Pathological Science #2 - Binary Universe

Pathological Science #2 - Binary Universe

Binary Universe Pathological Science

(PD) Two spiral galaxies - NASA.

Larry Neal Gowdy

Copyright ©2017-2021 - update February 12, 2021

█   █   █   █

The four rectangles represent four binary states. Binary states are on or off, nothing else. Binary states are not connected in any manner whatsoever. The state of one does not influence the state of another. There is no magnetic flux nor anything else whatsoever between each binary state. The only information within each binary state is that it is either on or off relative to the observer. The universe, all magnetic flux, all kinetic force, and all observers cannot be created upon binary states if binary states do not influence other binary states nor have observers to interpret the binary states.

There are individuals who claim that the universe was formed upon binary states, and the individuals also claim that their theory is science. The binary universe theory meets Irving Langmuir's symptoms of pathological science #3 - claims of great accuracy, #4 - fantastic theories contrary to experience, #5 - criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment, and #6 - ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Another theory of a 'binary creation of the universe' is of two large masses that collided when the universe was young. This type of 'binary' merely implies a duality, two, and has no relativity to the origins of the universe because matter and kinetics must already exist before masses can collide.


The double arc less-than and more-than symbols represent analog fields. Analog fields move and always influence all other analog fields that are touched — always. Analog carries an unlimited potential for information (influence) carried within each analog wave. Information can be exchanged and evolved between analog waves. A three-dimensional universe and everything in it can be created with analog.

As mentioned previously, according to some scientific theories and a few bizarre imaginations — Mermaid Syndrome — it has been claimed that the universe came into existence through binary states. Some of the theories have been misunderstandings of what a Researcher was hoping to convey, but the binary idea is at the heart of mathematics, science, and normal human reasoning: conclusions are made through the use of two-dimensional binary yes-no answers.

"These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions." (The Science of Things that Aren't So, Irving Langmuir, Colloquium at The Knolls Research Laboratory, December 18, 1953, transcribed and edited by R. N. Hall)

It is almost universal for humans to form yes-no conclusions, but just because many people think similar thoughts, it does not mean that the thoughts are correct. When normal two-dimensional human reasoning is applied to scientific theories, the theories become pathological science.

Illustrative of two-dimensional thinking is that most individuals sincerely do believe that everyone must be a theist, an atheist, a monotheist, a polytheist, an agnostic, or one of the several other -ists and -isms. Some years ago, an individual asked which I was, and when I answered none, the individual did not understand how it could be possible for anyone to not be one of the 'yes/no' -ists. The experience was interesting to me because it so clearly illustrated the common human tendency to interpret everything within two-dimensional axioms of either-or states.

Two-dimensional thinking dominates science and western philosophy, including the modern scientific hypothesis that the universe was created upon binary states. The binary hypothesis is peculiar to those of us who do not think two-dimensionally, but perhaps it should be expected that individuals who think two-dimensionally would, of course, create two-dimensional interpretations of Reality.

One of man's interpretations of Reality is found within binary code. Binary code has many good uses — including computer hardware and software — but binary does not exist except within man's imaginations of up-down, left-right, yes-no, on-off, etc.. There is always something in-between locations and actions, and never is there a true binary. A wall may always be measured to be of specific binary heights and widths, but mathematical points and mathematical measurements cannot detect the wall itself. Binary data in electronics relies on analog voltages and magnetics that must progress from one field strength to the next: binary code may count the peaks of the fields, but the fields themselves never magically come into existence at high strengths without first having analog progressions from low strengths.

"Binary is like a digital square wave where information is measured from only one of two possible scales; on or off, up or down, 1 or 0, true or false. Binary information does not interact with other binary information, each bit of information is an individual with no contact with other individuals. Binary cannot combine nor self-create concepts. ...Binary is unidirectional, it can only occur at one bit of information at a time, and proceed in a sequence following one timeframe after the other. In other words, binary can only progress from a past time to a future time, it has no capacity for flowing from the future to the present. ...if we were binary-based we would be consuming binary information resources faster than we would be solving them. We are not talking about just a few trillion bits of information lost per second, we are talking universe-fulls of binary losses every instant." (Reality, Larry Gowdy, 2003, Woven Strings Publishing)

It would appear reasonable to expect people to cross-light the obviousness that binary on-off states are not connected, and thus, binary cannot possibly under any circumstances ever be the source of Reality, but apparently a lot of people only think within two-dimensional frames of mind, and since their thoughts have no vertical durations relative to linear markers, then their on-off thoughts are never cross-lighted.

