Return to Metaphysics?
Why our ceaseless attempts to explain what is going on in the world always seem to fall short
Over dinner tonight in Washington D.C., I fell into a discussion with a little group of dissident doctors about what is going on in the world, and we returned to the same questions we’ve been trying to answer for the last three years.
For example, why are safe old drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin suppressed with religious fanaticism?
Among the true stories we discussed was that of a chemistry professor who one day drew the hydroxychloroquine molecule on the chalkboard. A student reported his “dangerous” action to school administrators, who sharply rebuked him for it.
Another man beseeched hospital doctors and administrators to give ivermectin to his dying mother. His request was denied, but it prompted hospital security to search him every day he visited to make sure he didn’t try to smuggle ivermectin to his mom.
Ivermectin—a WHO ‘essential medication’, once deemed a “wonder drug” for curing River Blindness, whose discoverers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine—literally became an anathema.
A pharmacist recently called a doctor three times in a row to make sure the doctor was prescribing HCQ for rheumatoid arthritis, and not for COVID-19. It’s likely the pharmacist was hoping one of his calls would go to voicemail so that he would have a pretense for delaying the prescription.
Why such extraordinary diligence and vigilance? Doesn’t the pharmacist have anything better to do?
Following the fanatical suppression of safe old FDA-approved drugs, the novel, experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were forced on humanity with even more fanatical zeal, becoming objects of quasi religious reverence. Anyone who has even questioned their safety and efficacy has been relentlessly persecuted.
How to explain this confusing state of affairs? For almost three years we have investigated a range of individual human and institutional actors who seem to be playing a prominent role. We often talk about the huge pharmaceutical companies and their friends in international foundations such as the Gates and Rockefeller.
They in turn seem to be part of a greater hierarchy consisting of the DOD, DARPA, the NIH, BARDA, FEMA, and the DHS. These institutions, in turn, are dependent on the vast apparatus of debt financing that is the lifeblood of all state leviathans.
At the same time, we have discussed the irrational and nonsensical behavior we have observed on a mass scale among both state and private actors. While fear has played an obvious role, it alone cannot explain the bizarre and malevolent drama we have seen.
Within the medical freedom movement, a controversy erupted a few months ago between Dr. Peter Breggin and the psychologist Matthias Desmet. I greatly admire Dr. Breggin and his work. I consider his book COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey a magisterial work of scholarship and investigative reporting.
However, I also found Desmet’s book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism, to contain many compelling observations and persuasive arguments, which remind me of similar observations made by the Swiss psychoanalyst, Carl Jung.
I doubt this controversy will ever be resolved because human behavior cannot be measured and described in scientific terms. Why people, individually and in groups, behave as they do is usually a combination of emotions and desires shaped by material circumstances, customs, and habits.
Sometimes it’s obvious when masses of people are being influenced and manipulated by propaganda, but we are also capable of being irrational, self-defeating, and destructive for no ascertainable reason.
Tonight in Washington—at the end of an evening of long discussion—we returned to our respective hotel rooms, still unsure of just what is going on and why. Why is Senator Ron Johnson virtually alone in pursuing his inquiry?
Why is Dr. Peter McCullough—a mild-mannered medical scholar who mostly reads and cites peer-reviewed literature—the subject of an orchestrated and relentless campaign to strip him of every single position, credential, and certification he has attained in his long career?
Pondering such questions in recent years has often reminded me of the character Mephistopheles in Goethe’s famous play, Faust, who introduces himself as follows:
I am the spirit that constantly negates!
And rightly so; for everything that comes into being,
Deserves to perish;
It would be better if nothing came into being.
Everything that you call sin,
Destruction, and evil,
Is my true element.
The ever-seeking and inquiring Faust does not recoil from Mephistopheles, but engages him in conversation, clearly wanting to learn more about him, his nature, and his motives. It’s notable that Goethe was himself a natural scientist who was particularly interested in optics and the color spectrum.
Both he and his protagonist seemed to accept that there is no rational explanation for what motivates Mephistopheles—the spirit that always negates, whose true element is sin, destruction, and evil.
