|Back to the Grazian Archive Back to Ami's Quiddity E-Mail:|
ALFRED DE GRAZIA|
QUANTAVOLUTION AND CATASTROPHE
Introduction to the series
Charles Darwin said in 1869 in the "Origin of Species" that "anyone whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory." For a long time it seemed unwise to weigh too heavily the anomalies. Now the time has arrived when "unexplained difficulties" have become indeed too many for the Darwinian model of gradual incre-mental Evolution by natural selection to support. It should be replaced by a theory of Quantavolution. Or, at least, it should be placed up against a contrasting model.
Quantavolution theory maintains that the world from its beginnings, including the world of life and humanity, has changed largely by quantum leaps, rather than by tiny incre-ments over great stretches of time. The over two million words of this collection of works by the author and collaborators present the full range of ideas and phenomena that pertain to this theory. It may be well to warn promptly against claiming any relationship to quantum field theory in physics, although dire consequences to gravitation concepts may inhere, because of the seeming all-sufficiency of new electromagnetic theory. Such a global change of perspective requires a search for new evidence, a reformulation of old evidence, a reconsideration of anomalies, changes in meanings of words and phrases, explora-tions of etymologies of words and concepts, and a reexamination of assumptions, often when they are so accepted as to be trite and so trite as to be ignored -- removed, indeed, from our very cognitive structures.
For example, there is an immense idea that persists in the litera-ture to the effect that the Moon was torn from the Earth; this story is told not only by scientists such as George Darwin and George Fisher but also by myths of various cultures. Invariably, if a discussion of the matter is allowed at all, the posited event is positioned in time billions of years ago in the conventionally agreed upon youth of the Earth. Such an event, if it were to be treated seriously in an encyclopedia, would invade hundreds of articles with its causes and effects, changing practically every discipline in ways great and small. This set of works does not treat this idea alone as the true theory; but it considers it properly so serious as to warrant consideration under many headings.
Such theories of "quantavolution" play a part in all discussions as to the origin of the other bodies of the solar system; one needs to explain the considerations that have led serious scholars to ask whether and how the planets originated from the Sun or, if not, then from one or another of themselves (such as Jupiter). Furthermore, the universal belief of ancient cultures and legends, that the gods were born, and were members of the same family, would begin to stir our interest.
In many cultures, there is said to have been an original chaos or world vapor and a catastrophic event from which the father of the gods was born and from him (or her) was born the suc-cession of gods. Why "born" instead of having always been in existence? It is not enough to say that these phrases are only analogies with the birth of animals in nature, or only fairy tales based on the analogies. Why should this be? Many analogies cover realities: might this be such a case? When one says, "Babies are born like puppies," one certainly is not denying that babies are born. And why were all of these gods identified, if of any importance, with the planets and other sky bodies?. Most, if not all, cultures, have insisted that the planets and other sky bodies are divinities. Does this not lend support to the hypothesis of a true succession of birth throes in the heavens? Would this be evidence of a marvellous early philosophical synthesis connecting the birth of the cosmos to that of the members of an earthly family? No matter if the alarming thought should arise: the members of the solar system arose somehow from one another in a series of catastrophes that somehow early humankind had some knowledge or theory about.
This is the kind of reasoning that unsettles many scientists and ordinary people who are content to rest with their ordinary per-spectives on the universe; it is a "whistle-blower" on the prevailing paradigm of the sciences and the humanities, calling back the play to the line of scrimmage.
The catastrophes responsible for the development of the theory of quantavolution were immensely greater than these, to be sure, but the elemental forces at work, the chemistry, the electricity, the psychic reactions are typical and homologous. As with a host of experiences of the past and present, the individual person must learn about catastrophes of the world -- past, present, and future -- from the testimony of the rocks, the skies, the fossils, the carvings, the ruins, and then from recorded history and logical thought.
The theory of Quantavolution deals with the behavior of substances of the real world so far as one can sense them. It proposes that change in nature and life occur largely as the result of catastrophic events; the events originate in the skies, which contain forces that are immeasurably greater than any in man or Earth and that are especially electrical. There are numerous "catastrophists" who have contributed to Q.. It is vital to appreciate that in Quantavolution, the word "catastrophe" loses its completely bad connotation; for what the world is today is an effect of catastrophe or, better, of Quantavolution, whose goodness and badness are intertwined and to be judged by the philosophy of good and bad consequences.
The underlying philosophy of Quantavolution inclines toward a phenomenological instrumentalism. It regards a "truth" as a fitting and useful part of a system of such truths that constitute. as a whole a possible tolerable outlook upon existence. The terms pragmatism, logical positivism, and operationism come to mind when reaching out for related perspectives. As with catastrophists, many philosophers might be cited. Among them would be Plato, Ockham, Bruno, Locke, Berkeley, Vico, Husserl, Freud, Dewey, Mead, Wittgenstein, and Bridgman.
The day may not be far off when a new philosopher will draw upon the applicable contributions of such thinkers and the fast-growing body of quantavolutionary literature to produce a new philosophy of science.