LaRouches Discoveries The Physical Sciences

She's method and the physical science and before I reduce the speakers and a couple of messages let me just say literally a couple of words I think the way to situate nicely this topic LaRouche is method in the physical sciences is to recognize that the breakthrough Lyndon LaRouche made in the development of the conception of physical economy and the conception of potential relative Population density as the fundamental metric a breakthrough that he identifies occurring largely in the 48 through 52 period with the culmination of his work on riemann and contour is a breakthrough of the

nature and people should reflect i think on the presentations from this standpoint that makes lynn the last great thinker in the tradition of plato augustine cuza live nets and so forth and by being the last the latest great thinker in that tradition he becomes in That sense the greatest thinker of that tradition and from his standpoint from the standpoint of his methodological breakthrough and his actual concrete scientific breakthroughs we have to rediscover and rethink through all that has gone before to recreate that in our own minds and to allow us to use that breakthrough to

develop fundamental science we need to do this to be able to carry out the policies the programs the science drivers the scientific research And development that is the future of the human species so I think we have to look at the presentations from that intense a standpoint now before I introduce the first speaker let me read you a message greetings to the conference February 19th we students from Poznan Poland are acting now as the Polish friends of the Schiller Institute and are sending our greetings and best wishes for the future to all Participants of the

Schiller Institute conference in Washington unfortunately we are not able to attend personally the present situation in Poland is very complicated although our prime minister mr. potluck seems to modify the looting policy imposed by the IMF and World Bank there is still a very strong tendency of liberalism and monetarism in Polish political and government circles therefore we see the necessity to present the ideas of physical economy in These decisive times we are conscious that our ideas should be spread over the country so we can happily announce that we just completed a new issue of the Polish

newspaper of the Schiller Institute Nova solidary nosh [Applause] which means new solidarity and we decided to publish it more regularly now we are convinced that polish cultural and historical tradition are a good background for our plans and that we Will find the support of many people in our country which will make our work even more efficient at the end we want to express our congratulations for Lin's release from prison and we wish a lot of success for his presidential campaign Rafaela Watsky Angra kozlovsky malgorzata Krug Lepke [Applause] and now I want to introduce Jonathan Tannenbaum

who one I know has just completed the recently published program For China he will speak on axiomatic science and physical economy a case study dmitri mendeleev and the discovery of the periodic law Jonathan thank you the the subject I wish to address this afternoon is reflected in the seeming paradox of the existence of two very different mutually exclusive or contradictory definitions of truth the first definition or criteria is that exemplified by the schoolboy idea of Getting the right answer in school or googling classroom the right answer relative to some system of textbook knowledge so that

nothing can be accepted as true that contradicts the basic assumptions of that textbook knowledge so this is the notion of truth expressed for example in the practice of cheating at examinations or learning how to do the experiment so you get the answer which is in the textbook it's the notion of so-called truth expressed by Political correctness or correctness that children should engage in polymorphous sexual perversion in order to demonstrate their acquisition acquiescence to what have been defined as the latest axioms of acceptable behavior in each case the truth is defined by non contradiction to some

current collection of assumptions either explicit or implicit which are regarded as completely evident unassailable and beyond suspicion Now the second conception of truth the true one i should argue is truth as measured against man's continuing existence on this planet truth measured in the great laboratory of human history past present and future so we test the relative truthfulness of our thinking by the success or failure of societies employing that mode of thing King to maintain and expand their existence of course with the proviso that what may appear to be successful in The short term may be

the shortest road as surest road to destruction further down the line now these two definitions are criteria for truth stand in an ironic contradictory relation to each other for it is historically demonstrated that in order for man to have existed up to this point he had to constantly revise often in a revolutionary way his knowledge so what was at one time defined as true or as the right answer becomes later the wrong Answer entire chapters of accepted classroom knowledge are eliminated or overthrown and without that demonstrably without that man could not have progressed to a

more successful ways of existing on this planet now considering these historically demonstrated revolutions I will speak of an example we should beware of a trap of the fallacy of British empiricism British empiricism admits generally that knowledge does change but limits the Development of knowledge to adding new facts or correcting facts on the basis of sense perception so the British idea of truth is to get your facts right according to the latest authoritative edition of encyclopedia britannica and the New York Times now I said that there's a trap there what is the trap well there's a

fallacy fallacy underlying this idea of adding facts on the basis of perception which people often miss firstly British Empiricism in British empiricism there's no change in the underlying assumptions the axioms adopted for knowledge secondly there is no such thing as a fact determined by sense perception the fact is that all sense perception is evaluated by the human mind on the basis of certain ideas in the mind and those ideas do not come from sense perception more are they changed by perception per se in fact I may shock you by saying no idea ever came into

anyone's mind from The outside but all ideas are created from inside the mind therefore no progress of knowledge comes as a reaction to sense perception progress of knowledge of the sort upon which our existence depends comes uniquely through the process of changing the basic assumptions upon which everything is based including the way we evaluate so-called facts we have historical proof that such changes are necessary for human Existence every society we can document historically which comes to rely on schoolboy notions of correctness of knowledge on the equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica is doomed to collapse now

this second truer criteria of the truth or the development of human knowledge which I indicate presents us with a number of apparent paradoxes one of these paradoxes might come up in the following sort of question how can you prove a form of new knowledge which Contradicts the basic assumptions of existing knowledge or maybe your own assumptions people will ask well this new knowledge or these new hypotheses what can we check it against because people habitually to British imperious empiricism and similar modes of schooling always wanting to check a proposition against something as a reflex to

check whether it's the right answer well and then you Have another question or paradox how can I check an idea to find out whether it agrees with human existence on this planet or not how can I do that well things are not quite so simple and the problem lies elsewhere then you the person is thinking that is formulating the question that way the problem is the question of the way of thinking let me intensify this paradox with a kind of example which I think will be familiar to many of you we have someone in front

Of us some person we want to organize that person and we say look the United States is becoming a pure British colony and the person jumps up and says that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard what could be more ridiculous as the proposition that the United States is being made into a plantation of British controlled financial system and that were all being made slaves to that so what do we do well we try to prove what we said by going through the Obvious selection of recent events the clear evidence to prove it but our

friend doesn't see it that way he or she interprets events in his or her own way the same facts the same perceptions are read in a different way so as to not to arrive at the forbidden conclusions which his or her adopted assumptions forbid them to accept so we see that no collection of empirical facts no matter how large are going to do any good in this case So we appreciate now the meaning of the statement that the British Empire like the Venetian one is an empire of the mind these people are trapped they are

enslaved in the mind so what's the remedy how do we lit liberate enslaved minds minds enslaved in this way well of course there exists a remedy otherwise we wouldn't exist man was not born to be British imperialist so to find the answers or to to get on the right path or fruitful path I propose That we focus upon the crucial phenomenon called fundamental scientific discovery and its relationship to the desired effect of advancing human existence that subject matter which is the center of Bin's work and in order to do that I want to discuss a

kind of a cased case study I want take an example and use it as a kind of Archimedean lever and I hope that in that way we'll be able to swing ourselves progressively upward to higher levels of insight as The discussion proceeds I've chosen for this discussion the case of the great Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev born in the 1830s 1834 I believe and he who died in 1907 and who is known primarily for his discovery of what he called the periodic law of the chemical elements or perhaps more accurately the natural system of chemical elements

which is not quite the same thing as the periodic table which is a simple formal presentation of a result of that natural System now a reason for choosing this particular example is that this discovery of Mendeleev's is central to the whole vast increase of the productive powers of human labour over the period of the last 100 years that Mendeleev as a person as a fascinating personality displays in a very high degree but the universal qualities of the scientist in the positive sense in the second sense not in the sense of an academic or schoolboy Sense

but in the sense of a scientist devoted to building his nation to building the world now I'm not giving a presentation on chemistry here and I'm not aiming at being precise and details of chemistry I want to be as precise on a can about something else and that is the internal process of discovery or some crucial features of that process of discovery which is our let us say our experimental data here not the chemistry but the process in the Mind so I have to say however a few world words about the field of physical chemistry

to introduce this at the time Mendeleev Dmitri Mendeleev began his scientific work in 1855 the central axiomatic assumption of chemistry was the notion of a chemical element this notion is associated with the idea that we cannot differentiate or divide substance down indefinitely without encountering some kind of a limit or a boundary or as we say singularity in the Specific practice of chemistry up to the time of Mendeleev the exploration of this area took the form mainly of what are called separation methods chemical separation methods which some of you know if you did some if you

are fortunate or perhaps unfortunate enough to do laboratory school laboratory work in chemistry things such as distillation precipitation electrolysis centrifugation and so forth generally speaking we start with any Kind of stuff and we do very various things to it to see if we can induce a separation or differentiation of the original stuff into two or more new ones each having clearly distinct characteristics so in electrolysis we separate we produce out of water oxygen and hydrogen for example and then we take those new substances which we produced by the separation of the first one and we

