fundamental discovery of Bernhard Riemann, as set forth in his famous “Hypotheses” dissertation.3 In short, it was not a study of Riemann’s dissertation which led me to my discovery in economics, but, rather, my discovery in economics made possible a revolutionized view of the implications of Riemann’s discovery for economics. It was as if Riemann had written his “Hypotheses” dissertation as a contribution to the application of my discoveries in physical economy. Thus, my work is known by the epithet “LaRouche-Riemann Method,” rather than “Riemann-LaRouche Method.”"
See "The "LaRouche-Riemann Model" Problem" - Memo from Alice Roth calling on NCLC members to resign; January 22, 1981
"For me, especially since my conclusions reached about February 1953, about the work of Bernhard Riemann, "science" has been for me a Riemannian approach to a science of physical economy, rather than a view of economic processes considered from some different primary vantage-point. " from http://schillerinstitute.org/lar_related/2010/evil_wicked_stupid.html
+ Fusion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Linearity and Entropy: Ludwig Boltzman and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics(Dr. Morris Levitt) (Sept. 1976):
(p 8) "Now it is a fact that despite numerous heroic efforts involving electromagnetic, chemical, and mechanical arrangements, no perpetual motion machine of this type has ever been built. We can state with complete confidence that it never will be; but this is nonetheless entirely consistent with the primacy of the principle of negentropy."
Boltzmann demonstrated that the reversibility (why your cup of coffee cools down), using probability. Larouche will argue this method is flawed... therefore the "second law" is!
(p 10) "This brings us to a branching point in our discussion. On one hand, we recapitulate Boltzmann's statistical explanation of the law of entropy increase; on the other, we show that the theoretical reasoning is circular, since the assumptions about the nature of the physical system made by Boltzmann are just those for which a dynamical solution to the problem happens to correspond closely to the nonphysical statistical computation. "
"Expressed in this writer's “On the Subject of Metaphor,” the Aristotelian, or so-called “Big Bang” model of the universe, is implicitly consistent with a popularized delusion, that “human intelligence” is merely “information,” the which might be assessed statistically, and therefore could be accomplished by an adequately sophisticated form of digital computing system. This argument, typified by that of the late Professor Norbert Wiener, et al., is the same proposition underlying today's Boltzmann-like statistical representation of an “evolutionary theory” based upon the “action” of “survival of the fittest/natural selection." From On the Subject of God By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., July, 1992
"No sane scientist would be so reckless as to propose either a "Big Bang" creation, or a universe according to Hoyle: except, as he, or she presented such a thesis in the form of a question, such as: "Let us ask ourselves why some people are lured into adopting a piece of cosmic dogma as absurd at this? What, ladies and gentlemen, is the fallacy which is expressing itself in the putting-forward of such absurdities?" " From SCIENCE IS NOT "STATISTICS" By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., September 15, 1997
Russian Scientists in Dialogue with LaRouche December 28, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
The Pagan Worship Of Isaac Newton by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. October 20, 2003
"The Wiener-Shannon doctrine of "information theory" derived from the statistical theory of heat, expresses the most immoral features of existing scientific opinion, depending most directly upon assumptions which are provably absurd, assumptions conclusively proven absurd- long before the work of Boltzmann, Cibbs, et al. Negentropy, it appeared to me during late 1947 and early 1948, when I first encountered the Wiener-Shannon dogma, is characteristically the quality of living processes. Life as an active, efficient principle, must be adduced directly, empirically, from living processes. It was my preferred argument then, and still today, that the professor who undertakes to discover whether or not life is possible, from the standpoint of the statistical theory of heat, or the mechanistic standpoint otherwise expressed, is posing actually the question whether he himself exists to have the power to express an opinion on any matter of inquiry. Therefore, I was led through the work of Nicholas Rashevsky on mathematical biophysics, to challenging Rashevsky's methodological assumptions. This led ultimately to a year of wrestling with Georg Cantor's notion of transfinite orderings, a vantage point which made the essential, underlying features of the work of Bernhard Riemann directly accessible. My own fundamental discoveries in economic science, dated from 1952, were the result of that. "
From Why I Must Attack Albert Einstein By Lyndon H, LaRouche, Jr., July-August 1984
Larouche as a scientific moron:
"Now, if the quickness of a standard event is changed, if the measuring rod of time is changed, in terms of practice, then there is no such thing as universal, fixed, permanent clock-time. The universe does not go “tick-tock.” The universe speeds up. It speeds up, because of the effects of the processes of principles. It speeds up, because man’s intervention, with new physical principles, speeds up the effective measurement of time. That is, time tends to speed up; time becomes quicker."
From [[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Summer03/YouthDialogue.html|May 10, 2003 - Lancaster, Pennsylvania How Do We Measure Time?]]
??? "quicker than what"? + the Universe's expansion appears to accelerate, not "time"!!! and certainly not because of "man"!!
Riemann? (Larouche is a mathematical moron as well)!
For me, fifty years ago, the struggle involved in my first, very painstaking reading, and re-reading through the German of Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, was one of several such experiences in my life which have had the relatively most important, and persisting influences in shaping my world outlook, up to the present day.