Mephistopheles seems to embody the strange fact that humans may participate in corrupt and destructive enterprises that don’t really make sense. No particular motive such as the desire for money or power can quite explain it.
After all, what is the gratification of acquiring money and exercising power for old men who already have tons of both and few years left to live?
See more here theepochtimes.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
If you are going to try and explain how things work from a scientific or rational standpoint, then all the science leading up to your conclusions has to be pure science. None of this halfway BS, or politically induced nonsense or assuming conditions because you are too lazy to find the truth, or you invent results just so you can get the next round of monetary funding…etc.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Well said, Tom. Thank you.
One of the reasons (the main reason) for the confusion and frustration is that science has NOT been followed. However, claims have been made. For example, the whole virus/pandemic issue, including vaccine development, is based on PCR testing, considering it a scientifically valid test.
However, this is a scientifically invalid test. Therefore, its use must be considered illegal and withdrawn. The flaw has been described and repeatedly explained from the beginning. However, experts ignore this aspect.
The frustration and confusion, in fact, the tragedy of human and nations’ sufferings, will NOT end unless the test is withdrawn.
Please, consider visiting my blog or obtain a copy of Helpful Notes, which explains the aspect mentioned above in detail (https://bioanalyticx.com/helpful-notes-a-great-gift-idea/).
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom and Saeed and PSI Readers who have read this article,
I do not address this comment to the authors of this article because I do not know if they are reading this comment. But it seems an observed fact (evidence) that REALITY is that Tom, Saeed, and I have (am) referred to it and that anyone reading this comment has likely read what I know I have read.
And I claim to know that while the title of the article is “Return to Metaphysics”.and that as of yet no one has defined: “metaphysics”.
“met·a·phys·ics | ˈmedəˌfiziks |
plural noun [usually treated as singular]
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space:” (New Oxford American Dictionary)
I have no way of knowing if any of these authors has ever read Newton’s conclusion to The Principia as translated by Motte. I have and it was the first time I had encountered this word and at this point of time I do not understand why a SCIENTIST wastes time writing (or reading) about “metaphysics”.
For in one long sentence Newton wrote: “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether “metaphysical” or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in observational philosophy.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
X and O's
| #
Metaphysics: Constructs physics instructors may use to describe fundamental rules or ideas which are not usually needed to explain things unless the function can not be explained another way.
Reply
Barry
| #
The answer is obvious ,Billionaires get bored . After they have accumulated all their wealth and power they go on to leaving their legacy. This is very dangerous for the rest of us who may or may not agree with their motives. Most people here follow the climate science fiasco that is built around clown science ignoring all our proven thermo dynamics. It appears that we have now dumbed down our population enough that they only know what they are told and will not take two minutes to even consider the other side of the story. Critical thinking is not gifted to many and the latest vaccine scandal is no different than what us climate deniers have put up with for thirty plus years.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
When you wrote “Most people here follow the climate science fiasco that is built around clown science ignoring all our proven thermo dynamics.”, I doubt you considered that you were becoming a part of this “clown science” which truly is a PROBLEM. For there is SCIENCE beyond our proven thermodynamics.
Explain how it is that solid water (ice) floats on liquid water with our proven thermodynamics!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
X and O's
| #
I’m sure I’m not alone. Whenever I see your name, Jerry, I scroll straight through. Today’s no different, except I felt pity. That’s gone now. You dug your own hole by doing all the gymnastics to prove to everyone that you are the most intelligent creature in the universe. Have a good day Jerry.
(Your username was too short added some more) SUNMOD
Reply
Barry
| #
I think we know that ice expands about 9% from water due to molecular rearrangement. Has really not much to do with thermodynamics. That said the idea that the warm earth heats the colder atmosphere and then the colder atmosphere heats the earth is a clear violation of the second law of thermo dynamics. And this only exists in climatology or clown science
Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
I had written: “For there is SCIENCE beyond our proven thermodynamics. Explain how it is that solid water (ice) floats on liquid water with our proven thermodynamics!” Do you really believe that “I think we know that ice expands about 9% from water due to molecular rearrangement.” explains “how it is that solid water (ice) floats on liquid water”? And we should not forget there also is gaseous water molecules.