try to do the same thing with each with each of those two and we keep Doing that trying to push the process to its most extreme limit of differentiation of matter now through this kind of playful exploration chemists in fact did arrive at a limit as expected in the form of what were sometimes called simple bodies or elements substances seeming which seemingly could no longer be caused to differentiate further from ancient times a number of such elements had been identified iron copper tin lead mercury Gold silver sulfur carbon about five more elements were added in

the period called the Middle Ages and then under the influence of lionesses work in launching Industrial Revolution there occurred beginning around the 1740s and it actually during lioness time an explosive development of physical chemistry so that at the time Mendeleev graduated from the main pedagogical Institute in st. Petersburg about 64 elements chemical elements were known Now I should note however before going further that there are different opposing types of hypotheses associated with the term chemical element British empiricism has insisted for example on the supposedly self-evident axiom or idea which is still repeated unfortunately in much

of our elementary education that the elements represent unbreakable ultimate building blocks of matter who's supposed Quality of reality is borrowed from the baby's earliest years in the playpen the great French chemist love was da on the contrary adopted the more adult view that the chemical elements are singularities are changes moments of change in a search not for ultimate building blocks but for what he called the principles of matter the principle of generation of matter and Lavoisier emphasized that the separation methods of chemistry and the result of the so Called simple bodies depends on technology it's

relative something that may appear to us to be an element or an indivisible substance later may become divisible through a revolution in technology which actually occurred through in it to a large degree exactly the work of man live now I just want to note to you in reference to what I said before that this British idea of the building blocks of the unbreakable hard balls or whatever its represented is has The form of an axiomatic assumption you can't refute it by any experiment or any so-called experimental fact because if you succeed in separating what appeared

to be an element then they will simply say oh yeah well we were just made it a mistake in our facts and this element is actually actually made up of smaller hard balls which are irreducible and which are building blocks and by this process you get to quarks and then you get to Other things and you're led down the path toward insanity which is actually occurred to the majority physicist following this kind of idea in the in the endless search for those blocks which they they didn't have since they were babies so but lava Lavoisier's

conception raises itself a very fruitful paradox and in the practice of science we should never try to run away from paradoxes because where there's a paradox there will be there's a Potential discovery at the point where we try to define a set of distinct individual principles apparently governing a domain say the domain of chemistry at that point that we have these identify these principles we can no longer account for the existence of those principles for their multitude and for the relationships between them by the principles themselves so we can have the elements but we can't

account for why they exist why they have the Properties they have and exactly the success of chemists in discovering more and more elements ironically underlined that paradox we look at the development of chemistry up until the around 1860 we see an explosion of an accumulation of empirical material which became what Cantor called a bad infinity people mix this and this this and then said well if we mix it this way we get that we mix it that way we get that you had an accumulation of so-called facts without Knowledge and a group of chemists around

the circle's of Leibig the great german chemist and kekulé a organised in cows were in Germany in 1860 a conference to put an end to this bad infinity and to introduce new concepts new hypotheses for chemistry and so conceptions that had been developed by unpair in particular a concept of species of singularities by unparent others was introduced into chemistry you know in a Broad way from 1860 and there was Mendeleev at that conference now Mendeleev his discovery of the periodic system of the natural system occurred was provoked by his work as a teacher and in

teaching he was irritated and provoked by the state of chemistry and asked himself the question is this really a science what we're doing here can I present this as a science and Mendeleev wrote the following he said quote the mere accumulation of facts Even an extremely extensive collection does not constitute scientific method it provides neither a direction for further discoveries nor does it even deserve the name of science in the higher sense of the word the building the Cathedral of science requires not only material but he designed a plan harmony a design for the harmonic

composition of parts and to indicate the pathway by which the most fruitful new material might be generated thus from the very beginning Mendeleev Is not looking for some mere classification system at systematization of data as some i've often tend to present this but Mendeleev is looking for a principle for a method of discovery for a method of organizing the progress of science and technology and that looking for it in the direction of what we call a hereditary principle now what was ironically distinct about the way Mendeleev approached this problem was his insistence on the Individuality

of each element and I should just add for those who might want to consider this point that there is a crucial difference underlined by Mendeleev between the notion of discreteness of discrete say discrete objects associated with discrete objects which is really a mathematical notion and the notion of individuality which is associated with the planets monad in any case Menelaus emphasized that there is no simple continuity of the sort we Associate with continuous motion in visual space that chemistry as an experimental domain reflects the action of something which modifies the ordinary properties of space and imposes

a characteristic of what appears to be discontinuous jumps in the manifest properties as we go from one element to the next that means that we cannot use an ordinary smooth mathematical function or any the the usual type of mathematical function for this but we Have to use what Ladin's called the method of analysis Cetus now it's exactly the the knowledge of the individuality of the chemical elements that is the discontinuity between them which permits the discovery of the periodic law now very briefly how did this happen well before Mendeleev chemists had concentrated on similarities or

analogies between the elements and we can see the first I've given an example they were Discovered groups of elements which have similar properties or similar or analogous properties for example I've given just some examples the group of the halogens chemical elements we called halogens which include fluoride fluorine chlorine bromine another group and they all have the similar properties chemical properties we have another group called the alkali metals sodium potassium rubidium which are also very similar but these two groups the group of halogens And the group of alkali metals are completely dissimilar have completely different properties

so and I should just point to you little the letters here don't mean really anything we don't find see anything in the letters you have to be plunged into the process of developing chemistry for the notion of the individuality of these elements to mean anything to you now what did Mendeleev do well he took the had already begun in his earlier Work looking at this notion of the natural groups of elements from a geometrical standpoint he studied what is called isomorphism of crystals fact that one can replace in a crystal elements of a similar group

maintaining the form of the crystal and then one can consider the jumps or changes of crystal structure as you go from one group of elements to another so what Mendeleev did which hadn't really been done before that is not to look at the similar Things alone but to juxtapose the dissimilar in the manner of lionesses analysis Cetus and therefore he can he looked at these two groups and juxtaposed them and compared that with the relative ranking or ordering of elements by means of what is called at the atomic weight which gives a kind of an

ordering a very ironic and paradoxical ordering of the elements according to increasing atomic weight and when he did that well you Don't get a clean man algebraic mathematical relationship but Mendeleev saw he found what he was looking for what he couldn't we'll listen to his words in just a moment is that he made his shift in his thinking to say it's not the chemical elements themselves but is the system the totality which is elementary it's the ordering of the system as a whole which is the actual element or which we should replace as a notion

of element arity this is the Crucial shift the shift in thinking of the notion of element arity and after that shift comes Mendeleev's essential insight after that shift which is inside comes the periodic system it's a shift toward what we call would call today in modern language the notion of a Nemec neg entropic quantum field well we have the testimony of a friend who witnessed Mendeleev in the middle of the struggle to work up the vast material of chemistry into an explicit law One day the friend stops by to visit Mendeleev in his office and

he sees immediately the Mendeleev which is a very long hair looks sort of a Beethoven type figure he's in a state of agony and exhaustion what are you working on he asks and layeth Mendeleev explains that he had discovered the existence of a periodic system of elements but had not been able to formulate the law and table he exclaimed everything is coming together in my head but I can't express It soon afterwards following three days and three nights of continuous unbroken concentration Mendeleev finally produced his periodic law and the famous table of elements we can

just see the Lord that's part of it you can raise it up that's just part of the table the famous table which bears his name and he wrote later about this of the whole process quote the thought was born involuntarily that there must be a Connection between mass and chemical elements and since the mass of material bodies although it is not an absolute magnitude but only a relative one which expresses itself ultimately in the form of atoms for these reasons it was necessary to search for a functional relationship between the individual characteristics of the individual

elements and their atomic weights when you're searching for something whether you're looking for mushrooms or some Kind of law there's no other way than to look and keep trying again so I wrote down on a collection of cards the names of the elements with their atomic weights and crucial properties and started to group them according to similar elements and neighboring atomic weights as soon as I did that I came to the conclusion that the properties of the elements must be a periodic function of the atomic weight although I had doubts about many unclear details I

did Not doubt for a minute that the general conclusion was correct this last comment of Mendeleev is crucial what Mendeleev now did you'll see the group of the halogens and alkali metals in the lower left-hand corner of the table where he's taken these groups where you have jumps from one group to the other and ordering order them showing the periodic relationship so what Mendeleev now did was he used his discovery as a yardstick for Completely reorganizing and correcting the data of chemistry in other words it's the act of discovery not its literal form but the

