Where Science is Missing Out
The Reproduceability Crisis and Science's Untapped Potential
ISBN: 978-1-917403-21-4
- Preface
- The IIP-VGF Framework
- The Full Nature of the VGF
- Closure-Aware Scientific Method
- Status of the Framework
- Cause and Effect
- Quantum Entanglement
- Attractors
- The Nesting of Attractors
- Continuous Decoherence
- Coherence and Decoherence
- Nature's Recycling
- The Flow of Time
- Coherence Recovery
- Black Holes and the Big Bang
There is now a "reproducibility crisis" in many areas of science. Published experimental results may seem hugely promising but cannot be reproduced by other teams. And it's not just because people are cheating or not using proper scientific method. It's too widespread for that. In some areas of science the great majority of results are not reproducible.
There is more than one reason that you could find for this. But most importantly, it's because scientific method itself necessarily only stabilises knowledge of natural phenomena that is already redundant and stable, stable enough to survive scientific method and experimental repetition. But that doesn't mean that this is all that natural phenomena consists of. For literally hundreds of years science has been studying nature and filtering out all natural phenomena except that which literally "gets through" the scientific method "filtration system".
If nature behaves in one way during an experiment, and then in another way in a second experiment, what is going on? Current scientific method will filter that out. What seems to be a significant result, but then cannot be reproduced, gets rejected as a possibility. And that's where science loses out. The approach comes from a misunderstanding, or literally long-standing ignorance, about the nature of objectivity itself, the objectivity of natural phenomena. And that's something that is beginning to change now that we have quantum Darwinism.
The IIP-VGF framework (as shown in the book The Infinite iteration principle: Key Areas) explains this, and what to do about it. Because what is going on in science now, is that having more or less exhausted investigations of the most stable part of nature, science is now exploring the natural phenomena that has not yet stabilised. We see the same thing happening in what is now being referred to as the "Hubble crisis", in which measurements of the expansion of the universe do not agree.
In fact, we now have sufficient scientific evidence and understanding to eject the whole idea that nature is a fully fixed and totally stabilised system that is separate from us, and has effectively nothing to do with us other than that we happen to be scientifically studying it. The idea that nature is separate from the intelligence we are using to investigate it, intelligence that actually emerged through nature herself, is something the evidence strongly suggests is fundamentally mistaken. Scientific evidence itself, from palaeontology to brain science to quantum Darwinism, now points in this direction.
For a long time now science has been involved in what Key Areas explains is the "closure engineering" of natural phenomenal relations, without even realising it. Because that's what scientific method essentially is. It's a form of closure engineering. It is looking for "fixed points" in the field of natural phenomena where the method itself provides the opportunity to determine "fixed points" that have not yet become stable closures.
Scientific method itself is the very implementation of this process. But this doesn't mean that we have understood scientific method well enough to understand that this is what is going on. Because we have been working on misapprehensions about the nature of natural objectivity. Misapprehensions that are now being revised with the new, growing understanding of the nature of objectivity itself, quantum decoherence, and especially quantum Darwinism.
In the early stages of science most of what science was investigating was already fully stabilised in nature. But this is not the case anymore. It's not that nature is losing her objectivity. It's that what is available to become the objective scientific knowledge of nature's objectivity, is a far greater field than can be discovered using current scientific method alone. Method that ignores the mechanism of closure. Science's closure engineering has to become conscious and deliberate. Because nature has far, far more to offer, than what can currently be discovered with scientific method as it stands.
There is more than one reason that you could find for this. But most importantly, it's because scientific method itself necessarily only stabilises knowledge of natural phenomena that is already redundant and stable, stable enough to survive scientific method and experimental repetition. But that doesn't mean that this is all that natural phenomena consists of. For literally hundreds of years science has been studying nature and filtering out all natural phenomena except that which literally "gets through" the scientific method "filtration system".
If nature behaves in one way during an experiment, and then in another way in a second experiment, what is going on? Current scientific method will filter that out. What seems to be a significant result, but then cannot be reproduced, gets rejected as a possibility. And that's where science loses out. The approach comes from a misunderstanding, or literally long-standing ignorance, about the nature of objectivity itself, the objectivity of natural phenomena. And that's something that is beginning to change now that we have quantum Darwinism.
The IIP-VGF framework (as shown in the book The Infinite iteration principle: Key Areas) explains this, and what to do about it. Because what is going on in science now, is that having more or less exhausted investigations of the most stable part of nature, science is now exploring the natural phenomena that has not yet stabilised. We see the same thing happening in what is now being referred to as the "Hubble crisis", in which measurements of the expansion of the universe do not agree.
In fact, we now have sufficient scientific evidence and understanding to eject the whole idea that nature is a fully fixed and totally stabilised system that is separate from us, and has effectively nothing to do with us other than that we happen to be scientifically studying it. The idea that nature is separate from the intelligence we are using to investigate it, intelligence that actually emerged through nature herself, is something the evidence strongly suggests is fundamentally mistaken. Scientific evidence itself, from palaeontology to brain science to quantum Darwinism, now points in this direction.
For a long time now science has been involved in what Key Areas explains is the "closure engineering" of natural phenomenal relations, without even realising it. Because that's what scientific method essentially is. It's a form of closure engineering. It is looking for "fixed points" in the field of natural phenomena where the method itself provides the opportunity to determine "fixed points" that have not yet become stable closures.
Scientific method itself is the very implementation of this process. But this doesn't mean that we have understood scientific method well enough to understand that this is what is going on. Because we have been working on misapprehensions about the nature of natural objectivity. Misapprehensions that are now being revised with the new, growing understanding of the nature of objectivity itself, quantum decoherence, and especially quantum Darwinism.
In the early stages of science most of what science was investigating was already fully stabilised in nature. But this is not the case anymore. It's not that nature is losing her objectivity. It's that what is available to become the objective scientific knowledge of nature's objectivity, is a far greater field than can be discovered using current scientific method alone. Method that ignores the mechanism of closure. Science's closure engineering has to become conscious and deliberate. Because nature has far, far more to offer, than what can currently be discovered with scientific method as it stands.