En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

albert einstein

  • Brave New World revisited

    Modern dictatorship that Aldous Huxley tried to explain (only the quoting of Shakespeare is well done), this is revealed by the refusal of grounding moral science/laws. Where do the law come from? To where is it driving? No answer. Stupid philosopher L. Wittgenstein said something like: "It is impossible to ground Ethics." W. occultism in Moral science has to be linked with his fight against Nobel prize B. Russell when Russell decided at last to let on one side Pythagorean primary Mathematics (that seem to me made to let their users becoming crazy as a drug).

    I do regard Wittgenstein's attitude in these circumstances as the proof that he was understanding the use of the religious reflexive Milesian mathematics in dictatorship to discourage the interest of common people in Science although art is not a private property but universal; nothing is better to split Science or Art than mathematics.

    Different but not less stupid is Albert Einstein, 'pure Boeotian' who does exchange Physics against Ethics. Sole word of 'relativity' is though indicating that the 'Master's' blind jugglings are about Ethics. Christian or secular theory of 'Natural Law' is broken by Einstein's parallogism that cannot be understood out of the dictatorship context. What is the effect of dictatorship here? To make believe that Einstein is speaking about Physics.

    Absolute Law is becoming Relative Law and Relative Law is becoming Absolute Law: that's the best for dictators and their legal arsenal.


    Although he was too pusillanimous, Voltaire has been fighting since the XVIIIth century against the religious Theodicy of Leibniz that is an algebric Geodesy for modern dictatorship and its dark fate*.

    Voltaire's criticism is of course performed by more drastic of Karl Marx against G.W.F. Hegel's version of the Theodicy/Leviathan in Which Hegel makes the History move the State on a trigonometric rate (to square with the moving phenomenons to which the ethical law is supposed to be linked in theocracy -especially the "light" phenomenon, of course). Mistake of XIXth Christian mathematics and its mediocrity compared to Greek one is rather easy to understand. Binary XIXth century mathematics do believe that the circle is generated by the right line and the right line by the dot. This is the reason why Beltrami, Riemann, Einstein a.s.o, believed they improved Euclide's mathematics. But Greek knew that primary symbol is not the dot but the circle, including all the mathematical stuff that is derivating from it.

    Thanks to Leibnitz static emblematic figure (L. portrayed under the name of "Pangloss" in Voltaire's 'Candide') that capitalism recycled: "Everything is at best in the best of all possible Worlds", one can understand the interest of modern dictatorship in the hidding of Ethics understatment behind "Natural Law" fallacy. This is the best way to protect Policy and hallow it -to play the fish. The Policy is seen in modern dictatorship as a Sphere. Let say Leibniz Theodicy is a sphere to be more acurate, and Hegel's national-socialism is a metamorphic World/Sphere like in Giordano Bruno, N. de Cues or E. Kant science-fictions (Chaplin's famous stage in the "Big Dictator" where the Dictator is playing with a Globe is well done).

    Let us explorate the moral science 'ad infinitum' to protect the Tabernacle of Policy better: that is the turn of official science in Philosophy, famous in France under the name of 'Existentialism' that of course did not invented the circle or the emptyness, not even the faith in words.


    One has to understand too that modern dictatorship is not only more twisted than the old theocracy was, but that it has nothing to do with Jewish religion nor with New Testament. Modern theocracy is a typical product of the bad mixing of both (that Pope Benedictus XVI is continuating after many others before him). Under the cover of honouring Old Testament as much as the New, the mixing, no matter it is islamic or christian or inspirating secular principles, is betraying both Old and New. The theocracy celebrating Phebus is not especially of Jewish/Christian kind, but modern dictatorship devoted to Bacchus does, because of its anthropological turn, not to say 'spin'.

    - In fact, Hebrew people take their Law directly from God, throughout Moses. God is the true warrant of his Law and Moses or Josuah only his assessors. Even if there does probably exist a Jewish natural philosophy, changing Moses in Pan (cf. F. Bacon), and even if one can find the Old Testament explanation 'old-fashioned' -at least Jewish orthodoxy does not suggest the fallacy of 'Natural law' where lots of snakes are coming out.

    - Christian Testament does not trust Ethics nor proportion (that is the key of specific Christian art in Europe and has nothing to do with German F. Nitche attempt that is contrarily based on sexual obsession -as moral laws do themselves!). Jesus is beyond power and virtue. Even the more concentrated on Moral Ethics Saint Augustine must admit that "law does not justify Christian people". And plantain-tree that does not give fruits anymore must be cutted without regrets says Jesus (Plantain-tree is the deep symbol of 'Natural philosophy'/Biology from where ethics law are coming and that is the reason why trinitarian catholics cannot believe that C. Darwin is a scientist as Aristotle or Francis Bacon -and of course many others.)

    Trinity dynamic idea is unknown to the Justification trial coming from paganism anthropological turn ("What is good for God is good for the City, and contrarily"). Roman paganism more than Greek. Therefore Holly Gospels are full of Jesus' warnings against any kind of theocracy from the beginning to the end, especially in Saint John Gospel about the Revelation where the Church as a Whore drinks with Kings, surprising Revelation around which both Dante Alighieri's and Shakespeare theologies are translating).