act of discovery which constitutes the elementary superior fact or axiom for reorganizing all of knowledge so Mendeleev accordingly insisted that this new element arity of the system as a whole must be universal all of chemistry must obey it with respect to all existing in all future chemical elements so he Tolerated no exceptions now I mentioned that Mendeleev did not find a clean fit a clean mathematical fit for his law on the contrary a great part of the experimental data of the best experimental data of his time completely contradicted that his periodic law in about two

dozen cases the atomic weights given for the elements indicated that the elements were in the wrong place in the table but a little wrong place in the system they Contradicted the system so what had Mendeleev did do he could say oh my law does not obey the data no he said I have made a discovery this data is wrong so he took these two dozen about two dozen elements with the period with the best measurements of the best chemists of his time he simply changed the atomic weights and put them where they should be according

to the the law this created an uproar in the chemists community but Mendeleev was right in every single case Furthermore if we look at the you'll see oh it's alright it's okay leave it you will see there in this is just a copy from part of Mendeleev's original layout you will see two question marks there just to the right of a looot aluminum and silicon there was the second third one which I don't have here in the near bore these were just holes gaps in the in the cable anomalies so Mendeleev predicted that there must

be given the universality of The law there must be elements which will be discovered with the characteristics indicated by their place in the ordering expressed by the table and Mendeleev used the Sanskrit word eka which means the next one and gave names to the undiscovered elements in the first case eka aluminum in the second case eka silicium or silicon and just a few years later less than 10 years after Mendeleev published detailed prognosis of the properties of these three Elements they were found 1875 hecka aluminium found by frenchman so he called a gallium 1879 eka

bore found by a Swede who called it scandium and then finally 1886 a German found germanium but there's more as we followed this process of unfolding the implications of Mendeleev's discovery we begin to develop the Astrophysical implications which are embedded which are already implicit in the universality of the law which he Claimed that we're what we are looking at implicitly is a generate generative process a process of generation of the elements not a British evolutionary scheme a Darwinian evolution but we could say in retrospect a kind of very not skien evolution well for example if

we look at the next you're just the upper one there this is now just a modern form of the of the periodic system you will see I've circled a number of squares there those Are elements which were not known at the time of Mendeleev including the whole right hand column of the of the so-called noble gases and I've also in red hatching indicated radioactive elements and in fact the discovery of radioactivity was an immediate consequence of Mendeleev's work and in particular the work done by Pierre and Marie Curie Marie Curie who actually whose uncle was

a student of Mendeleev who studied in Petersburg and who did Her first experimental work in the laboratory of that student used the notion of the periodic system to predict that there would be new elements radioactive elements those are the two elements they found of a radium and polonium now we start to generate more and more anomalies in a whole new world opens up a dimension of the isotopes where the periodic system is expanded but in a coherent way Well this led also to the discovery efficient nuclear fission in a very lawful way for example we

have the question why the system the periodic system the natural stone seems to end at uranium was the heaviest element known up until the 1930s uranium so why does it end there there's an anomaly of the system well efforts were made to generate elements heavier than uranium beyond uranium and what happened well the the the periodic system responded With efficient it reacted to that attempt with fishing so we got nuclear fission so the system actually then however we can't generate have your elements we can expand the system in different ways however when we do that

we get into new modes we can expand it in one mode that we must go to a new mode of expansion and a new mode of technology so the periodic system in Mendeleev's intention becomes not a scheme of classification Of elements but a method of discovery and continuous expansion so now let me look back from what I've said at the axiomatic s-- of what Mendeleev did and emphasize a few very crucial points first Mendeleev did not arrive at his hypothesis through some kind of inductive reasoning from empirical data he didn't start by noticing a pattern

as the typical fraudulent British imperious a school or account of scientific discovery would would have it quite the Contrary the discovery originated with a deliberate willful act of negating the central as axiomatic assumption which had prevailed in the teaching and practice of chemistry at his times the assumed element arity of the elements instead he located element arity in something higher which was later embodied in the periodic law but implicitly involves a notion of a principle of generation of the elements Including undiscovered ones as the the quoted remarks of Mendeleev clearly indicated second observation it was

only after the original act of insight that Mendeleev threw himself into the chaos of incomplete and contradictory data and through a Promethean effort forced into the light of the day the principal he knew must be there so he knew what he what he was looking for Third Point the result was in effect the result of his discovery was a new system Of scientific knowledge regarding physical chemistry and implicitly everything else if we compare the new Mendeleev system of knowledge with the one which existed at his time before the discovery we find a relationship which is

characteristic of fundamental scientific discovery in general well firstly Mendeleev's new system contains everything useful in the then existing chemical knowledge but from a vastly more powerful point of view we don't Throw away anything really of substance except our own clinging to a false assumption we redefine what we thought we knew from a higher standpoint and we correct it from that higher standpoint and then we can look back at the old system and understand many anomalies in that system from the higher standpoint but at the same time there's no way to go from the earlier inferior

system to the superior system by some mere deductive or inductive procedure such as Merely filling out the gaps or adding data successively to the older system the change from the lower to the higher involves throwing out the central axiom and replacing it by a new one which means a break or discontinuity with the old system of knowledge the authority of the old system is broken as Mendeleev clearly acts upon that and in new authority is created thus so to speak in this business you can't be half pregnant you either make the jump or you don't

And this point is demonstrated in a very instructive way by the case of low Tom Meyer who is often a German chemist who is often regarded as having independently discovered the periodic system but who actually missed as far as I can tell the revolutionary kernel of Mendeleev's discovery meir and about the same time had arrived at a superficially similar periodic table by essentially inductive reasoning without challenging the axiomatic Assumptions of the old system consequently he neither corrected the wrong values of the atomic weights nor predicted the existence of new elements in fact Myer publicly criticized

Mendeleev for what appeared to him but was not unwarranted speculation Meyer could not understand what was the source of Mendeleev's internal Authority in going beyond what was provable in Meyers deductive inductive terms of reference and he didn't understand the reason why Mendeleev insisted there can be no exceptions to the natural system so although Myers and Mendeleev's tables are formally similar the explosion of new scientific discoveries which ensued in the subsequent period flows unambiguously from Mendeleev and not from Latour Meyers more timid half pregnant approach so this poses the question how did Mendeleev know that he

was right before he proved it from the data so to speak what was his internal Thora thority that defines the next paradox which I want to address it's a paradox also in the sense that we can't solve it by reference only to the immediate circumstances of Mendeleev's discovery we have to turn our attention to the long waves in the history of science and juxtapose what Mendeleev did to other fundamental discoveries which display a kind of common underlit underlying principle or equivalence in other words we shift from looking at the Individual fundamental discovery as elementary to

a different notion a notion of higher hypothesis as relatively maurella the more elementary reality of human thought an evolutionary unity of Acts of for mental discovery for this purpose I propose just to briefly turn our attention to the following a series of fundamental discoveries now I don't have time to elaborate them but most of them have been dealt with at least to a Certain extent in published materials of the Schiller Institute firstly this is in a historical series the Nicolas of Cruz's insight into the character in implications of the singularity separating the circle at the

higher world of circular action from the inferior linear world of its inscribed polygons perhaps we could see the last overhead there a discovery which is crucial of cruises crucial to launching the Renaissance there we see an attempt From the lower circle there an attempt to arrive at a circle by a process of building polygons with more and more sides this is familiar to most of you you build with polygons with more and more sides and try to fill out so to speak the circle but it doesn't work but I'll come back to that the second

discovery discovery underlying the work of Leonardo da Vinci and Pacioli in conceptualizing the geometrical ordering Of living processes and defying the irreducible distinction between living and nonliving third johannes kepler's founding of a comprehensive physics and astrophysics based on the same notion to recall today of quantum field and exemplified by his discovery of the ordering principle a universal ordering principle of the planetary orbits and most notable Kepler's prediction of a missing planet in a gap they lawfully determined orbit in his system which is Entirely similar to what Mendeleev did himself fourth Hargens christiaan huygens insight into

the implications of a relatively constant speed of light directly related to that the development of the domain of non algebraic functions by Horgan's live Nets Bernoulli and others fifth the work of unpair developing an insight into what are called force free geometries creating in a sense modern electrodynamics launching Modern electrodynamics and a technological revolution followed through by Gauss and Weber something which fed directly into as I mentioned in the 1860 conference and Karlsruhe the work of men live Mendeleev's discovery itself in this series and I might mention as the last example the discovery by Planck