From Mathematics Is Not Science by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; November 5, 2008
Note: psychologist Dr Yuri Gromyko is sometimes "a Full Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences" or "a member of the Moscow Academy of Culture and Educational Development" or "Director of the Methodological University, Moscow"... but a Putin supporter!
From such a standpoint, a proper economic science is the "King and Queen" of all scientific knowledge.
Insofar as this writer recognized among members of his organization promising young, scientifically trained persons, and as such persons had adequately, first, proven reasonable mastery of his economic science, he urged those persons to recognize in physics and certain aspects of biological and related research those crucial problems of method and experimental knowledge which corresponded to the discrepancy between first, the actual ordering of the universe, as proven by economic science, and second, the -assumed ordering of the universe prevailing in existing organizations of the specific other branches of knowledge.
This persistent sort of encouragement had three, overlapping project aspects.
First, since 1947, the writer had been dedicated to fission and, later, fusion energy development as the known, indispensable directions of forced-draft basic research and engineering development upon which the future existence of our species depends. This effort was therefore pushed as a major correlative of the organization's economic policy. Second, after repeated efforts, he succeeded in motivating the completion of a research project he outlined, showing the negentropic character of both human species development and general biospherical development, when those processes are studied as negentropic thermodynamic processes.
Third, he found in Uwe Parpart a person suited and motivated to effect a preliminary, broad presentation of the Riemann-Cantor conception of the actual ordering of relativistic physical space.
To define the continuing thread to be followed one must begin essentially with my assimilation of the outlook and method of Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant during the interval of my twelfth through sixteenth years, and then trace the elaboration of that commitment into the several discoveries rounded out by 1953. The process then continues into the crucial further developments along the line of that thread in 1960-1961. It then continues into the point I gave the first of my lecture-series presentations during the spring of 1966. The textbook, Dialectical Economics, whose final revisions were completed during the winter and spring of 1973, embodies the contents of the lecture-series and completes a full-cycle in my postwar life, and in the development of the Labor Committees.
From The Power of Reason
Larouche and the "Anthropic principle"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. [...] Critics of the "strong anthropic principle" (SAP)argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.
Note: SAP could be considered a fallacious "circular reasoning". It's equivalent to saying "all lottery winners bought a ticket" !
"What happens, therefore, when man discovers a principle? Well, man’s discovery of a principle, is not simply a matter of observation: It’s a matter of intervention. Of willful intervention in the universe. When man, who is a creature of will, discovers a physical principle, and uses it, even though the principle discovered already existed, man changes the order of effects in the universe. [...] We have not yet discovered the universe in full. So, there we are: We say, the process now is determined by man’s discovery, and efficient use of, discovered universal physical principles. Ah! [...] How do we measure the effect of adding a new physical principle, as a discovery, to the repertoire we already had? [...] What that means, of course, in practice is, that relative to man, man’s power over the universe increases. This power is expressed in various ways, but it’s also expressed very simply in quickness. When man discovers new physical principles, and applies them efficiently, the quickness with which man can effect changes in the universe, is increased. [...] The universe does not go “tick-tock.” The universe speeds up. It speeds up, because of the effects of the processes of principles. It speeds up, because man’s intervention, with new physical principles, speeds up the effective measurement of time. That is, time tends to speed up; time becomes quicker. " From LaRouche in Dialogue with Youth February-May 2003.
The case of the "neutrino"
Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 9:03 am:
Laroche at his Walter Mitty best:
If you don't know Kepler, if you don't understand Kepler, you don't know modern science. You may pretend you do, you may have degrees, you have Professor This, Professor That: But if you don't understand Kepler's revolution, you have no foundation in modern physical science. You're just not competent."
So Len IS a scientist after all. Hmm. I suspect Eric Kandel has not read much if any of Kepler, so I guess all of his groundbreaking work in neuroscience is just so much baloney.
What an ignorant, uneducated a--. Stick to what you do best, bankrupting your followers in every possible respect.
And by the way, the LYM Visigoths have taken to calling elementary plane geometry "sphaerics":
which concludes with that incredibly boneheaded tag
without even being able to see it!!!
with three exclamation marks, which I guess makes the statement triply truthy. Morons, the neutrino was hypothesized without having "seen it" for years, and much else in science. It's called hypothesis formation. Duh. These LYMers are truly much stupider than the young people who joined in the sixties and seventies - and who are now being denied health care and stipends.
|From FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Continued 3|
"Our story does not take place in the time when Kepler and Galileo had to consider the brute force of an orthodoxy as they wrote. Rather it occurs, with some sad parallels, in the present."
Why Neutrinos Don't Exist: What Really Happens in Pair Production and Beta Decay? by Erich R. Bagge (Fusion, November-December 1985 Vol. 7, No. 6)
In this Fusion's editorial: "Erich Bagge's work is of critical epistemological significance in overthrowing the nonsense of the necessity for symmetry. He has called into question every fundamental assumption of particle physics today. We eagerly await the response of those who will accept the challenge."
and "A world without solar neutrinos"; German physicist Erich Bagge discusses how he came to understand, and ultimately prove, that neutrinos do not exist, in an interview with the Fusion Energy Forum s Jonathan Tennenbaum." in
Ooops: the neutrino DO exist!
See Solving the Mystery of the Missing Neutrinos
+ denies the existence of quarks (in "So you wish...")