The stupid person, whether depicted in literature, proverb, or the ephemeral joke column, is always (and justly, it would seem) characterized by a huge tolerance for absurd contradictions and by a blunt sensitivity for the fine points of a joke. Intellectual discrimination and judgment are inferior. The ideas do not cross-light each other, but remain relatively isolated. Hence, the most absurd contradictions are swallowed, so to speak, without arousing the protest of the critical faculty. (The Measurement of Intelligence — An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale, Lewis M. Terman - Professor of Education Stanford Junior University, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1916)

A very popular scientific theory is that brains function with binary sparks between cells. It is claimed that the binary sparks can somehow store information, communicate information, and create the thing called consciousness. The scientific theory denies the science of physics — as well as commonsense — but the theory is very popular and taught in science books. Binary code means nothing and can do nothing without an analog source to interpret and make use of binary code. All competent electronics techs know it, all competent Researchers know it, even children in junior high physical science classes know it, but apparently not all 'expert' biologists know it.

The three-dimensional universe known to man is analog, of continuously flowing ripples of fields, and the act of counting the peaks of the ripples does not make the universe binary, except within man's two-dimensional imagination.

John Wheeler's 'It from Bit'

John Wheeler's 'it from bit' theory is a useful example of illustrating how individuals form conclusions that are correct relative to the method of calculation, but incorrect relative to Nature. The following quotes are highly abbreviated, but hopefully enough to help illustrate the thought-processing that derived Wheeler's conclusions. I recommend that individuals read the full paper so as to better observe how Wheeler presented his ideas.

"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.

Three examples may illustrate the theme of it from bit. First, the photon. With polarizer over the distant source and analyzer of polarization over the photodetector under watch, we ask the yes or no question, "Did the counter register a click during the specified second?" If yes, we often say, "A photon did it." We know perfectly well that the photon existed neither before the emission nor after the detection. However, we also have to recognize that any talk of the photon "existing" during the intermediate period is only a blown-up version of the raw fact, a count.

The yes or no that is recorded constitutes an unsplitable bit of information. A photon, Wootters and Zurek demonstrate, cannot be cloned.

As second example of it from bit, we recall the Aharonov-Bohm scheme to measure a magnetic flux. Electron counters stationed off to the right of a doublyslit screen give yes-or-no indications of the arrival of an electron from the source located off to the left of the screen, both before the flux is turned on and afterward. That flux of magnetic lines of force finds itself embraced between - but untouched by - the two electron beams that fan out from the two slits. The beams interfere. The shift in interference fringes between field off and field on reveals the magnitude of the flux...

Not only in electrodynamics but also in geometrodynamics and in every other gauge-field theory, as Anandan, Aharonov and others point out the difference around a circuit in the phase of an appropriately chosen quantum-mechanical probability amplitude provides a measure of the field. Here again the concept of it from bit applies. Field strength or spacetime curvature reveals itself through shift of interference fringes, fringes that stand for nothing but a statistical pattern of yes-or-no registrations.

...In this spirit I, like other searchers attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues, and here present a wider overview, taking for working hypothesis the most effective one that has survived this winnowing: It from bit. Otherwise put, every it - every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself - derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely - even if in some contexts indirectly - from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.

...What are we to say about that weld of space and time into spacetime which Einstein gave us in his 1915 and still standard classical geometrodynamics? On this geometry quantum theory, we know, imposes fluctuations. Moreover, the predicted fluctuations grow so great at distances of the order of the Planck length that in that domain they put into question the connectivity of space and deprive the very concepts of "before" and "after" of all meaning. This circumstance reminds us anew that no account of existence can ever hope to rate as fundamental which does not translate all of continuum physics into the language of bits.

