Krzysztof Zawisza [i]
I. Serious Problems with Publishing of a Serious Scientific Discovery
As it is noted by some modern physicists, since at least the 1980s, physics in the field of basic research has practically ceased to develop[ii]. This is a dangerous state of affairs that can lead to – and already leads to – a halt to technological progress[iii], which in turn may cause the collapse of our human civilization. In this situation, there is an urgent need to answer the question about the reasons for this inhibition in the development of physics, which until recently was our basic science.
Looking for an answer to this question, I will start from telling my own story. In July 2000 I accidentally came across the surprising to me (but, as it turned out, logically necessary, i.e. not accidental) thought that random spatial distributions of elements cannot exist. This means that, for a purely logical reason, there must be either an explicit or hidden (but ascertainable) order in any spatial distribution of material elements in the universe. In the course of my further work, this thesis turned out to be a special (and spatial) case of the more general thesis stating that independent (i.e. not related to each other) events cannot really exist. It is a simple consequence of the onto-logical fact of the Universe’s unity[iv], i.e. the fact that the universe is uni-versal[v].
While working on scientific articles on this topic over the next few years, I noticed, inter alia, what follows. If we pour in a completely random (i.e. accidental) way grains of sand on a spherical ball covered with glue, then after a sufficiently long time we will obtain a pentagonal pattern on the surface of the ball from these grains of sand [e.g. a flat table cannot be tightly covered with pentagons due to the value of the apex angles of the pentagon, therefore it should be a spherical surface]. This beautiful result is due to the fact that a regular pentagon, the construction of which is based on the simplest possible proportion (the golden proportion), is the simplest possible flat figure; it therefore represents the simplest possible order in the distribution of elements on a two-dimensional surface. In the course of several years of work, I also realized that the rule I discovered was already qualitatively predicted by G.W. Leibniz, who noticed that absolute chaos cannot actually be realized. As a result of random process, only the simplest, i.e. minimal, order is allowed. In his Discourse on Metaphysics, Leibniz stated:
“That God does nothing which is not orderly, and that it is not even possible to conceive of events which are not regular. The activities or the acts of will of God are commonly divided into ordinary and extraordinary. But it is well to bear in mind that God does nothing out of order. Therefore, that which passes for extraordinary is so only with regard to a particular order established among the created things, for as regards the universal order, everything conforms to it. This is so true that not only does nothing occur in this world which is absolutely irregular, but it is even impossible to conceive of such an occurrence. Because, let us suppose for example that some one jots down a quantity of points upon a sheet of paper helter skelter, as do those who exercise the ridiculous art of Geomancy; now I say that it is possible to find a geometrical line whose concept shall be uniform and constant, that is, in accordance with a certain formula, and which line at the same time shall pass through all of those points, and in the same order in which the hand jotted them down; also if a continuous line be traced, which is now straight, now circular, and now of any other description, it is possible to find a mental equivalent, a formula or an equation common to all the points of this line by virtue of which formula the changes in the direction of the line must occur. There is no instance of a face whose contour does not form part of a geometric line and which can not be traced entire by a certain mathematical motion. But when the formula is very complex, that which conforms to it passes for irregular. Thus we may say that in whatever manner God might have created the world, it would always have been regular and in a certain order. God, however, has chosen the most perfect, that is to say the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypotheses and the richest in phenomena, as might be the case with a geometric line, whose construction was easy, but whose properties and effects were extremely remarkable and of great significance”[vi].
As the well-known Polish commentator and expert on Leibniz’s work, Jerzy Perzanowski (1943 – 2009) wrote on this subject:
„All wholeness, or united multiplicity, presupposes organization, and therefore some order. This does not mean that this order actually precedes the whole, but that it is its necessary condition, i.e. without it there is no whole […]. If what is given is ordered, then also what is unknown, hidden beyond phenomena, is the domain of a hidden order. Order indicates order. Since order prevails in the world around us, everything is in fact a domain of order. There is order even beyond the chaos”[vii].
Thus – according to Leibniz and according to rules of logic – in every logically conceivable “randomness” there must be a regularity.
This applies in particular to the spatial distribution of elements. Each spatial layout has its own appearance; and having an appearance, therefore, it has some structure. And each structure is – in other words – a more or less complex order. The most complex (the most complicated) order is the most difficult to comprehend and notice – so such an order can give the impression of chaos. However, the most complex structures are also those with the most order (because they consist of the greatest number of simple orders). Paradoxically, therefore, the least order (and therefore the most chaos) is placed in those structures in which this order can be most easily (i.e. most simply) perceived.