Max Planck a daring and revolutionary hypothesis at that time of the quantum of action now I would like to assert there's not time to Go into this here that if we look into each case in the way I indicated in the case of Mendeleev we study each one in that way we'll find that there's a kind of congruence of each and every one of these series of discoveries even though each one is a highly individual unrepeatable event and there's an ordering between these events well we can come to that very very readily through Cruz's discovery

which I'll just reference and following what I said Before that the world of the polygons inscribed in the circle is externally bounded by something the circle which can't be reached from the lower world even in the hypothetical bad infinity elaboration of that lower world trying to fill in all the spaces of the of the polygon instead we have to challenge the axioms of the world of polygons rework them from the standpoint of circular action Elementary at the elementary so what is Then primary is what is so to speak located in this region between the polygons

and the circle and it's very lawful that the irony of each of these discoveries each of them involves eight and irony that that irony comes out so to speak is reflected in each case by geometry is consistent with circular action and the Great Circle divisions of the sphere so-called golden mean harmonics you have a recurring theme of the expression of this irony in the Similar way reflecting what might you might call the natural language of God's own universe I might mention that my esteemed colleague Lawrence hashed began to rework together with the late professor moon

began to rework Mendeleev's discovery and it's further implication from the standpoint of this geometrical expression of the underlying irony the underlying cause of these discoveries and made it preliminary but very important discovery unfortunately He is hindered right now from continuing his work in the way he would have liked because he's been thrown into jail for 39 years for supporting the presidential campaigns of Lyndon LaRouche and sitting in jail right now I just point out that Mendeleev at the time he made his discovery in his work became a national hero in Russia and here it seems

at the moment in the United States that if somebody discovers something we throw them into jail we have to change that However I it's not enough to simply discuss describe let us see say or point to this congruence between scientific discoveries from the outside so to speak that only identifies a ironically placed location within which deep actual substance of the process is located to get at that what the substance of the discovery is we have to relive the flash of insight of the discovery which inhabits so to speak the space between Cruz's circle and the

Inferior world of the polygons that apparently infinitely small or tiny world and there is inhabiting habits that that that's based the substance of scientific discovery if we look at the great discoveries of the past we find in fact invariably among them a special type of a what one might call apprenticeship I don't mean necessarily apprenticeship to a living person but a relationship of reliving through a kind of internalization the Activity of fundamental discovery of more than one great scientists or thinkers of the past it's in reliving that process that something is caused to be evoked

to be synthesized in our own minds which is from generation to generation the immediate cause of fundamental scientific discoveries something we call higher hypothesis in the case of Mendeleev I don't know exactly how this apprenticeship came about certainly an important role was Played by his studies at the main pedagogical Institute in st. Petersburg which was founded in 1804 and which we have reason to believe was strongly influenced by the ideas of Leibniz the Ecole Polytechnique and the Humboldt this main pedagogical Institute which trained teachers for the give nausea in Russia grouped together some of the

most extraordinary scientific thinkers in Russia at that time particularly Mendeleev's teacher the chemist A a bus cruising ski bus christiansí focused his pedagogy on what he called the Battle of ideas and science but there's another crucial piece of evidence I think demonstrating the higher hypothesis underlying men layers work which is the way he reacted to a typical British operation against continental science this is the case of the well-known British physicist crooks who in who in 1886 gave speeches and circulated writings about his supposed Hypothesis on the existence of a primordial form of material of matter

which called Pro Atilla out of which all elements are supposedly formed this was nothing more than a warmed over version of Aristotle's old first matter a shapeless featureless goo which generates a kind of foam out of which everything is supposed to come and crooks made two arguments which were unfortunately plausible to some people at that time he argued that the periodic Law of Mendeleev pointed to the unity of all forms of matter and also to a process of evolution of matter paralleling the evolution of animal species and since watchout evolution proceeds from the simpler to

the complex everything must originate from a single form of the simplest matter something that has no features whatsoever this this this this a pro tailor or primordial goo she could call it the goo goo if you go to the Princeton mathematics department they're already discussing the theory of the goo goo which is called the goo goo goo in any case in many Russians circles scientific circles there was a certain attraction to this idea and Mendeleev he hit the ceiling he was furious and he attacked crooks violently for reasons which many of his colleagues unfortunately did

not comprehend here's a quote from a colleague of Mendeleev's it's strange that dmitri mendeleev Protested against this approach of crooks which was based on Mendeleev's own periodic law I remember vividly how after a very lively meeting of the physical society we three Dmitry Ivanovich stole a Stoller Tov and I argued in too late at night over this question which at that time everyone was thinking about it thanks to the brochure by crooks throwing forward all his objections Dmitry Ivanovich who's familiar wide Modulations of voice from the lowest base to the almost unsinkable high notes signaled

to those who knew him that he was becoming angry began to turn his arguments literally ad hominem Alexander grigorevich Clementi arkadievich I beg your pardon surely you are able to recognize your own individual identity please permit also the elements cobalt and nickel to have their own personalities we looked at each other and changed the subject What's what's the point here it's the Parmenides paradox you can't solve the problem of reconciling the one in the many you can't explain the existence of individuality except from the standpoint of higher hypothesis that is from the standpoint of that

action which carries us through a series of fundamental scientific revolutions each of which involves an axiomatic discontinuity a jump of the sort we've indicated nothing less than this type of action can Qualify to be considered as a candidate for primordial substance or for substance at all if you introduce into science a species of an ocean of fundamental substance which is representable as an object of sense imagination is tiny hard balls building blocks or the primordial goo of crooks or any such notion that's compatible with the fixed formal axiomatic system if you do that then you

automatically collapse the process Of scientific discovery because the mind of the scientists becomes stuck in the axiomatic system of that quality and he's lost his grip on the higher hypothesis well now in closing I might mention that Mendeleev in addition to his denunciation of crooks fundamental substance remarked that to the extent the elements are divisible into some sort of subatomic particles people should remember that putting together those in some kind of reaction you can Call it fusion but whatever the mass of the resulting nucleus will be different from the masses of the parts that you

combined in this reaction that is of course completely understandable from the standpoint of any simple notion of substance so in closing I want to pose the question of proof how did Mendeleev know know his hypothesis is a truthful one let us say in advance before it's elaborated the entrance in essence is simple that the truthfulness of a Discovery of an individual discovery resides essentially in the higher hypothesis which generated it which is actualized in this flash of insight which we described a true or relatively true higher hypothesis is proved not by any individual laboratory experiment

or an individual discovery but by physical economy by its effect in providing the basis for a physically Negin tropic development of human society into the potentially indefinite future so the History of the last five hundred and fifty years the last period since Cruzan has demonstrated in the great burst of human creativity and productivity relative to any other period the superiority or relative truth of the higher hypothesis from which Mendeleev and others derived their discoveries and Mendeleev's life work is completely coherent with this really a ship to physical economy his life spans the period between the

the Russian-american alliance of the 1860s to the efforts of Sergey Vita period of the attempted or the actually relatively successful initial industrialization of Russia and Mendeleev was really the Dynamo of the industrial development of Russia in collaboration with Europe his early work was in agricultural chemistry continuing the work of Leibig he ran experimental farms and other activities he played a crucial role in developing the petrochemical industry in Baku he he Made an official visit to the United States in 1876 the Philadelphia Centennial Harry celebration is a close relationship to the American Chemical School leading to

Harkins he developed the industrial region of the Urals in his collaboration with vitta his works on economics his particularly a 700 page treatise on the tariff showing his studies of lists and so forth also his role in defending the industrial system against various kinds of Russia against Various kinds of attacks for example the spiritism which was spread by the British all over the parapsychology in fact it spread by the same crook crooked crooks which I mentioned before so Mendeleev represents a kind of a Promethean scientist a nation builder of a similar sort perhaps as a

Benjamin Franklin it would be important to investigate carefully what happened to the scientific tradition exemplified by Mendeleev in Russia and Ukraine and so Forth over the last 100 years scientific institutions of Russia and Ukraine continued to produce a great number of brilliant and excellent scientists and engineers rivaling certainly anything abroad in that period particularly I would mentioned vernadsky the universal scientific map mind figures such as Alexander gorga Chand so forth but at the same time we see especially in the last 25 years a clear decline we see a corrupting influence of An over emphasis on

mathematical formalism in sterile classroom and textbook forms of Education competitive examination systems as opposed to the kind of apprenticeship type of education which apparently Mendeley have had the influence of systems analysis as a formal doctrine the kind of economic theory of so-called theory and phenomena and on the other side particularly into the 1950s the Hegelian the injection of engage alien ideas Exemplified by the promotion of the so called law of transformation of quantity into quality which is a complete mystification of Mendeleev's method so we see that the scientific and intellectual leadership has been crippled in

the east by mainly British influence parallel to what happened in the West so what we most urgently need I think is the emergence of a new leadership in Russia and other nations which understands the kinds of things We've been discussing might we not imagine even not-too-distant future a revival of the alliance between Russia America and continental Europe against the evil represented by the British Empire of the mind a revival of the Russian American alliance of the 1860s against Britain which was essential to the environment in which Mendeleev worked of which he was a part why