We will not feed time into any deep-reaching account of existence. We must derive time - and time only in the continuum idealization - out of it. Likewise with space.

...Doesn't this it-from-bit view of existence seek to elucidate the physical world, about which we know something, in terms of an entity about which we know almost nothing, consciousness? And doesn't Marie Sklodowska Curie tell us, "Physics deals with things, not people?" Using such and such equipment, making such and such a measurement, I get such and such a number. Who I am has nothing to do with this finding. Or does it? Am I sleepwalking? Or am I one of those poor souls without the critical power to save himself from pathological science?" (Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links, by physicist John Archibald Wheeler, Reproduced from Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo, 1989, pp.354-368.)


Some scientists assemble a device that can only measure binary yes-no / on-off / two-dimensional features — as what Wheeler did — and then upon the scientists having measured the two-dimensional features with the two-dimensional-measuring device, the scientists then believe that they have proven that the universe is formed upon two-dimensional 'yes-no' states.

It is a very natural thing, that when an individual trains their muscles and minds to perform within a specific manner, the individuals' minds and muscles will not be trained for other purposes. Training one's muscles to run fast will also result in one's inability to lift heavy weights, and the mind is similar: training one's mind to memorize book words will result in the inability to think for one's self, and training one's self to count two-dimensional mathematical measurements will result in one's inability to think outside of two-dimensional thoughts. Some physicists might be very bright individuals, but their occupational skills are not always useful for other purposes outside of the occupations.

In past years, when some of us spoke of seeing many colors, Sciencians angrily claimed that we must have a mental problem because the Sciencians could only see a few colors, and since all Sciencians believe that they are the apex of evolution, then the Sciencians claimed that any talent different than theirs must be a defect. (See Pathological Science #1 for definitions of terms.) In recent years man has begun to accept that there are indeed some individuals who do see more colors than other people, and the Philosophians have given the talent a name: tetrachromacy. The Philosophians and Sciencians still do not grasp what it is like to see many colors, and so it is not surprising that the science of 'tetrachromacy' is merely a Philosophian sophism of claiming that people who see many colors are merely seeing more of the same colors that Sciencians see.

Some individuals literally do see more than normal people, and some individuals literally do hear more, smell more, taste more, and feel more things than normal people. To some individuals, their Reality is vibrant, of endless hues, of intertwining fields of radiances that flow from within and throughout all of Nature. To the individuals, they see and feel that there exist 'things' in-between all other things, and never do the individuals interpret Reality to be little two-dimensional bits of binary things that exist all by themselves nor magically came into existence all by themselves.

Integral test - the picket fence of mathematics

(PD) Integral test - the picket fence of mathematics.

All types of measuring equipment — known to me — rely upon two-dimensional measurements. Mathematics and electrical measuring devices are like counting the top points of a picket fence while ignoring the fence, the yard, the atmosphere, the ambient noises, the aromas, the histories of the trees that grew the wood that the fence was made from, and all of the countless other things of Reality. Looking at a waveform on an oscilloscope's display, the pretty little lines describe nothing of the electrical field itself, nor of the field's origins, nor of the field's environment. It is simply not possible under any circumstances whatsoever throughout all of eternity for a man-made mathematics to measure Reality.

Man's mathematics can only measure two-dimensional features of closed systems; mathematics cannot measure open systems. Reality is an open system, which mathematics cannot measure. Yes, there are many individuals who energetically claim that mathematics can measure three-dimensional objects, but if math could measure three-dimensional features, then I would very much be interested in seeing the math. To my knowledge, height, width, and depth are still height, width, and depth, and mathematics still measures each of the heights, widths, and depths two-dimensionally (a single measurement might be of a single 'dimension', but the process itself was two-dimensional yes-no reasoning: see Pathological Science Updates for additional explanations.) If mathematics were not two-dimensional, then please show how the volume of a cube can be known by omitting the two-dimensional measurements of heights, depths, and widths. Please make one measurement that sums three dimensions as well as the volume, spatial shapes, and motion. Some individuals can do it, but science and mathematics cannot do it — ever.