Thus, the most chaotic structures are those of the simplest (i.e. the most obvious) order.
The figure below is an illustration of the above analysis.
The existence of order in everything that exists is related to the fact that reality in general and the physical universe in particular is One.
For a long time, perhaps from the dawn of human thought, there have been two different ways of seeing the universe as a united whole but made up of many elements. The first of these ways is expressed by the well-known contemporary English physicist John D. Barrow, who wrote:
“There is no logical reason for forbidding the existence of any incommensurable and arbitrary elements in the universe that would have no connection with the rest”[viii].
The representative of the opposite view was G.W. Leibniz (a past German high IQ thinker), when he stated: “There is absolutely no such thing that cannot be attributed to some real mark transferred from another thing, at least by comparing and establishing a ratio”[ix]. According to the above sentence, the German mathematician and philosopher formulated the Principle of the Universal All-Union: in the Universe everything is related to everything[x]. As Perzanowski wrote, in a direct relation to that Leibniz principle:
„[…] no direct relationship is also a relationship”[xi].
Upon closer examination of the problem, we must conclude that the (onto)logical unity of the universe excludes the existence of independent, mutually unrelated processes and phenomena. For in order to state that “some elements of the universe have no connection with the rest”, these elements need to be compared with that rest. And to compare some things means to equal them in some respect, that is to see their mutual identity in some aspect.
For this reason, the discovery that I managed to make and a paper that I wrote in relation to this discovery, although it belongs to the technical field of exact sciences, also has far-reaching philosophical consequences. It scientifically shows, among other things, that everything in the Universe is connected with all other things of the Universe and with the Universe as a whole [i.e. with the Universe as such]. And since everything exists in relation to a whole, everything has its context, its content and its meaning. And since the universe has some meaning, it also has some sense, significance and purport. Since it has its purport, it has also got its purpose.
While working on the article, I put it up for discussion in Poland, where it received – after long discourse and deliberations – very good, official opinions and reviews from several professors (an astronomer, a physicist, a statistician, and a probabilist-mathematician) from various scientific institutions. What was disturbing about these discussions was that well-known and respected professors needed long explanations and complex discussions in order to understand the simple scientific idea of universal order. Anyway, the end reviews resulted in considerable interest in my work, shown, among others, by the rev. prof. Józef Życiński – the Metropolitan Archbishop of Lublin, in whose doctoral seminar I attended at that time – and of his friend, the famous cosmologist and philosopher of science, rev. prof. Józef Heller, later recipient of the Templeton Prize. They advised me to send as soon as possible a few articles regarding this discovery to various scientific journals – some of them to Polish scientific periodicals and another of them abroad – and to ask the editors of foreign scientific journals to appoint both of them as referees.
However, two articles prepared by me for the domestic scientific market (one in Polish language, one another – in English) were kept for a long time by the relevant editorial offices with the information that their reviewers were constantly asking for additional time to think over, and finally – without giving any purpose – they were rejected [as I wrote to the editors then, the longer someone reflects on what they are afraid of, the more they are afraid of it].
However, in July 2006, I sent the finished and polished article to Nature Journal. I proved the discovery presented in this article in detail, both from the theoretical point of view and on the basis of rich empirical material, by performing many statistical tests. Before sending it to Nature, I showed the article to a few Polish physicists and astronomers, among whom it gathered good opinions as (according to them) “very reliable and meeting all scientific criteria”. However, the editors of Nature – after a long and unregulated delay – sent me an e-mail congratulating on an important interdisciplinary discovery, but refusing to send the article for review and advising me to send it to a specialist journal [sic!]. Their justification was allegedly too large the volume of the article [which was not true – Nature has published and usually publishes texts significantly longer than mine, and at the same time less innovative, i.e. with less important content]. The second “argument” was that the article was allegedly too difficult for the readers of Nature: “not of general understanding” [that is, as my uncle prof. Józef Zwisłocki, former Nobel Prize candidate in physics, commented at the time – “apparently the article was a text not for idiots”].
When rev. rev. prof. prof. Życiński and Heller found out about the negative response from Nature, they immediately tacitly withdrew their support for the work and stopped contacting its author. The Polish professors who previously reviewed my work proposed then that the article for Nature be published in Poland in some local university journal. However, I did not agree to this, on the assumption that – since the discovery is so fearful for academics – if it’s not published in a leading and well-known scientific periodical, it will be left unsaid [and an article once published in a low-level journal could no longer be published in a lead one][xii].