should we allow ourselves to be destroyed for what for the sake of the peeps out Pocket Buckingham Palace might we not rather unleash once again the forces of scientific and technological progress through such things as the coming colonization of Mars the realization of controlled nuclear fusion and other forms of nuclear processes implicit in Mendeleev's work through rebuilding the infrastructure basis of the world economy by counter posing the notion of platonic higher hypothesis to the various varieties of British Empiricism now destroying the world we realize that there's a higher level of mental activity which generates the

change the improvement of method of the method by which we exist a movement toward a more perfect higher hypothesis in sense toward and intellectually and morally more perfect human race in practice that is hypothesizing the higher hypothesis kind of activity which Lyndon LaRouche exemplifies the possibility of defeating the Empire of The mind and is saving the human race rests on that kinda sighs Socratic knowledge the kind of knowledge that Lin has given us so as thankful apprentices we want to end by wishing Lin many more years of fruitful and productive life let me announce that

the panelists on tomorrow morning's panel the Palmerston zoo should come meet briefly at the podium here at the end of the session that's all all eight of you or whatever I also have another greeting this one From Zagreb in Croatia dear friends please accept my wishes for the successful and fruitful conference let me say that the efforts of the people of the Schiller Institute are and have been remarkable I appreciate very much your activities especially in explaining our world but also in bringing new lights into the drama we are living in if I may mention

the world Society of victimology is trying to help to avoid victimization in our societies and to improve human Rights for the victims of crime and victims of abuse of power if I may suggest please raise the protest against the aggressive war started by Serbia and asked for peace in Bosnia Herzegovina after seeing citizens of Sarajevo dying starving especially children after my return from Sarajevo I have proposed to all responsible to establish the airlift for the dying in Sarajevo please accept this appeal and support it it might save the life of many of the 350,000 citizens

Of the besieged city of Sarajevo god bless you sincerely doctor dr. Swann Emir Paul to pyruvic now before the introduction we have this morning we had a number of guests introduced from Russia and Eastern Europe and we can move to the East I think we hopefully we have some people here first of all from India mr. peepee guru of the All India Congress Working Committee if he's here and dr. Rajiv Tyagi and his wife mrs. Tyagi both medical doctors from India dr. Tiye he is also a leading activists in the Congress party they're here please

if you're here stand up now we also have a number of guests I won't go through but a number of guests from China delegate representing exiles from Beijing from Shanghai from Chengdu in Sichuan province and from Gwangju if they could stand up also new Shen who's one of the leaders of the party for freedom and democracy was a prisoner Political prisoner for five years in China and I won't go through all the individuals but we also have continuing in this area of the world so we have 22 fair dinkum blokes from Australia who have been

here they could stand up and many I should say many of the Australian members will be staying in the United States to organize in various parts of the country over I believe about the next month so we should have a Good fun okay now the next speaker is Dino DiPaola who will speak on astronomy as a sort of a textbook case of a failure of mathematical space time to explain causality again that is a mistake is not astronomy it's witchcraft however you will say so I would like to start by indicating that the absurdity of

our present culture situation is well illustrated by the recent opinion of some so-called scientists who not only consider useless the colonization of our Planetary system but also opposes space-based telescope observation the reason given by such brilliant brain is that with modern computer we will be easily be able to replicate models of our physical universe and work with them in virtual space instead of messing out in the real one that's an American from Boston it's not worth here to spend too much time on such insanities we experience daily the absurdity of the so-called computer generated models

the Models for the warm age God's own age recently the high sage etc the effect on the population of predictions based on such model in reality is quite paradoxical people do not believe any more such models like people at certain point it did not believe anymore the Oracle of Delphi but perhaps that is the aim of the full operation the idea is to induce people to believe that you cannot trust anything anymore that nothing is secure we are again in the world of Populism of faith in opinion in the magazine the world of your grandmother

or my grandmother which is more famous who as you remember always told you watch out kid you never know in short the world of magic it's well known what history that dominance of formal thinking because it cannot make intelligible the actual causality of events kills the notion of real intellectual rigour kills the conscient awareness in people of creative Processes the net result is to leave the domain of the so-called unknown in the end of witchcrafts the universe becomes full of holes like the modern theories of chaos always very similar to the Wizards head or in

more brutal words one could say that a modern scientist is just a constipated astrologer who has substitute a computer to the crystal ball the fact that formalism and mechanism cannot be the base for any scientific knowledge has been proved Many time and in a definite way in the 1930s by curt girdle but to simply prove the limit of formalism is not enough the trouble and real difficulty is on grasping the real implication of that mysterium or mysterium which seems always to escape any formalization that mysterium which is any attempt to have complete terrorists and consistent

models till the work of girdle the positivist materialist etc could pretend that everything in Universe could be reduced to a simple computation nothing could exist which would not be material and could not be computed after the work of gather such believe is impossible as impossible as to believe that we can square the circle so the issue becomes to try to narrow down what is that ghost which pass through any net of mathematical logical computation no matter how fine is the net used what is the phase of real causality which operate in space-time When we are

in front of our eyes the issue of the circle and the polygons as Jonathan showed before we are easily misled by the fact that we see the circle as a visible object although we cannot prove its existence by linear measurements to the polygons but when we operate with the causality which cannot be measured with no instrument of visual space-time and so cannot be made visible the issue becomes much more difficult to grasp contrary to what you think the Belief in the ghosts in the mysterium tremendum is not to be found among normal religious people but

among most of today university academicians although they call themselves agnostics or even other more complicated aims after the nineteen thirties after the discovery of quantum mechanics we saw more and more University academicians going back to read the secret books of the Rosicrucians instead of doing some work it's enough to look at the Biographies of Bohr Pauli curing Russell to see that once the mask of logical formalism and materialism is broken and it appears the mask of the Brothers was still looking for the last name the mysterium tremendous emo of Gnosticism if one will agree to

the letter of Saint Paul to the Italians concerning the issue of the unknown god one would grasp easily and profoundly why scientific thought found the so fertile ground inside the culture of Christianity to Shalt not kill was at this morning it's clear or should be saw but to discover that this is not enough and that you need also to love with all your mind with all your heart and with all yourself to discover this in it needed what an extraordinary 1994 years ago and I should advise you to reflect quietly by yourself about the nominal

contradiction love with your mind for this reason I proposed that 6th of January be named The day of science as you remember that was when the tree astrologer went to bow in front of the newborn truthfulness LaRoche's developed this morning and in recent writings the real implication to be derived from the impossibility of any formal model to replicate or even approximate the process of creativity and so even less the process of the creation I do not need to repeat it I can limit myself to illustrate one point of it I will try to use as

Pedagogical device the work of someone relatively unknown to you Blaise Pascal a French scientist who lived at the end of the 17th century is the actual inventor of the principle of modern computers he's also the crucial inspirator of the geometrical work of lab needs as well as of moon canto studied in very carefully so as you can see it was a crucial chain in the reproduction and improvement of the scientific thinking But he also was a philosopher a deep religious person and the telogen he must are not only the work of Kaplan Leonardo bottles of

Cuza it will take a full conference to illustrate all his work that's not my aim my aim is to use only one of his reflection as the underlying theme of my presentation Pascal in some modern textbook is considered part of the existentialist school because he wrote the famous and poetic sentence quote we eternal silence of the infinite Space frightens me a lot of people obviously tend to share such emotion although silent is a rare event in our world today but Pascal also added something else with which people will have more difficulty to cope quote it

is not in space that I have to look to find my dignity but in the ordering of my thinking as a simple space the universe grasps me and swallows me like a point but as a reason I grasp and comprehend it most of modern culture has lost this Sense of in transcendental power such divine gift present in human beings which makes men to be a singular event if related to simple space-time or biological processes to grasp this it's the beginning of any decent thing to illustrate what said above we will have to take a long

trip last time here as you remember threesome and one of you I spoke about the discovery of long cycles in our planetary system that is the invention of the calendar or the Reputation of astrology now I will go to go a bit further can I have the light of please visible that's our son so much loved by our ecologist but if they would know that this is just a big nuclear power they will try probably to shut it off [Applause] now this is a drawing this is the way our ordered planetary system would look like

if we could see its electromagnetic structure Now we turn off the light the Sun it's at night and we can look up the sky there we see something which we should know the milky way beautiful but extremely messy at least look so with it it's millions of Sun actually the number of the star in it it's over 200 billions now I don't know if you can see anything there I hope so still the human mind look and find some kind of older some of you which is experience the look star can recognize Easily what is

shown there that's the constellation of Orion I have not the point I cannot point out what I want but so you have to use some imagination that's Orion as you can see it with your naked eyes but now let's go up let's go inside the Milky Way and let's go to see how the star are born here we see now the nebula inside Orion that's the Orion Nebula it's extremely near to us only 1,500 light-years now you should just know That the light can travel 6,000 billions miles in one year such type of nebula is

