On physicists’ vain search (attempts) to define the indefinable (ie, Higg’s boson)

Today some physicists claimed that they “believe they have found” Higg’s boson. They thus claim that they “believe” to have found it, or at least traces of it, with a certain probability! The “finding” is thus difficult to distinguish from an attempt to prove a presumption (ie, induction instead of falsification).

One Swedish physicist even claimed on the radio that if Higg’s boson would not have existed, then reality would have looked totally different from what it does! Well, that settles the issue, doesn’t it? Since reality looks just as it does, then Higg’s boson must exist, which some physicists thus “believe” that they have proved now, at least with some probability, and at least traces of it, if we indeed can prove that something exists with belief…, or at least prove with some probability…? (Which the rest of these physicists thus celebrate with champagne, obviously in a total lack of skepticism. They just proved (or…?) what we all believed, ie, presumed. All of us (in the team) agree unreserved.)

I can already foresee the continuation of this race to confirm the belief (presumption) that reality is rational and at the same time our subjectivity. This kind of physicists will continue to split these bosons (the supposed Higg’s particle and the rest of them) into yet smaller particles with an increasingly higher belief and higher probability, using larger and larger accelerators, in their vain search to “define the indefinable” as Darwin expressed it.

The problem they’re trying to solve does not, however, reside in reality, but in that our discussions of reality can’t fuse with reality (as Bertrand Russell, among others, have explained). We can’t find Higg’s boson simply because classes are not real and that classes are ultimately contradictory. We can’t find a contradiction. Instead, this contradiction is the driving force for this kind of physicists to build larger and larger accelerators in a vain hope to find a solution that liberates them from their plague (nightmare) that reality is irrational concerning pattern (although not concerning process). A solution of this problem does thus not reside in quantum physics itself, but in a consistent fusion of quantum physics with Newtonian mechanics, which, unfortunately, has to be ambiguous in relation to reality. We can’t find what can’t be found, but can acknowledge that reality has two aspects, pattern and process, which has to be kept consistently apart but both have to contribute to a consistent model of reality (although it has to be ambiguous in relation to reality). Truth not only is relative per definition, but has to be relative per fact.

(BTW, where are all string theorists? On retreat or on holiday? And, what about the idea of an infinitely many universa?)

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/

Read more at Menvall’s Blog: change on different levels