Because the editors of the leading scientific journal, Nature, sent me their response on the level of illogic gibberish [which was expressed, among others, by advice to send an interdisciplinary text to a specialist journal] this prompted me to reflect on the general condition of modern science in detail, and the ability of today’s scientists to think logically in general. Together with my assistants [Dr. Piotr Kowalski, UMCS; Karol Modro, UKSW] we continued our work on the theory presented in the not-published article. Subsequent statistical tests, performed by them on the new rich empirical material, gave results consistent with the theses contained in the article and again proving the correctness of these theses.
Some important results of the work on the Rule of Chance have been published in the form of a popular presentation in Polish language on the website of the Philosophy of Nature Section of the Catholic University of Lublin[xiii] and on the website of the philosophical magazine Gnosis.[xiv]
The entire paper and its reviews can be found on my homepage [xv].
One of the important consequences of the discovery of the Rule of Chance will now be the creation of Morphomatics – a science dealing with the occurrence of certain geometric shapes and arithmetic proportions in nature – the need for which is postulated by the famous British mathematician Ian Stewart[xvi].
Joanna Łopusińska, a Polish author of thriller books, has written a novel (in Polish) “Zderzacz. Opowieść zimowa” [“The Collider. A Winter Tale”], the plot of which takes place today in Switzerland (incl. in CERN), and the background of which is my discovery of the Rule of Chance. This novel was published by the largest Polish publishing house W.A.B. on 2022.01.26.[xvii] At the end of the novel there is a link to the article on my discovery [in English]. Maybe in this way (the novel will be filmed within next 2 years) it will be possible to prevent further concealment of the scientific discovery that people need today to know.
II. The serious problems with frivolous science
Above all, however, I dealt with the reflection on an essence, a timeless character and current – i.e. temporary – state of science. As the years have passed, I have seen how people perceive more and more the stalling of progress in basic research, the negative (and potentially catastrophic) consequences of this lack of that progress, and at the same time it is obvious that none of the decisionmakers responsible for the development of science can do anything about it.
I came to the conclusion that the main reason for this indolence of making discoveries, and the inability to accept new important theoretical findings constantly made, is neither bad will of scientists, nor some (as is sometimes believed) “game of interests”.
The cause of the current crisis in basic research is the far-reaching democratization of institutional science in recent times. Its consequence is a sharp increase in the number of scientists in the world. Thus, in turn, results in a sharp decline in the average intelligence of scientists, and therefore also – in decline in the intelligence of scientific decision-makers [because decision-makers in a given social field must today be selected or accepted by most numerous, i.e. by average representatives of that field and must be understandable to them] [xviii].
This fact is so shockingly obvious that no one has yet paid enough attention to it. Shocking obviousness (as Plato already noted in his cave myth) shocks the eyesight and causes blindness[xix].
This process of a sharp increase of stupidity of a statistical representative of modern science, the result of which is to stop scientific progress, is briefly described in my article posted on LinkedIn[xx].
Meanwhile, stopping down progress in basic research has disastrous results. We stop understanding the Universe and the truth about the Universe (we start now to live in a world of post-truth). Human consciousness stops developing. This results in a growing plague of mental disorders[xxi] and an increasing suicide rate[xxii] (people with high intelligence are able to combine these facts in their minds and perceive their mutual influence).
Technical progress also turns into regression. In view of the depletion of fossil fuels, humanity is trying to switch to the so-called natural sources of energy, but they are on average 5 times less efficient than fossil fuels and will never replace the fossil fuels fully. We want to replace internal combustion cars with electric ones, but we know now there are not enough rare metals in the whole world to be able to build enough batteries for these cars[xxiii]. We have long stopped flying to the Moon and flying supersonic planes across the Atlantic Ocean. We are again and again deluded by the new announcements of a manned expedition to Mars, but modern launchers used by NASA or by Space-X have worse parameters and are more prone to failure than the Saturn V rocket from the 1960s – the rocket that people flew to the Moon We have seemingly better, but in fact keeping getting worse tablets and smartphones [compare the simple in design, but with many important functions and good applications, the Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 tablet with the current complicated, unwieldy and not suitable for scientific or artistic work smartphones-tablets of the Z Fold series or the phablets Galaxy Tab S].
In the absence of new, more effective technologies and, consequently, in the absence of real technical progress, this progress is feigned and branded by making any kind of change. Mostly, however, this change is for the worse.
Worse still, because of the ever lower average intelligence of decision makers, no one of them interconnects all these facts within their minds, and almost everyone seems to miss them, living in an illusory world of apparent comfort. If we don’t do anything about it quickly, it will be a disaster.
Such a disaster was presented in a futuristic vision by David Mitchell (the famous author of the Cloud Atlas) placed in his novel The Bone Clocks. As Larry Elliott wrote in The Guardian:
“The final chapters of The Bone Clocks, David Mitchell’s 2014 novel, describe a future in which progress has gone into reverse. In 2043, the fossil fuel age is over: nuclear power stations are melting down, there is no access to the electricity grid and solar panels are so prized that they are looted […]. Internet coverage is patchy, food and consumer goods are scarce, and life‑saving drugs such as insulin are hard to come by”[xxiv].
If the answer to the obvious depletion of effective energy sources is not to search for new, more efficient energy sources by discovering new laws of physics, but to replace them with less efficient sources, and also to reduce energy consumption (e.g. by projected reduce the number of private cars driving around the world) it is a clear sign of regressive thinking that will lead to the death of civilization. This is how Isaac Asimov described in 1942 the process of dying of the futuristic Galactic Empire:
“ ‘It’s the whole Galaxy. Pirenne heard Lord Dorwin’s idea of scientific research. Lord Dorwin thought the way to be a good archaeologist was to read all the books on the subject — written by men who were dead for centuries. He thought that the way to solve archaeological puzzles was to weigh the opposing authorities.’ […].
He went on: ‘And you men and half of Terminus as well are just as bad. We sit here, considering the Encyclopedia the all-in-all. We consider the greatest end of science is the classification of past data. It is important, but is there no further work to be done? We’re receding and forgetting, don’t you see? Here in the Periphery they’ve lost nuclear power. In Gamma Andromeda, a power plant has undergone meltdown because of poor repairs, and the Chancellor of the Empire complains that nuclear technicians are scarce. And the solution? To train new ones? Never! Instead they’re to restrict nuclear power.’
And for the third time: ‘Don’t you see? It’s Galaxywide. It’s a worship of the past. It’s a deterioration — a stagnation!’”[xxv].
In the twenty-first century, when human civilization’s response to resource depletion is only ever greater saving and switching to less and less efficient technologies, the analogy with Asimov’s description of the collapse of civilization is striking. Purely defensive strategies must always lead to failure in the end. For example, “worship of the past” does not allow today to correct, to supplement and to develop great theories of mathematics and physics – like Cantor’s theory of infinity or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity – although the need to develop these theories is obvious to intelligent people[xxvi] [how to fill the main gaps and inconsistences in the above-mentioned theories I show in my book].
In The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia,[xxvii] a novel published 30 years after Asimov’s short story, another famous SF writer, Ursula K. Le Guin, described the world in which a utopian social system is sustained with the overarching goal of equality and stability. The price you pay for it is stagnation, the fear of being truly different, the cult of grey. In an ant society, genius is hardly needed, even a suspect. However, a genius scholar is the protagonist of the novel[xxviii].
III. “We do not inherit the earth from our fathers, we are borrowing it from our children”
It is very likely that if we still do nothing with it, the world of our children and grandchildren will be like the world described by I. Asimov, U.K. Le Guin and – as the ultimate consequence – like that one described by David Mitchell.
Therefore, I am asking the high IQ persons with a sufficiently high intelligence quotient (IQ 175+ SD15) – especially those of them who are interested in exact sciences – to take responsibility for the further development of science. High mental abilities are expressed not only in mathematical skills, but also – not to a lesser extent – in the talent to distinguish good from evil (mathematics is the same as metaethics[xxix]), and thus in the ability to take responsibility for the world we live in and use.
In my already mentioned book, I included the project of establishing the Syncritic Institute, which role will be to unite and support the creative effort of high IQ individuals for the good of people. This is not for us. We may not see true effects of our work. But if we now start working solidly and honestly and use our high IQ talents, instead of burying them[xxx], we will create a better world for our children. And for their children.
And for the children of their children.
If we don’t do this, their future will die.
* * *
That’s my story. And my reflection. If you’d like to know another story about an extraordinary woman, who was listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the most intelligent person on Earth, whose vicissitudes of life, however, lead to a similar reflection, just click here.
[i] This text is a bit changed introductory chapter of my book, entitled “How to construct high IQ math, create new superior physics and gain control over space and time in the next 20 years”.
[ii] See: Smolin, L. The Trouble with Physics. The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science and What Comes Next, Boston – New York 2006.
[iii] Carlson, N. “Other Than in Computers, Civilization Basically Stopped Progressing in the 1960s”, Business Insider, Jun 10, 2012, 3:22 PM, https://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6?IR=T.
[iv] Cf. Plato, Timaeus, 31 b: „Wherefore, in order that this Creature might resemble the all perfect Living Creature in respect of its uniqueness, for this reason its Maker made neither two Universes nor an infinite number, but there is and will continue to be this one generated Heaven, unique of its kind” [Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9 translated by W.R.M. Lamb, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925].
[v] Or “uni-(re)versal”, turning unity into multiplicity and vice versa.
[vi] Leibniz, G.W. Discourse on Metaphysics, Transl. George R. Montgomery, in: DISCOURSE ON METAPHYSICS, CORRESPONDENCE WITH ARNAULD AND MONADOLOGY, THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY, CHICAGO, 1902.
[vii] Perzanowski, J. Teofilozofia Leibniza, in: G.W. Leibniz, Pisma z teologii mistycznej, Kraków 1994, pp. 268, 301 [my own eng. transl.].
[viii] Barrow, J.D. Theories of Everything, Ballantine Books, October 20 1992.
[ix] Leibniz, G.W. “First Truths”, In: Loemker L.E. (ed.) Philosophical Papers and Letters, The New Synthese Historical Library (Texts and Studies in the History of Philosophy), vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht, 1989.
[x] Perzanowski, J. op. cit., p. 266.
[xi] Ibid. [my own transl.].
[xii] A Ukrainian mathematician, prof. Alexey Stakhov [known for discovering the Harmony Mathematics], at the time, offered to publish that article on his Internet portal, but I did not agree to it for the same reasons [the work would not be taken seriously].
[xiii] https://www.kul.pl/files/57/seminarium/zawisza_prezentacja.pdf.
[xiv] https://www.gnosis.art.pl/e_gnosis/paradygmat_wyobrazni/zawisza_synchronicznosc/zawisza_synchronicznosc01.htm.
[xv] www.krzysztofzawisza.com .
[xvi] Stewart, I. Nature’s numbers, Trafalgar Square, 1995.
[xvii] https://www.newsweek.pl/thriller-i-fizyka-to-polacznie-idealne/ltynl1n.
[xviii] Gastfriend, E. “90% of All the Scientists That Ever Lived Are Alive Today”, Future of Life Institute, https://futureoflife.org/2015/11/05/90-of-all-the-scientists-that-ever-lived-are-alive-today/?cn-reloaded=1.
[xix] See: Plato, Rp. 514a–520a.
[xx] Zawisza, K. Are Contemporary Scientists High IQ Persons or Low IQ People?, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/contemporary-scientists-high-iq-persons-low-people-krzysztof-zawisza/.
[xxi] Solomon-Maynard, M. “10 Surprising Mental Health Statistics From 2020”, Mental Health First Aid, November 5, 2020, https://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org/external/2020/11/10-surprising-mental-health-statistics-from-2020/.
[xxii] Madhumita, P. “World not on track to reduce suicide mortality rate by 2030 : WHO”, DownToEarth, Monday 21 June 2021.
[xxiii] Cf. https://android.com.pl/news/240370-baterie-litowo-jonowe-surowce/.
[xxiv] Elliott, L. „Can the world economy survive without fossil fuels?”, The Guardian, Wed 8 Apr 2015 06.00, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/08/can-world-economy-survive-without-fossil-fuels.
[xxv] Asimov, I. “Foundation”, in: Astounding. Science Fiction, Vol. XXIX, No. 3, May 1942.
[xxvi] Cf. Drożdżyński, J. „A Revision of the Principle of Relativity”, Physics Essays, 26, 2 (2013).
[xxvii] Le Guin, U. The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia, New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row, 1974.
[xxviii] Salvatierra, V. Why everyone should read The Dispossessed, Jun 21, 2018, https://medium.com/@ValeSalvatierra/why-everyone-should-read-the-dispossessed-eee7a55941cf.
[xxix] Clarke-Doane, J. Morality and Mathematics, Oxford University Press, 2020. Cf. Clarke-Doane, J. “Morality and Mathematics: The Evolutionary Challenge”, Ethics , Vol. 122, No. 2 (January 2012), pp. 313-340.
[xxx] Cf. Matthew 25:14-30.