a beautiful laboratory there is where the star are constructed this is one inner part of the Orion Nebula that's one place where we see the production of stars now we go even more inside that and there you see the beautiful green color of oxygen now think about what Jonathan just presented about chemical elements that's oxygen there is packed with all Kind of inorganic and organic products including ammonia they are in Orion we are extremely young star 500,000 years old and some if confirmed it's only 2,000 years old that's the other part of the Orion Nebula

which is at the beginning of us as a totality now all this is that you can see basically the symbol binocular not these details but the central of them this nebula now look at that horse head I don't know as I can't indicate Unfortune but it's very visible that's another part of the Ximena Bueller but that dark whole set is actually where a shockwave is producing hadees like a slowly spinning ball of gas which will condensate in formation of new stars so there is so very near to us there is a lot of activity going

on now let's visit other factories and laboratories all the time just inside our so-called Milky Way that's another one of this Factory the Rosetta Nebula it's only six Thousand light years away from us inside you see again production of star ETA Carinae you have to go to in the South you can see basically a shockwave very specific demarcation int nebula and shockwaves and again another big Factory and moreover not yet submitted to free market economy so it still produces something now let's go to the South in Sagittarius areas this is the Eagle Nebula another star

producer the Lagoon Nebula another One trifid nebula we are all the time around 5,000 light years all the time or whatever presenting now let's stay inside the Milky Way but look for other types of star factories now I don't know if you can see this with our this is again with our simple I don't know if you able to see anything but otherwise you can simply tonight look at the star by yourself and you will see easily what's called the play others on the right and on the left what's called the Constellation of Taurus extremely

near to us is the nearest it's only 60 light-years in that area you have the so-called open globular clusters opening clusters the player and the hiatus now let's see one of them with the telescope to see what it means that's what it means it's basically another type of formation of stars you can see the blue color again there typical of these situations now if you if tonight here sometime and The other binocular just look in the directional cancer and you will see a beautiful one called the presip of this type of star formation now let's

see some factory which is closing down these are the so called globular cluster again in our Milky Way they are much older bigger there are billions of years old and formed by millions of star like this one year which is in our class there are bit like dying elephant they are sterile and they have orbits extremely slow Going away from our Milky Way so the star are not only born but also they die as we just asynch but there are interesting rest of this phenomenon what are called the planetary nebulas that is the dying of

stars here we see one which exploded fifty thousand years ago still there something this is also another one twenty thousand years ago exploded and that is the most famous one that we should be it's called the Crab Nebula not for food it exploded In the year 1054 and was recorded by Chinese American Indians Arabs etc such explosion are usually a major event and moreover creates troubles for our astrologer given that suddenly one star of the zodiac disappear this happened during the Renaissance and was remarked by t jabra it's now time to grasp that the apparent

disordered the mass of star which we called the Milky Way sorry chin factor is reaching life and that it's after all not so disordered if only we Could see it not from under but from above given our budget record strain for the moment we cannot go to take a picture from outside but we know how it really looks like this is a drawing a beautiful spiral white and ordered things I said unfortunately I cannot indicate but he at the end in the outside Hartmann spiral it's where we are that's where our son is that's where

our ordered planetary system is just in one arm Very small part at that small part of the arm it what before we called the Milky Way and it looked very disordered in reality it's a very ordered cycle and that and in reality the old that cycles of our planetary system our calendar so to speak depends entirely on the activity of the galaxies as a whole whole a beautiful bounded unity we are rotating around its center in about 200 millions years but we are not alone that's another lateral drawing of the Galaxies and the position of

the Sun is just extreme of it we are not alone fiscal axis as satellites as our heart as the moon for satellites the biggest satellites you can see with your own eyes it's called the Large Magellanic Cloud you have to get invited in Australia or Latin American to see it it's also not a small spiral galaxies and inside it you see other nebulas as on the top that is other stars factory like our Orion let's call the tarantula Nebula that's another satellite all our galaxies that is some galaxies which has as as satellites other smaller

galaxies that's called the Small Magellanic Cloud also in the South 200,000 light year away very rich in young star but we have not only satellites as the earth as companion planets so along galaxies of companion galaxies the most important and easy to see with your own naked eyes is Andromeda now It's a bit difficult but you have to wait for another season and you can see in Andromeda which is extremely near to us the satellites of Andromeda to others more galaxies which you can indicate which are the satellite all Andromeda's now the interesting thing which

I think you should really grasp is that Andromeda and alone galaxies common bounding it's a kind of duet have a common bounding field which make one of them to rotate clockwise while the Other counter rotates that is a bit like the photo which I am going to show now just as an example so one of these this is just a meteorological photo but this will be the same as what's happening to the galaxies that while allowing galaxies and the satellites at a clockwise rotation Andromeda and these own galaxies as a counterclockwise rotation which is the

best proof of a common higher field so to speak for their own ordering so the galaxies is an Evolutional system with the central region a nucleus and often spiral arms and spherical Corona the arms as we saw in the case of our Milky Way is a laboratory of chemical production near the nucleus the rotation takes 20 millions years in the outer layers 200 millions I want just to show you some samples of these galaxies the first one here is 10 million light year away this in Osama or this one the same distance another type of

galaxies extremely Beautiful most of them seem to be spiral that's a bit different now the thing you should get in mind that galaxies are not that object as I showed you before they are source of enormous amount of energy which will terrorize any romantic ecologist you can see some visual impression of the car of one of these galaxies in st. hours this one you can see very easily from the photo Extremely high level eye level that's the energy in the core of the galaxies now at this point you probably begin to suspect that this is

not the end of our story that galaxies are not dead atoms in empty space as our planets are not simple ball interacting in empty space they are bounded and they are Monica Lee related to each other as if dancing nice music let me give you a first very simple example or what I mean with our monic bounding first of all before going Further I don't know if you can see it here it's actually upside down but doesn't matter you can still understand what I want to say this is water waves photograph of water waves and

you see the nodal points of the water waves now the distribution so called harmonic distribution relation of this nodal point it's data mined by the global behave of the waves and they are so-called external bounding conditions that's the same thing happen on a string Or any other wave or any other so-called field back to our galaxies now keeping that in mind here you see the interaction of two galaxies m51 Messier 51 and if it's clear from this photo but this next one will be a more clear and now in honor of Beethoven we have the

Stefan quintet now at this point of my pictures we are showing the Laxus with distance from 15 to 60 million light years now remember What is at the beginning what is a light here and we can go much much further we begin soon to lose the sense of space in terms of symbol numbers but tier 2 we still discover ordered systems familiar faces like our planetary system but this time composed of galaxies actually the ordering of our planetary system depend by the bounding condition which gather together such families of galaxies and they are old fashioned

families not educated to the OBE so they tend to be Quite patriarchal II organized here's some example this isn't so called vigo cluster 70 million light year away and I leave to you that your imagination to see what's the ordering there now as I said before each galaxies have billions of solar systems now this is so far away that even with telescope you get these kind of photos this is the Urkel s cluster 700 million light year away and use your many galaxies look like and the microscope Actually isn't it funny it's itself just part

of a higher super cluster and we could find super super cluster free world etc etc etc etc till billions of likely we have till now counted hundreds of billions of galaxies a number too big even for George Soros to speculate with this is a map of just 1 million galaxies quite an interesting organic unity but please don't focus on the circle there that is the only thing which is fictitious As you realized we are not observing you can turn on the light please now as you realized we are not observing simple distance in space we

are actually mapping time we are looking at our own past when you will look at the star tonight as I hope you will be looking at Sirius in reality you see what happened nine years ago you will be see Polaris there you see what happened during the construction of the Gothic cathedrals when you look at Andromeda you are Looking at our prehistoric age because our universe change and only because it changes we can learn something from looking at such past events but now comes the question what actually does bounce the universe then what is at

the end of that etc etc etc etc there is a final super super super super cluster which can we see well you can publicly ask that question tomorrow afternoon in the question period and somebody else would probably respond it for me in case You still need the net can we look at universe from above as we looked at our galaxies from above I guess Blasi Pascal answered already that question when we started this presentation it's necessary nevertheless to master the work of contour to make dance a bit more precise there is no possible final object

in space-time which we can identify as a bounding causality the absolute as kinda called that situation it's not there to be seen as an object cannot be reduced To none of elements which it bounds the absolute as a necessary and sufficient cause allottee is an attribute of God not of space-time said canto to miss this has been the constant mistake of all panties from some of the pre-socratic to haggle via Aristotle this is the base of the permanent paradox and this is not just a metaphysical issue but the key element of any process of discovery