    In fact F. Bacon had that great idea that makes him probably the strongest Christian scientist in modern time that there is no good marriage possible between Christian trinity and the paganism whose rudder is the anthropological rate. Splitted soul of freudian bad Natural philosophy for instance, is not only bad science but against Trinity dynamics too -shame on Saint Augustine to have published the same kind of theory about soul.)

    If catholic doctors from the Middle age (XIIth-XIVth) -before Marx and Bacon- grounded their Philosophy on Aristotle until the Reformation, it is no doubt partly because the best doctors found in Aristotle the antithesis of "Natural law", theodicy or theocracy principles that is not in Socratic philosophy. It is in fact not possible for Aristotle to square the moral laws that are discontinuous, binary, with ethernal Physics where there is no right middle (Notice that Aristotle's analysis of mathematics, the lesson about the incommensurability of the diagonal to one square side for example, is including more than two thousand years before A. Einstein or H. Poincaré a clear theory of 'relativity' and thus a demonstration that 'Quantic Physics' is for children.)

  • Mea culpa

    J'ai recommandé ici le bouquin de vulgarisation scientifique de Claude Allègre ("Un peu de science pour tous", T.I et II) pour les raisons suivantes :

    - c'est tellement rare qu'un laïc s'intéresse à la science et à sa diffusion dans la population, que l'initiative m'a parue devoir être saluée. A côté de ça, de l'autre côté de la Manche, un type comme Richard Dawkins répand dans le monde entier avec ses bouquins des sornettes invraisemblables sur Isaac Newton ; ajoutées aux mièvreries du Yanki Stephen J. Gould, ça commence à faire beaucoup !

    - Allègre ne sacrifie pas non plus à l'idolâtrie du théoricien raciste R. Darwin ; et ça aussi c'est méritoire vu le rôle de "saint protecteur" de l'industrie pharmaceutique joué par Darwin (Une industrie qui va s'efforcer en 2009 au prétexte de son anniversaire de redorer le blason de Darwin, dont l'auréole ne brille plus autant au sein de la communauté scientifique laïque elle-même.) Allègre souligne le plagiat de Lamarck par Darwin, plagiat complété par des principes malthusiens débiles. A l'époque même où Darwin s'inspire des grands nombres de Malthus, les vrais savants savaient déjà que ces calculs binaires étaient ineptes.

    - Le mythe (laïc) d'un Moyen-âge qui croyait que la terre était plate est également battu en brèche honnêtement par C. Allègre, même s'il eût été plus courageux encore d'avouer la raison d'une mystification historique qui perdure dans l'enseignement capitaliste.

    Mais la science laïque de Claude Allègre me semble par ailleurs souffrir d'assez graves lacunes pour que son bouquin ne soit pas laissé entre toutes les mains, contrairement à ce que le titre suggère, et en particulier entre les mains d'adolescents.

    - L'ignorance d'Allègre dans le domaine religieux fait notamment qu'il fournit à la condamnation du sombre crétin Giordano Bruno par les autorités religieuses une explication rocambolesque. C'est tout un tas de bonnes raisons qui ont entraîné la condamnation de Bruno, y compris des raisons scientifiques car on fait difficilement plus arriéré que G. Bruno en matière scientifique, sauf les insignes crétins qui aujourd'hui, en 2008, se réclament de Pythagore ou d'Anaximandre.

    - Le simple fait d'honorer Einstein comme un scientifique de génie, alors que celui-ci n'est qu'un vulgaire sophiste monté en épingle, ce réflexe trahit le fait qu'Allègre est un prêcheur laïc plutôt qu'un savant. H. Poincaré, à peine plus sérieux qu'Einstein, avait tout de même fini par admettre que la conclusion de la théorie de la relativité (générale) d'Einstein était en contradiction avec son postulat, ce qui même pour un sophisme est plutôt gênant. Les savants grecs faisaient parfois usage de sophismes, mais qu'ils maîtrisaient.

    Il faut ajouter que, comme celui de Darwin, le sort d'Einstein est lié à celui de l'industrie capitaliste et laïque. Car Einstein est avant tout "le visage souriant de l'atomisme" qui compense la propagande antinazie. Alors que sur le vil plan de la technique lui-même, Einstein n'a joué aucun rôle.

    - L'hommage à Blaise Pascal est également complètement injustifié. Au XVIIe siècle ce demi-mondain arriéré en est encore à essayer de quadraturer le cercle et ce genre d'électron libre aurait été mieux inspiré de tourner sept fois sa langue dans sa bouche avant de répandre ses petites superstitions et sa petite morale bourgeoises. Madame Bovary, c'est d'abord Pascal avant d'être Flaubert ou Nitche.

  • Un peu de science pour tous

    Il va sans dire que dans la théorie de la relativité générale "tout est relatif" sauf la théorie de la relativité générale elle même, qu'on pose en Absolu.

    Bref Einstein c'est l'Infini à la portée des caniches.