Mathematics still uses Pi, which proves that mathematics is incapable of reaching beyond two dimensions. The world of mathematics is merely two-dimensional reasoning in three directions, and man's two-dimensional binary beliefs further illustrate man's two-dimensional binary thinking.

Returning to Wheeler's statement: "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has... an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." It cannot now be known with certainty what Wheeler may have actually been thinking about when he pointed to his binary readings, but on the surface it appears to me that he was aware that fields and physical matter nascent from states that possess no relevance to three-dimensional matter, nor to three-dimensional fields, nor can be measured with man-measures. Within Wheeler's concepts of binary readings, it appears that he may have been hoping to express the thought that the three-dimensional Reality begins to be recognized as existing at the level of when the first yes-no measurements can be observed, and too, Reality exists only as information within one's own mind. If Wheeler's thoughts were to be interpreted as the above, then Wheeler was aware that Reality is an illusion, and he was likely struggling to make sense of Reality's nascent (a struggle that many good Researchers have hoped to solve).

One approach towards solving Reality's nascent has been the cyclic model of the universe. The idea is generally a hypothesis that the universe might cyclically self-create (big bang) and self-destruct (big crunch), but the cyclic model still offers no hint of what Reality came from, and too, the cyclic model fails the mathematical logic of entropy. Recent hypotheses are of two each two-dimensional branes that move, and where the branes make contact with the other, the point of contact creates three-dimensional fields which create three-dimensional matter. The brane hypothesis has some validity, and it is useful for several good points, but the idea still does not explain where the two-dimensional branes came from, nor can the mathematically-based hypothesis explain what manner of force causes the branes to move. I have personally been aware of two-dimensional curvatures of 'pressures' creating three-dimensional 'realities' for much longer than I care to publicly state (Sciencians tend to 'go bipolar' when I mention the topic), and I can describe quite a bit about the process — including the fractal-like transductances — but there is still no solid explanation of from where the pressures and curvatures nascented.

An individual could conjecture that the pressures and curvatures might be ripples of future and past events influencing the present (all waves have forward and reverse travel), and some of us could have a lot of fun with our inventing hypotheses and maths to support the idea, but still none of the hypotheses could explain how it is possible to have pressures outside of three dimensions ('pressure' is a two- and three-dimensional concept of three-dimensional force, so 'pressure' cannot be the thing that created pressure). Soap bubbles have air pressure inside of a type of soap that has sufficient adhesion to create a resistance of the air pressure, and if the air pressure is equal, then the soap bubble will be round. But without air or some other form of three-dimensional force, then what exactly could cause the pressure upon two-dimensional branes? Why are two-dimensional branes curved? The curvatures suggest that there exists a force that causes the curvatures, but the force has not yet been discovered (or at least not made public).

Simply stated, the human mind was formed within a (known) five-dimensional Reality, and the human mind normally cannot think outside of its own inherent structure of forming interpretations upon what is sensorially perceived within its three-dimensional Reality. To the normal human mind, its baseline of cognition might be as Wheeler's hypothesis, that of being the first yes-no questions. Individuals familiar with the 'Wuji' concept (see Pathological Science #1) are also familiar that there exists a huge quantity of other things occurring outside of two-dimensional measurements, as well as outside of three-dimensional matter, and outside of linear time. There is a whole lot of stuff going on in Creation, and the 'yes-no' idea as being the origins of three-dimensional Reality is simply "the science of things that aren't so".

A very simple and easy thing is to watch Hobbyists place two each one-dimensional points on a wall, and to then make a two-dimensional measurement (binary yes-no measurement) between the points. It is very rare for humans to recognize that something else was occurring in-between the points and measurements; the 'something else' cannot be mathematically measured, and though the 'something else' must be present for a man to make a mathematical measurement, still the two-dimensional man-measure is the only thing that is known to science. Science can predict some two-dimensional measurements, but science cannot explain anything of the things that were man-measured.