What is this SCIENCE beyond thermodynamics?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Jerry
Maybe you mis understood my statement,I certainly didn’t mean that thermo dynamics were the only science there was. It just is obvious that when every other science that does involve TD agrees with those laws and thermo engineering agrees with it then one wonders how it doesn’t apply to climatology.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
Do you believe there is a SCIENCE which does explain “how it is that solid water (ice) floats on liquid water”? And if there is such a SCIENCE, might it be useful to consider this SCIENCE as to whether it might help us to better understand WEATHER and CLIMATE?
I am aware that the “clown science” to which you refer is the downward infrared (IR) radiation, originating in the atmosphere at night when there is no solar radiation, which is measured by modern scientific instruments. Just as you need to explain “how it is that solid water (ice) floats on liquid water”; you also need to explain the source of this very variable, invisible to human eyes, downward IR radiation which is commonly measured (observed).
For I question how do you know that this downward IR radiation doesn’t apply to climatology.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
X and O's
| #
He’s just trying to distract discussion away from the original topic by being pedantic. He reminds me of that fat guy who uses the same tactics to try and debunk UFOs.
Reply
Barry
| #
Jerry are you asking if flotation can be explained as in ice displacing more weight of water than it itself weighs? Secondly radiation is not heat all thing radiate energy above absolute zero but that is not heat. Ice radiates energy but does not warm your turkey.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
Now we are having a discussion instead of you telling me “Maybe you mis understood my statement.” My answer to your question is: no. But when you wrote “Ice radiates energy but does not warm your turkey” its seems you forgot that net energy (heat) only flows from the warmer surface to the colder surface. So if the surface of the turkey is 10F and the temperature of the ice’s surface is 32F, ice does warm your turkey as it (the ice) melts. (Law of the Conservation of Energy)
I ask you a question: Are you assuming that the temperature of atmosphere is always decreasing with increasing altitude? Like from the earth surface to 1.5 meter altitude, or higher, during the nighttime?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
No the atmosphere can suffer inversion. And does so quite regularly but is not an average condition related to adiabatic cooling which is as you know how our atmosphere works. I certainly agree that the atmosphere is rarely stable but we have there again some knowledge of convection and adiabatic cooling. The idea that a trace element is in some way a thermostat in such a complex system is rediculous. It would be like saying that the only thing keeping us warm in our houses is the insulation and ignoring doors windows walls drywall and all the other systems that go into it.
Have a good evening
Barry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Barry,
The problem is that nobody understands the flow of energy in the atmosphere. People believe the the thermometer is measuring the energy in the atmosphere but that is not true. it is measuring the amount of kinetic energy which is a function of both energy and mass (number of molecules transferring energy). A look at the graph of temperature shows this mistake. Energy flows from high to low, not in the zigzag line shown in the graph. In order to see the flow of energy you must divide the temperature at an altitude by the density to get the energy of a constant number of molecules.This shows a linear increase in kinetic energy in the troposphere with an exponential increase at higher altitudes. The flow of energy is from the sun to the Earth’s surface. The reason for the linear increase in the troposphere is because water is regulating the energy flow by absorbing 600 calories/gram at the surface then evaporating and hiding that energy as it carries to the top of the troposphere to be released into space. Water (not a gas but a liquid crystal) contains most of the energy in the troposphere, not the gasses. Every gallon of rain that falls is the result of 2.2 million calories of heat being lost from the surface.
Herb
(Corrected your e-mail) SUNMOD
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Barry,
The trace element controlling the energy in the troposphere is water. When water evaporates it absorbs 600 calories/gram at the surface. It stores that energy without radiating it (raising temperature) as a liquid crystal. The negative charge of the shell of the crystal results in a negative charge that causes the water molecules to rise in the atmosphere. At the top of the troposphere the liquid crystal reaches its second melt point and releases the energy into space. Every gallon of water the falls is the result of 2.2 million calories of energy being removed from the Earth’s surface.