which have characterized the waster This is the reason why Plato Plato as I said put at the center of this mathematical T of his mathematical teaching the issue of the intelligibility of the incremental incommensurable relations this has to be seen as a two-step side problem first one has to grasp with the impossibility of measure the bounding with what it's bounded as Jonathan showed before on the case of the circle and polygon that's the most famous example of such Impossibility called the impossibility of squaring the circle but there is a second step to grasp that's not

enough one has to establish nevertheless an intelligible relation between these two different species that is we are to establish some kind of so-called irrational or transcendental function as they are called in mathematics today this was done in particular by Plato and formalized by one of his student and direct successor contrary to the myth of Aristotle is the direct successor to the Academy that is L DOCSIS given that we have many time discussed the first issue that is the squaring of the circle I want to focus shortly a nice conclusion to the second aspect that is

the intelligibility of a function then the relation can I have the whole head please now I want just to give you a very quick set of examples without going in any detail a very heavily example of Incommensurability appeared in the impossibility to relate numerically the diagonal to the side of the square as you know from your school I don't need to repeat it but it can be done dramatically to the Peter Gordon construction as you know if you have the sides one the diagonal of that triangle it's something called square root of two which is

an irrational number now what I'm interested in one construction which ply Plato presented in one of his Dialogue he presented a geometrical construction to order a set of such irrationality and that's the construct which she did in the upper part now then you see very easily that if a B is 1 and B C is is 1 the diagonal that is a C its square root of 2 and I shall bit smart you will you can go on and see that C D is also 1 and that ad is square root of 3a E is

square root of 4 AF is square root of 5 AG square root of 7 and so on and so on You have a very simple example ordering of one type one common type of irrationalities or irrational numbers dramatically constructed if you do not understand the details you can ask your respective leaders in the locals now let's get let me give you another a second example of the same type of problem can I go back to the slide please oh yeah I have it okay just go ahead it comes now the next Oh so just at

the end Of the first where I had stopped then there is no number has now let me in the meantime that we are looking for my slides I would like to introduce the second type of a problem as an example you have to go to the end of this basically so that is what's called the projective plane projective space now you know it from your own school that is impossible to map a complete sphere on a plane as you can see from any Geographic map the distortion which you obtain the Reason is that the plane

is missing one point in respect to the sphere further rather harder we go after the universities so this is an example what you learn in any school that if you try to map a sphere on a plane there is one missing point only one missing point on the plane compared to the sphere you are not able to represent the sphere fully on the plane now still as we saw for the case of the Pythagorean system it was discovered During the Italian Renaissance that we can create a special plane called the projective plane which has the

same function as we saw on this geometrical spiral that is to make intelligible to have a metaphor or a function than the function of such impossibility of representation the projective plane again without any details and in in the logos you have many experienced people to go through this you can see that we the projective plane is the one in Center we construct a special point which is the point all on top which is not really part of the plane but nevertheless this point which is called point at infinity define the full harmonic metric in the

plane you can see this in the next slide yes that point there B even if it's represented there you can never reach it that's called the point at infinity and it is not part of the plane it's not the same as all the other point in the plane But it is the point which define the bounding condition that is the define the harmonic distribution inside the plane now you can sit here as because we are keeping at the level of image in the case of Leonardo I will use that point you see that the point

at infinity is put outside of the face and learn art is indicating out that point at infinity that limiting point or that limit is defining the harmonic rachels of the Human body that is golda means nature or other type of Rachel's which are defining the metric of space-time such point is what modern mathematic is called the limit or counter will use as an example of a trans finite point yeah you cannot see anything but if you could see it you will see the plane completely and metrically so to speak harmonically divided by a set of

three of such limiting point at infinity or such transfinite points that's an Important variation which Leonardo introduced caused by the realization of physical property of light which I cannot go in any details here but you see that the so called points breaks down and not anymore even points the so-called point at infinity I just want to show you now as concluding this example just some practical application of this as you know it was used as byproduct in painting as defining the optical vision in depending you see a Leonardo you're using to define the metric distance

impending for the perspective and there you see some final result of that okay that's the slides now let me conclude with the third example of the same type of problem which are just described with the point at infinity and with the plateau function it's called the liability on transcendental function in 1775 in devera proportion a circularly light-minutes approach the Problem of the infinite series which appear in any attempt to relate incommensurable numerical as you saw all the time when we handling these kind of paradoxes the infinite series appear all the time from space to geometry

in any other cities but lad needs taking up the concept which Plato Kooza and others are developed realized against the dominant opinion of the people around him that issue was not to focus on the infinite series per se and to attempt to reach Its limit at the end of the series with some artifact instantly said quote if we consider the totality of the series even if infinite as long as it's defined by some law of progression then we can conceive it as a totality even if not expressible by a symbol number for symbol number meant

your common want to tree or any finite combination of them such unity of multiplicity such idea as Plato called them such new number blood needs called Transcendental numbers or functions they are nothing but the same type of the harmonic unity defined by this limiting bounding condition obtained in the projective plane to the point that infinity as we saw as you've noticed from all the previous example we have had to do all the time with infinite series with maximum was all during whose bounding was an era of the same type as the element of the series

the misunderstanding of this Point led to the blunder of Koshi which reappears in modern calculus and leads to all kind of blunder in modern formal logic as well as in all other areas as expressed by Russell and others which I for term reason will skip so I just mention nominally how this arrived to this kind of paradoxes counter jerk hunter not only will grasp fully the mistake done by Cauchy and will correct it but going back explicitly and directly to Plato Cruise and lab needs Moreover will develop the way to define precisely the notion of

increasing power of such higher type of orderings whose bounding them he located on what equalled the absolute that is implicitly approved that we can have a higher hardening principle of transcendental functions but that nevertheless there is no way to represent that with any type of mathematical function the full universe wants for all I can develop any detail about this but I would like to Add that and this should have become obvious to you from the very beginning that this area of research leads directly in what is usually called theological issues and canto was indeed strongly

involved with tell audience in the catalog church and in other churches pursuing the work initiated in this field by lab needs but this specific I want to report to you about an event which linked my presentation directly what will be discussed tomorrow morning In 1869 the Pope po9 called for a new Vatican Council that provoked quite a reaction in Dhin Dhin in the International masonry which called for a so-called counter council enable among the participants of that counter council Garibaldi Victoria go etc that is the so called the matte simians Network as you will see

an ear tomorrow now this Vatican Council which will create a major freakout also in battle Russel personally the reason of that Freak out is that for the first time in part was admitted in the church official in the Constitution that God can be arrived that with the help of reason interesting the Cardinal who played a major role in that was Cardinal francelina same Cardinal will define the social politics of Pope loud loud thirteen and one which ad and will develop close correspondence and conduct with Georg Cantor the catalog church at that moment a group inside

catalog Church was responding not only to the growing positive ease but also to his twin-brother fides who negate any in connection between reason and faith so as there is no possible final formal function to describe the universe at that same level that is nerve energy to see underlying this idea of adding facts on the basis of perception which people often miss firstly British empiricism in British empiricism there's no change in the underlying assumptions the axioms Adopted for knowledge secondly there is no such thing as a fact determined by sense-perception the fact is that all sense

perception is evaluated by the human mind on the basis of certain ideas in the mind and those ideas do not come from sense perception nor are they changed by perception per se in fact I may shock you by saying no idea ever came into anyone's mind from the outside but all ideas are created from inside the mind therefore no Progress of knowledge comes as a reaction to sense perception progress of knowledge of the sort upon which our existence depends comes uniquely through the process of changing the basic assumptions upon which everything is based including the

way we evaluate so-called facts we have historical proof that such changes are necessary for human existence every society we can document historically which comes to rely on schoolboy notions of correctness Of knowledge on the equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica is doomed to collapse now this second truer criteria of the truth or the development of human knowledge which I indicate presents us with a number of apparent paradoxes one of these paradoxes might come up in the following sort of question how can you prove a form of new knowledge which contradicts the basic assumptions of existing knowledge

or maybe your own assumptions people will ask well this New knowledge or these new hypotheses what can we check it against because people habitually to British imperious empiricism and similar modes of schooling always wanting to check a proposition against something as a reflex to check whether it's the right answer well and then you have another question or paradox how can I check an idea to find out whether it agrees with human existence on this planet or not How can I do that well things are not quite so simple and the problem lies elsewhere then you

the person is thinking that is formulating the question that way the problem is the question of the way of thinking let me intensify this paradox with a kind of example which I think will be familiar to many of you we have someone in front of us some person we want to organize that person and we say look the United States is becoming a pure British Colony and the person jumps up and says that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard what could be more ridiculous as the proposition that the United States is being made into