"Otherwise put, every it - every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself - derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely - even if in some contexts indirectly - from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits." One man's meaning, is not another man's meaning. To one man who only sees two-dimensional points, his Reality may indeed appear to him to be composed of two-dimensional yes-no binary states, and his two-dimensional test equipment may indeed reinforce his beliefs, but not all men must rely on the same test equipment readings.

"...that weld of space and time... the predicted fluctuations grow so great at distances of the order of the Planck length that in that domain they put into question the connectivity of space and deprive the very concepts of "before" and "after" of all meaning." It may be true that two individuals can sum the same number 3, but if one of the individual's sum is by multiplying 1.5 by 2, and the other individual's sum is by dividing 6 by 2, then the sums had different histories, different purposes, and different topics, and though the mathematical sums may be the same, the purposes and topics of the sums will not mean the same thing.

An excellent example is to ask an individual to count without numbers, but to instead arrange the words quad, duality, triplicity, and singularity in their correct sequence. Almost all English-speaking literate individuals will sequence the words as singularity, duality, triplicity, and quad, which is fine, but it also proves that the individuals did not consciously learn how to count until they were taught how to count. Nature does not function within the same sequences as man's mathematics, and the little test of arranging the singularity, duality, triplicity, and quad words is very useful when determining an individual's potentials, especially when the sequence extends beyond quad. An individual's manner of sequencing words contains a huge wealth of information that extends far beyond the words, as does the use of yes/no sequences. (I apologize for not explaining more, but the simple little test is one that some of us use to verify individuals' claims of understanding certain topics that require thoughts that cannot be memorized from a book.)

Likewise, the words before and after do not possess the same interpretations when observed from different points of view. Wheeler's sum of opinion was correct from his learned perspective, but incorrect from a Nature-based perspective. Wheeler's point of view was very common, that of judging before and after from the point of view that believes time is linear — that history is always in the past, and that the future has not yet happened — and since it is normal for people's minds to develop around perceptions of linear time, then it is normal and to be expected that the people would not easily grasp a difference of interpretation. Wheeler held a concept of 'self-excited circuit', which was conceptually correct that the future influences its own past, but Wheeler's sum of interpretation was from his interpretation of mathematics, and not from having observed how the future can influence its past.

Wheeler's concepts on before and after were as if saying birds fly, but without knowing of wings, air, speeds, motions, pressures, eggs, and the countless other things that must exist before a bird can fly. It is a very normal behavior of the human mind to force-fit words to mean what an individual wants the words to mean, and it is expected that many individuals may leap to claim that Wheeler's comments of before and after were true even if Wheeler's hypotheses are found lacking, but the words were still not true, because Wheeler's words were birthed from a different perspective, and the different perspective's sum cannot agree with a sum from any other perspective.

"This circumstance reminds us anew that no account of existence can ever hope to rate as fundamental which does not translate all of continuum physics into the language of bits." It might be a valid claim to say that man's man-made physics must translate to man's man-made language of mathematics, but the claim is most assuredly not valid towards an account of Reality's existence. When I was about three years old, an older brother told me of the arithmetic that he had learned in school. To me, the math was absurd because there is no such thing as "2". All things are different, all things look different, smell different, sound different, taste different, feel different, weigh different, have different decay rates, different densities, different compositions, different sources, different histories, different futures, different places, and in all ways all things are different, plus too, everything in this Reality is in motion of change, everything influences all other things, and all things are all connected to all other things; no one thing exists all alone by itself, and to place the number "1" upon an object was as if declaring that all of Reality ceases to exist except that one thing. To place the number "2" on a duality of objects is a false claim of declaring that objects can be identically the same, which is simply not possible. To speak of an apple without also being conscious of the kitchen, the hallway from the living room to the kitchen, the house, the air, the temperatures, the temperature decay rates, the sounds, the aromas, the histories, and all of the countless other things that are directly related to the apple, to me, math was merely one more of man's irrational languages that invent tiny little symbols to be placed upon real things, and from there, man forgets Reality while man begins to believe that his man-made language is Reality itself. It is interesting to me to see how far mathematics had to progress before man could begin recognizing that his invented language of numbers was indeed formed upon bits of information that do not relate to Reality. Man has now reached the limits of his language, and man is puzzled because he still does not realize that his language of mathematics was in fact created as a false language of bits.