A thermometer does not measure the kinetic energy of molecules. It measures the amount of kinetic energy being transferred to it. Since the number of molecules (mass) transferring energy decreases with altitude in order to find the kinetic energy of the molecules at an altitude you must divide the temperature by the density to get the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules instead of a constant volume. This shows the energy increases in a straight line in the troposphere and in an exponential curve at higher altitudes, not the zig zag line produced by the thermometer. (Energy flows from a source decreasing with distance, not pausing or changing directions.) The source of heat for the atmosphere is the sun not the surface of the Earth. The flow of energy is from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom and it is the evaporation of water that controls the temperature in the troposphere.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
I agree with much of which you just stated; however, what is this “trace element” to which you referred? For I have no idea what it could be.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Moffin
| #
It could in fact be a molecule. Or, a collection of molecules. Or, a gravity of molecules.
A flock of sheep. A herd of cows. A gravity of molecules.
Reply
Barry
| #
Should of said gas like co2. Not using my words
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
Please read what I wrote in 2016. (https://principia-scientific.com/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/) and (https://principia-scientific.com/solar-radiation-sufficient-no-greenhouse-effect-certain-atmospheric-gases/).
Then explain to me why, or how, so many PSI Readers seem to ignore the data to which I referred.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
Please read what I wrote in 2016. (https://principia-scientific.com/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/) and (https://principia-scientific.com/solar-radiation-sufficient-no-greenhouse-effect-certain-atmospheric-gases/).
Then explain to me why, or how, so many PSI Readers seem to ignore the data to which I referred.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Administers,
I did not knowingly double submit this comment. And I have read that it has also happened to others.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks Jerry just read quickly but will reread when I have more time. Nothing in it at a glance that I can disagree with. Obviously the moon is heated to 121 so how can anyone say the sun would not do the same to the earth other than the rotation speed of coarse. Temp being the result of heat over time. Also somthing wholly overlooked is why would the average temp of any planet with an atmosphere be at ground level,as the atmosphere is part of the earths system you would expect the average temp to be somewhere in the atmosphere.
Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
Very glad we seem to be in agreement. Reread carefully so you are sure that we agree. For now I must refer back to my question “Do you believe there is a SCIENCE which does explain “how it is that solid water (ice) floats on liquid water” to which you have not replied. I believe you know what this NEWER science is if you ponder a bit about what you do know but have forgotten. I do this (Forget) all the time. It is a very common problem of most all people.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
Very glad we seem to be in agreement. Reread carefully so you are sure that we agree. For now I must refer back to my question “Do you believe there is a SCIENCE which does explain “how it is that solid water (ice) floats on liquid water” to which you have not replied. I believe you know what this NEWER science is if you ponder a bit about what you do know but have forgotten. I do this (Forget) all the time. It is a very common problem of most all people.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Administers,
This double posting seems to have become a habit. I often compose on a document and the then copy&paste the comment at PSI. Do you suppose that when I do this it causes the comment to be submitted twice?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
“The Schrödinger equation is a linear partial differential equation that governs the wave function of a quantum-mechanical system. It is a key result in quantum mechanics, and its discovery was a significant landmark in the development of the subject. The equation is named after Erwin Schrödinger, who postulated the equation in 1925, and published it in 1926, forming the basis for the work that resulted in his Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933.” (Wikipedia)
When I went to graduate school in 1963 as a physical chemistry major; I did not know what a quantum number was. The reason being, only my conclusion, that the undergraduate chemistry professors who taught my undergraduate chemistry courses had never been TAUGHT “quantum mechanics” (QM) as it applied to chemistry.
And it very likely many of today’s mechanical and civil engineers, geographers, meteorologists, geologists, etc. have never been taught QM except possibly in their required introductory chemistry courses. I do know that it is taught in senior-graduate physics courses but I doubt if any the named engineers and environmental scientists have studied this foundational modern physics for which Schrödinge won a Nobel Prize.
So for this reason, I do not wait for your response to my last comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks for that , I have no formal education and always appreciate people who share their knowledge. Ido not know the name of the science to me I would just call it the simple physics of floatation. Although I understand the basics of flotation I don’t pretend to understand all the molecular structures and what not that are involved in different aspects of it. Without an education sometimes it’s hard to understand what people are alluding to simply because I may lack knowledge of the vocabulary.
Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
Thank you for reviewing your background. I have just reviewed this link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory) which reviews the history of the atomic theory and the many people, like you, who at sometime in their lives began to invest the time and effort to better understand that which they did not know. And I suggest you read it because what you will read is good stuff and based upon our discussion I believe you will grasp (understand) most all that you read. And report to the possible PSI Readers (and me) that which you consider was most SIGNIFICANT of what you read. Maybe there are other PSI Readers who need to read this history and you can be an encouragement to them.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Hence, there can be little doubt that these maximum temperatures could not be 33ºC less if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
hi Jerry can you explain the why to the above statement , I don’t understand why they could not be 33 degrees less without the ghg
Thanks Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
First I must admit that I have not been appreciating the principle of buoyancy to which you have referred twice. Yes, it was an significant achievement for the person who demonstrated this observable fact and a step up the latter (sp/?) of understanding. I commonly have stated that I am slow (mentally) but I sometimes get there.
The observed fact is that the air temperature has never been observed (measured) to be less than the air’s dew point temperature measured at the same place and time. I am sure you know (have observed) what happens as soon as a surface cools to the air’s dew point temperate. Droplets of water begins condensing on this cooled surface whose temperature, if we use a modern IR thermometer, we will see that the surface temperature stops cooling for a significant period of time (probably for at least 10 minutes). We explain this is because the water molecules release, what is termed, the latent heat (energy) as they condense to form liquid droplets as the surface as the surface continues to be cooled by emitting radiation, or by ice water inside a glass. Hence, what is happening during this condensation of water vapor (molecules) has nothing to do with oxygen, nitrogen, or carbon dioxide molecules of the atmosphere (air); but only with the water molecules of the atmosphere (air).
I will stop here to see if this helps. Your question is very good because we must ask questions and test any possible wrong answers which might not explain what has been observed (the cooling has stopped as more droplets form).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
First I must admit that I have not been appreciating the principle of buoyancy to which you have referred twice. Yes, it was an significant achievement for the person who demonstrated this observable fact and a step up the latter (sp/?) of understanding. I commonly have stated that I am slow (mentally) but I sometimes get there.
The observed fact is that the air temperature has never been observed (measured) to be less than the air’s dew point temperature measured at the same place and time. I am sure you know (have observed) what happens as soon as a surface cools to the air’s dew point temperate. Droplets of water begins condensing on this cooled surface whose temperature, if we use a modern IR thermometer, we will see that the surface temperature stops cooling for a significant period of time (probably for at least 10 minutes). We explain this is because the water molecules release, what is termed, the latent heat (energy) as they condense to form liquid droplets as the surface as the surface continues to be cooled by emitting radiation, or by ice water inside a glass. Hence, what is happening during this condensation of water vapor (molecules) has nothing to do with oxygen, nitrogen, or carbon dioxide molecules of the atmosphere (air); but only with the water molecules of the atmosphere (air).
I will stop here to see if this helps. Your question is very good because we must ask questions and test any possible wrong answers which might not explain what has been observed (the cooling has stopped as more droplets form).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Hi Jerry
That is interesting about dew points. One thing you have to give temp is that it is forever the optimist seen it many times racing dew point to the bottom but never wins that race.
Have a good Christmas season
Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry
You too have a good Christmas. I am have a quite productive day because I have discovered 2 things that I thought I might understand. I have this friend who sometimes questions what I state or claim to understand but backs off if I persist. So I learning I must consider more what he questions, And today for another day a freezing rain was predicted and I questioned the prediction but for the last hour or more freezing rain has been falling. Now, I cannot understand how it was that I ignored what I knew at the same time I cannot not totally understand such weather events.are considered rare.
You have not given a clue of where you live and have lived. I have a rocking chair I bought for 50 cents in South Dakota that has been as far west as the Willamette Valley (WV) of Oregon. then to as Far East as Ithaca, NY (the Finger Lakes, to northern Minnesota for 30+ years and finally now back to the WV, where everything grows, for nearly 20 years. So I have experience the weather of many parts of the US.
Our discussions are really helping to learn and to correct errors, so please keep making you relatively brief comments and I will try to limit the length of my comment.s
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply