WHAT HISTORY TELLS ME ABOUT THE STATE OF PHYSICS My reading of intellectual hist

WHAT HISTORY TELLS ME ABOUT THE STATE OF PHYSICS

My reading of intellectual history suggests humans make the same mistakes over and over again, and the current paradigm in physics just radiates those mistakes.

And I am pretty sure that confirms my central thesis: that the problem of advancement in science is primarily one of costs. And that the current problem in physics is a combination of anchoring, first principle, causal (dimensional) density, and cost of conducting the research necessary to run tests rather than mathematical models.

I have seen nothing to counter most parsimonious explanation of the universe as a single medium, expressing a simple geometry, the different forces of which, are produced by different degrees of excitement (density), the apparent complexity of which is nothing more that overlapping field effects, and that the general problem of comprehension is reducible to the measurement of a subset of states ( fields, waves, particles) rather than merely densities). In other words, our attempts at deflation are causing categorical analysis that obscures the underlying symmetry.

That is not a statement about the universe. It is a statement only of observations of the categories of human error in the past, and by analysis of those errors we can look for the solution. Not in our findings, but our errors.

Meaning that in general, we have a serious problem increasing the number of dimensions we can comprehend, and the tools necessary for their comprehension. A problem which historically is solved by advances in mathematics. The applied elsewhere – endlessly for generations.

In other words I don’t need to understand much about physics to make that statement. I just need to understand that all similar problems in history follow a similar pattern.

At present the study of intermediary phenomenon (advanced mathematics) and operational patterns (computer science) appears to be providing us with slow but incremental progress in the hope of identifying patterns of causal relations that limit the variation in high causal density (high numbers of dimensions).

So I suspect that the possibility is out there. And I suspect the central problem is not awarding prizes for the solutions to this category of problem and therefore ending the incentives to reinforce the paradigm.