Again, mathematics was created as a language of bits, of segregating real objects into false bits of attention, and then applying an invented logic of numbering the bits. Wheeler's 'it from bit' illustrates where the language of bits begins to describe the language itself.

Not until I was an adult did I determine for sure that many humans are in fact unconscious of the world around them, and so, perhaps, to them, mathematics might appear logical because they cannot think beyond tiny bits of information, but not everyone is unconscious, and not everyone accepts as true the claims of science and mathematics. Reality is an open system, Reality is boundless, and there are no boundaries nor limits of what is possible. It is an unfortunate state of mankind when a two-year-old boy can point to the underlying fallacies of man's sciences, philosophies, and languages.

Wheeler's interpretations were his own personal interpretations, interpretations that were formed upon the limitations of his own senses, mind, and occupation. That which might be real to one man, might be foolishness to another man. There is never a firm yes or no to anything, and never a binary, because there are always unobserved things occurring in-between everything observed.

In recent years some individuals have created Theories of Everything (TOEs), and the individuals included within their TOEs claims of "binary" and "it from bit". The TOEs' claims were apparently mere paraphrases of words taken from Wheeler and others, which might be an acceptable practice within science and academia, but one of the problems is that the news media and general public also believe that the TOE authors are the world's smartest people. Individuals who can only think two-dimensional thoughts are, obviously, far from being the smartest people on earth.

It is not a smart choice to form a belief from what is found within books and the news media. William James Sidis is frequently touted to have been the world's smartest man, but the claim came from a book that simply made stuff up. A research into Sidis' life shows that he was not much bright at all, and that he participated in violent anti-human pro-socialist (pro-communist) pro-totalitarian protests which were allegedly linked to terrorist bombings in the Boston area. Regardless of one's political views, violence proves ignorance and other mental problems.

Evidence Within Language

The English language is predominately two-dimensional, with very few three-dimensional terms, and with no words that point to any dimensions greater than three. If humans frequently thought three-dimensionally, then why are there not more three-dimensional words? Within the English language's limitations, individuals have to make-do the best that they can, and though no English-speaking individual can fully escape the inevitable necessity of using two-dimensional words, still people can give effort to create concepts that expand beyond the words, but those concepts are not found within science.

As mentioned previously of individuals who sense more than normal: "their Reality is vibrant, of endless hues, of intertwining fields of radiances that flow from within and throughout all of Nature. To the individuals, they see and feel that there exist 'things' in-between all other things, and never do the individuals interpret Reality to be little two-dimensional bits of binary things that exist all by themselves". The English language does not have words that point to transductances nor to so much as three-dimensional thinking, so I sometimes use metaphors and analogies of things that people ought to easily grasp, but when I use hues and shades of colors as metaphors of progressive radiances of variances, I am often attacked by Sciencians who angrily and ignorantly claim that I must have synesthesia. Sciencians have never so much as asked a question of what my metaphors imply, but Sciencians are always fast to self-invent the imaginary belief that they know everything about everything without having to ask questions. Attempting to explain a three-dimensional thought to Sciencians is much too similar to the Flat Land novel, and attempting to explain a four-dimensional thought is usually responded to by Sciencians reciting the memorized word tesseract. Concepts cannot be communicated unless the person listening shares a similar ability — gained through firsthand experience — to reason what the speaker speaks of.

Communication within the English language is almost completely void of the potential to convey meaning for anything beyond two-dimensional thoughts. Of all the languages known to me, only one holds a potential of conceptual communication, and though a few related languages show a history of once having held conceptual words, today the concepts are no longer used nor interpreted beyond two-dimensional definitions. It is useful that the human mind can self-invent interpretations of things seen and heard (Mermaid Syndrome) but it is not useful when humans self-invent differing interpretations of all words while claiming that everyone's interpretations must be identically the same.

An excellent example of conceptual communication is within a scenario that includes pasts, presents, and a presentation of several simultaneous events occurring within non-linear time. Each of the events are in the 'now' as they occur, and as some will occur. The concept is very explicit and proven to be extraordinarily accurate, but the concept cannot be grasped within two-dimensional frames of time and spatial location. Attempts of reducing the concepts into English words always fails, and even if the concepts were presented as metaphors, still many people cannot comprehend the numerous simultaneous events that require vertical durations of linear attention.

The anthropocentric Fermi Paradox is a modern example of how humans tend to assume that even space aliens ought to think the same two-dimensional binary-like thoughts as what humans think, and the scientists sincerely do believe that they would be able to communicate with an intelligent alien species. No, humans cannot so much as adequately communicate between themselves, and it is assured that an intelligent alien species who presents a simplistic conceptual communication as above would not be understood. To present an informative concept, it is guaranteed that no or almost no human could grasp its meaning.

Binary two-dimensional thinking is recorded throughout all of written history and within all known sciences. An extraordinarily easy example is of the philosophies and sciences of emotions. It is absolutely impossible for two individuals to experience the same emotions, and yet western philosophy and science never segregate nor use words of progressive variables when speaking of emotions. According to western philosophy and science, love is love, anger is anger, sadness is sadness, compassion is compassion, and never is there so much as a tiny little hint that any Philosophian or Sciencian knows what they are talking about. According to all philosophy, all science literature, and all Pulpiteers that I have observed, all of them claimed that all humans and all animals experience the identical same emotions. Never are there mentions of variances, and the absence of variances proves unequivocally that the science is pathological science.

Humans are not identical, humans are not the same, nor are humans equal, and all emotions are different for everyone. Philosophians and Sciencians really ought to learn something about physics before they make such profusely ignorant claims. Philosophians and Sciencians do, of course, deny that they have made errors (they commit the pathological science symptom #5: "ad hoc excuses"), but their words have already been written for everyone to see, and the words cannot now be hidden.

The study of human languages is interesting because the words that people choose illustrate the individuals' thinking-processes and true intentions. The experience that was most descriptive to me was when attentively observing (studying) two adults talking with the other. Of the numerous differences between the individuals, they both shared similar expressions that neither individual were conscious of expressing: facial expressions, body language, vocal tones, vocal rhythms, vocal and bodily patterns, varying scents, varying body energy states, and several other manifestations that clearly described the minds behind the words. An individual might be able to consciously disguise some facial expressions and some body language, but not all, and I have not yet observed any living organism that can hide its aromas, bodily energy states, and rhythmic patterns.

An elementary example is that honesty is said to be an act of consciously and intentionally speaking accurately. The three ingredients of consciousness, intention, and accuracy must be present and be in harmony for honesty to occur. Disharmony of the ingredients results in dishonesty. Similarly, each of the ingredients are created by one's self, and each of the ingredients are the results of bodily energies which are expressed in numerous different ways including the emission of aromas. Regardless of what an individual says, the bodily energies and aromas are far more descriptive and accurate than what any word can imply. When an individual makes a claim of being honest, and yet there is no harmony of the individual's emissions, then it is known that the individual was consciously being dishonest. Some sub-harmonics describe thoughts that arrived unconsciously.

A modern scientific claim is that some scientists can distinguish if an individual is speaking honestly or dishonestly by the speaker's facial expression. Please give note that the claim is based upon a binary interpretation of yes-no states, and not upon an evaluation of many variables occurring simultaneously. One yes-no binary state is not an answer for anything, and to claim otherwise is pathological science.

For myself, I formed a displeasure with spoken languages because all words were dishonest — no spoken word carried proof of being true through harmonious ingredients — and no word could accurately communicate the thoughts and emotions that were present within the speaker (a 1-bit binary word cannot express a concept of things that are real). To me, the spoken language was merely the 'segregating of real objects into false bits of attention, then applying an invented name for the bits, and then believing that the invented names were real Reality'. Months later, upon having learned to walk, I was then better able to observe other people and creatures, and not yet have I found any living being who can speak fully honestly because the words themselves were formed upon imaginations, and not formed upon what is real.