a plantation of British controlled financial system and that were all being made slaves to that so what do we do well we try to prove what we said by going through the obvious selection of recent events the clear evidence to prove it but our friend doesn't see it that way He or she interprets events in his or her own way the same facts the same perceptions are read in a different way so as to not to arrive at the forbidden conclusions which his or her adopted assumptions forbid them to accept so we see that no

things such as distillation precipitation electrolysis centrifugation and so forth generally speaking we start with any kind of stuff and we do very various things to it to see if we can induce a separation or Differentiation of the original stuff into two or more new ones each having clearly stink characteristics so in electrolysis we separate we produce out of water oxygen and hydrogen for example and then we take those new substances which we produced by the separation of the first one and we try to do the same thing with each with each of those two and

we keep doing that trying to push the process to its most extreme limit of Differentiation Oh matter now through this kind of playful exploration chemists in fact did arrive at a limit as expected in the form of what were sometimes called simple bodies or elements substances seeming which seemingly could no longer be caused to differentiate further from ancient times a number of such elements have been identified iron copper tin lead mercury gold silver sulfur carbon about five more elements were added in the period Called the Middle Ages and then under the influence of lionesses work

in launching Industrial Revolution there occurred beginning around the 1740s and it actually during liveness time an explosive development of physical chemistry so that at the time Mendeleev graduated from the main pedagogical Institute in st. Petersburg about 64 elements chemical elements were known now I should note however before going further that there are different Opposing types of hypotheses associated with the term chemical element British empiricism has insisted for example on the supposedly self-evident axiom or idea which is still repeated unfortunately in much of our elementary education that the elements represent unbreakable ultimate building blocks of matter

who's supposed quality of reality is borrowed from the baby's earliest years in the playpen the great French chemist love Was da on the contrary adopted the more adult view that the chemical elements are singularities are changes moments of change in a search not for ultimate building blocks but for what he called the principles of matter the principle of generation of matter and Lavoisier emphasized that the separation methods of chemistry and the result of the so called simple bodies depends on technology its relative something that may appear to us to be an element or an Indivisible

substance later may become divisible through a revolution in technology which actually occurred through in it to a large degree exactly the work of man live now I just want to note to you in reference to what I said before that this British idea of the building blocks of the unbreakable hard balls or whatever it's represented is has the form of an axiomatic assumption you can't refute it by any experiment or any so-called experimental fact because If you succeed in separating what appeared to be an element then they will simply say oh yeah well we were

just made it a mistake in our facts and this element collection of empirical facts no matter how large are going to do any good in this case so we appreciate now the meaning of the statement that the British Empire like the Venetian one is an empire of the mind these people are trapped they are enslaved in the mind so what's The remedy how do we liberate enslaved my mine enslaved in this way well of course there exists a remedy otherwise we wouldn't exist man was not born to be British imperious so to find the answers

ordered to get on the right path or fruitful path I propose that we focus upon the crucial phenomenon called fundamental scientific discovery and its relationship to the desired effect of advancing human Existence that subject matter which is the center of Bin's work and in order to do that I want to discuss a kind of a cased case study I want take an example and use it as a kind of Archimedean lever and I hope that in that way we'll be able to swing ourselves progressively upward to higher levels of insight as the discussion proceeds I've

chosen for this discussion the case of the great Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev born in the 1830s 1834 I believe and he who Died in 1907 and who is known primarily for his discovery of what he called the periodic law of the chemical elements or perhaps more accurately the natural system of chemical elements which is not quite the same thing as the periodic table which is a simple formal presentation of a result of that natural system now a reason for choosing this particular example is that this discovery of Mendeleev's is central to the whole vast increase

of the Productive powers of human labor over the period of the last 100 years that Mendeleev as a person as a fascinating personality displays in a very high degree but the universal qualities of a scientist in the positive sense in the second not in the sense of an academic or schoolboy sense but in the sense of a scientist devoted to building his nation to building the world now I'm not giving a presentation on chemistry here and I'm Not aiming at being precise and details of chemistry I want to be as precise on a can about

something else and that is the internal process of discovery or some crucial features of that process of discovery which is our let us say our experimental data here not the chemistry but the process in the mind so I have to say however a few world's words about the field of physical chemistry to introduce this at the time Mendeleev Dmitri Mendeleev began his scientific Work in 1855 the central axiomatic assumption of chemistry was the notion of a chemical element this notion is associated with the idea that we cannot differentiate or divide substance down indefinitely without encountering

some kind of a limit or a boundary or as we say singularity in the specific practice of chemistry up to the time of Mendeleev the exploration of this area took the form mainly of what are called separation methods chemical separation Methods which some of you know if you did some fewer fortunate or perhaps unfortunate enough to do laboratory school laboratory work in chemistry which is method and the physical science and before I introduce the speakers and a couple of messages let me just say literally a couple of words I think the way to situate nicely

this topic LaRouche is method in the physical sciences is to recognize that the breakthrough Lyndon LaRouche made in the Development of the conception of physical economy and the conception of potential relative population density as the fundamental metric a breakthrough that he identifies occurring largely in the 48 through 52 period with the culmination of his work on riemann and contour is a breakthrough of the nature and people should reflect I think on the presentations from this standpoint that makes Lyn the last great thinker in the tradition of Plato Augustine Cuza live Nets and so forth and

by being the last the latest great thinker in that tradition he becomes in that sense the greatest thinker of that tradition and from his standpoint from the standpoint of his methodological breakthrough and his actual concrete scientific breakthroughs we have to rediscover and rethink through all that has gone before to recreate that in our own minds and to allow us to use that breakthrough to develop fundamental science we need to Do this to be able to carry out the policies the programs the science drivers the scientific research and development that is the future of the human

species so I think we have to look at the presentations from that intense a standpoint now before I introduce the first speaker let me read you a message greetings to the conference February 19th we students from Poznan Poland are acting now as the polish friends of the Schiller Institute and are sending our greetings and best wishes for the future to all participants of the Schiller Institute conference in Washington unfortunately we are not able to attend personally the present situation in Poland is very complicated although our prime minister mr. potluck seems to modify the looting policy

imposed by the IMF and World Bank there is still a very strong tendency of liberalism and monetarism in Polish political and Government circles therefore we see the necessity to present the ideas of physical economy in these decisive times we are conscious that our ideas should be spread over the country so we can happily announce that we just completed a new issue of the Polish newspaper of the Schiller Institute Nova salad Arnage [Applause] which means new solidarity and we decided to publish it more regularly now we are convinced that polish cultural And historical tradition are a

good background for our plans and that we will find the support of many people in our country which will make our work even more efficient at the end we want to express our congratulations for Lin's release from prison and we wish a lot of success for his presidential campaign Rafaela Watsky Angra kozlovsky malgorzata Krug lefse [Applause] and now I want to introduce Jonathan Tannenbaum who one I know has just completed the recently published program for China he will speak on axiomatic science and physical economy a case study dmitri mendeleev and the discovery of the periodic

law Jonathan thank you the the subject I wish to address this afternoon is reflected in the seeming paradox of the existence of two very different mutually exclusive or contradictory definitions of truth the First definition or criteria is that exemplified by the schoolboy idea of getting the right answer in school or Google and classroom the right answer relative to some system of textbook knowledge so that nothing can be accepted as true that contradicts the basic assumptions of that textbook knowledge so this is the notion of truth expressed for example in the practice of cheating at examinations

or learning how to do the experiment so you get the Answer which is in the textbook it's the notion of so-called truth expressed by political correctness or correctness that children should engage in polymorphous sexual perversion in order to demonstrate their acquisition acquiescence to what have been defined as the latest axioms of acceptable behavior in each case the truth is defined by non contradiction to some collection of assumptions either explicit or implicit which are regarded As completely evident unassailable and beyond suspicion now the second conception of truth the true one I should argue is truth as

measured against man's continuing existence on this planet truth measured in the great laboratory of human history past present and future so we test the relative truthfulness of our thinking by the success or failure of societies employing that mode of thing King to maintain and expand their Existence of course with the proviso that what may appear to be successful in the short term may be the shortest road as surest road to destruction further down the line now these two definitions are criteria for truth stand in an ironic contradictory relation to each other for it is historically

demonstrated that in order for man to have existed up to this point he had to constantly revise often in a revolutionary way his knowledge so what Was at one time defined as true or as the right answer becomes later the wrong answer entire chapters of accepted classroom knowledge are eliminated or overthrown and without that demonstrably without that man could not have progressed to a more successful ways of existing on this planet now considering these historically demonstrated revolutions I will speak of an example we should beware of a trap of the fallacy of British empiricism British

empiricism admits generally that knowledge does change but limits the development of knowledge to adding new facts or correcting facts on the basis of sense perception so the British idea of truth is to get your facts right according to the latest authoritative edition of encyclopedia britannica and the new york times now i said that there's a trap there what is the trap well there's a phallus a foul