The thought of all spoken languages being dishonest is parallel to some ideologies' teachings. "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37 King James version.) Translated into modern English, the phrase might be more direct by stating "Speaking more than yes or no requires the use of dishonest words." Nevertheless, the use of yes and no are also not honest because the words cannot convey what the person is really thinking, nor can the words accurately answer any question. If an individual were able to live within a peaceful environment, the choice might be to not speak at all, but rather to communicate honestly through sincere expressions, which, of course, could only be communicated to individuals who are able to sensorially perceive the expressions. I have toyed with the creation of an honest language, but there is no value where a thing cannot be shared and reciprocated within creative harmony.

The road runner language of whines and clicks can be shared between road runners and some humans, but humans are now being said by science to have no conscious control of their recognition of emotions, which means that some humans could not now understand any language formed within expressions. Emotions used to be a universal language, but perhaps no longer.

Similar to mathematics having reached its end with "it from bit", western philosophy has suffered a similar fate of not being capable of rational reasoning because western philosophy attempts to find truth within two-dimensional binary words that were never true when the words were first invented: finding truth in untruths is futile, but that is what western philosophy tries to do. The normal human tendency to think within binary yes-no thoughts is partly due to humans having learned binary yes-no words of languages, and also of having forgotten what is real. Humans think within their man-created languages of English and math, and most people have come to believe that their man-made languages are more real than Reality itself.

As I had previously written in Child Prodigy":

No rational mind can conceive of the possibility that language existed prior to human thought, but the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis attempts to present the absurdity as legitimate fact. Whorf believed that concepts of time and matter "depend upon the nature of the language... Newtonian space, time, and matter are not intuitions. They are precepts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them." (Benjamin Whorf, The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language, 1939.) Edward Sapir believed "It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language." (Edward Sapir, The Status of Linguistics as a Science, 1929.)

"If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis were true, that language structures the mind, then by forcing a prodigious intellect to learn common language, in so doing has the teacher and the parent dulled the prodigious mind into a common mind. The greatest threat to the intellectually aware mind is an adult education. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is both correct and incorrect, and the knowing of why depends on the knowing of what manner of mind that the hypothesis applies."

The things that my words pointed to are still true: it is outrageously absurd for a scientific theory to claim that concepts of time and matter are dependent on the nature of a language. Some of us self-created our own 'maths' long before we first heard of man-made mathematics, and the self-created 'math' is still valid while man's mathematics has failed. Some of us self-created our own concepts of matter, energy, and time, all of which remain valid and correct while man's mathematics and languages have all failed. Some of us self-created our own silent 'languages' — emotions, body language, patterns, tonings, etc. — that are still fully accurate and valid today, while man's oral languages have all failed. Whorf and Sapir might have been somewhat correct within their assumptions as related to the lower strata of humanity, but Whorf and Sapir's claims were fully "things that aren't so".

It is also still true that regardless of how intelligent an individual might be, the learning of man-made languages will dull that intelligence, and if the individual comes to accept the languages as being real, that individual will have lost all potential for rational reasoning. It is easy to score at the ceiling of IQ tests, but it is not easy to endure the destruction caused by the learning of man's languages.

It is worth repeating: it is physically impossible for two or more humans to experience the same emotion, and yet all of western philosophy, all of science, all of academia, and all of theology talk as though everyone experiences the identical same emotions. It is understandable for theology, academia, and philosophy to be ignorant of the obvious, but for science to do it too, it is disgraceful and leaves all of science to be open to ridicule.

The topic of emotions is but one of the very many similar and obvious fallacies found throughout science, and it is also a topic that I have written extensively on.

The two-dimensional conclusions of mathematics and physics are not unique; the same manner of two-dimensional thinking is common within the debates of whether a god exists (yes or no), of paradise and abyss (yes/no), of theism versus atheism (yes/no), and all other ideologies share similar two-dimensional conclusions. Pathological science is as a mere variation of the common human tendency to believe that all things can be judged with binary yes/no questions: all religions do it, all philosophies do it, all laws do it, and science does it too.

Whenever a scientific theory is presented in binary-like two-dimensional form, it is "things that aren't so": pathological science.

(Note: this article has been greatly condensed from the original, and most of the connecting topics were removed for reasons of brevity.)