( 
)I've been boning up on
Kuhn's Paradigm Shift Theory of 1962
and came upon the realization that:
"I can make money off this."
So, I made some notes and came up with:
[u]Capitalizing on Paradigm Shifts[/u]
Just come up with a list of locks of things to
get in on the ground floor, inexpensively,
so as to minimize the risk and maximize the net.
Buy low. Sell high. Sooner or later.
People are going to start having "7of9" blackberry earphones/earpiece "earwigs" headsets
The coming paradigm shift in TV broadcasting - iPod
Just to make sure we're all on the same page, here's a clear definition of the phrase, which was coined by Thomas Kuhn in his ground-breaking 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:
"Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It does not just 'happen', but rather it is driven by agents of change."
The paradigm shift I refer to is being driven by LUXXXCORP in response to technological, competitive and market forces, and it has three major aspects:
* End of the rat race, replaced by multi-core processor development.
* A focus on performance-per-keystroke and efficiency.
* New ways of assessing and ranking performance.
A paradigm (pronounced "paradime") is a world view. We all look at the world around us in accordance with a certain paradigm. The paradigm we use depends on what we believe is reliable and true. Scientific materialism is a very powerful paradigm that many people use today to find answers to some of the issues that face humanity.
But does this paradigm really explain our world?
We believe that it cannot and hope that this web site will help you to experience a paradigm shift that will change the way you look at the world.
Introduction
A paradigm is a world view that controls the way we understand the world in which we live. A paradigm shift occurs when the dominant paradigm is replaced by a new paradigm. Some examples of paradigm shifts are given below. One of the most significant paradigm shifts occurred in science when the paradigm that united all truth into one was replaced by a paradigm that separated the revealed truth of the Bible from scientific truth. Newton wrote that, "He was thinking God's thoughts after him.", because he saw scientific investigation as a branch of Biblical truth. This paradigm has been replaced by today's methodological naturalism. The problem with today's paradigm is that science has become the only means of determining truth. There is no way to evaluate the claims of modern science. However, we believe that there is a need to evaluate the conclusions of scientists by measuring them against absolute truth as revealed to us in God's word, the Bible.
Geocentrism to Heliocentrism
In 1610 Galileo pointed his telescope at Jupiter and observed the orbits of four of its moons. He believed that there was a force (which we now call gravity) that keeps the moons of Jupiter in their orbits and the same force could keep the Earth's moon going around it as the Earth moved around the Sun. His observations convinced him that the Earth orbits the Sun along with the other planets. Thus Galileo refuted those who believed that the Sun and all the planets orbited the Earth. On the basis of his scientific observations Galileo became a heliocentrist.
However the consequences of this paradigm shift was even went far beyond astronomy; not so much because of the change that occurred but why it occurred and who opposed it.
The Church opposed this scientific change not because it had a biblical position but because it defended an Aristotelian system of science that stated that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Galileo and others believed that science was a higher authority than the church's. As a consequence the authority of the Bible was undermined.
Catastrophism to Gradualism
During the 17th and 18th centuries the dominant geological paradigm was catastrophism. The catastrophists, like Cuvier, believed that the geological features of the Earth were the result of many catastrophic events, one of which was the worldwide flood in the days of Noah.
However, by the end of the 18th century people were starting to propose new ideas. Hutton and Lyell were two leaders of this paradigm shift. They proposed that the geological features had not been formed quickly as the result of a series of catastrophes. Their new paradigm was one of gradual change. They argued that geological features were the result of processes that are occurring all the time. The gradual processes of erosion and deposition could if given enough time produce the many layers of sedimentary rock that the catastrophists said were formed quickly. The gradualists explained away the global flood of Noah that we read about in the Bible and other ancient writings.
Creation to Evolution
The 19th century was one in which people's confidence in the Bible was undermined. The paradigm shift in geology meant many people believed the Earth was millions of years old. The way was open for a Darwinian explanation of biological origins. The theories of evolution that where popular during the early 19th century required a lot of time. The gradualists geologists gave evolutionary theorists the time they needed. Darwin provided a mechanism for the origin of species. Natural selection could if given enough time produce all the modern species of plant and animal. There was no need for God to create each kind of animal.
Faith in God to faith in science
These and many other paradigm shifts have marginalised and finally eliminated God. People today have faith in science. The technological achievements brought about by modern science have demonstrated its power to provide answers. Faith is under attack and the Bible is undermined. Even prominent figures in the church argue for evolutionary interpretations of the scriptures. We are ceaselessly bombarded with the "fact" that the universe, the world and all that is in it is the result of purposeless processes. The media and state education are part of the system that has been used by Satan to promote atheistic science to blind people to the fact that God made everything. God no longer serves any purpose and the scientists of today have declared him to be dead. Yet the Bible still speaks today and tells us that
God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.
OLD PARADIGM
NEW PARADIGM
Beliefs
Based on Bible
Blend of New Age & earth-centered religions
Culture
Western individualism
Global solidarity
Values
Based on the Bible
(absolute, unchangable truth)
Based on human idealism
(easy to manipulate)
Morals
Moral boundaries
Sensual freedom
Rights
Personal freedom
Social controls
Economy
Free enterprise
Socialist collective
Government
By the people
By those who control
the masses
A Metaphor for a Worldwide Paradigm Shift
Major World Mind Change as a Paradigm Shift in Our Time. The Process of Paradigm Shift. The Process of Change and the Community Metaphor. Land's S-Curves
Paradigm Shift - Magick, Music, and Media
An online journal of cutting-edge interviews and articles about music, magick, media, hypnosis, NLP, entheogens, consciousness
Thomas Kuhn gave us an interesting and provocative book in his Nature of Scientific Revolutions, in which he described science, under the stimulus of new discoveries, as making a radical change in its philosophy or basic assumptions.
The idea is appealing and it did seem that there were several such shifts, beginning with the Copernican "revolution," in which, supported by the labors of Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, it was realized that the earth revolved around the sun and not the contrary.
But as I've elsewhere shown, this was rather the beginning of Western science, the emphasis on experiment and fact as the basis for theory, instead of authority.
However, it was assumed by Kuhn, and we all agreed, that Planck's discovery of the fact that light is radiated in quanta of action all of the same "size," rather than as energy, created a new paradigm. This discovery was the first clue to the true nature of light, previously thought to be waves in an ether. These waves were thought to spread out in all directions and diminish as the square of the distance. The change was revolutionary, and dispensed with the need for a medium (the ether) to carry the waves (much as sound is carried by waves in the air). It introduced quantum physics, and the quantum was found to account for other enigmas.
One especially was that, according to classical physics, the revolving electron should radiate and thus lose energy and fall into the nucleus. Bohr realized that since to radiate it had to do so in quanta, the electron could not radiate unless it changed to an orbit having different angular momentum. (The quantum is a unit of angular momentum; it can have any amount of energy, always associated with a period of time such that the energy multiplied by the time is a constant.)
This contribution of Bohr was accepted by the scientific community to apply to quantum phenomena, but it did not occur to anyone to question the classical view. This I have done recently in my short essay "Confusion in Science," where I can find no basis, theoretical or empirical, for the concept that an accelerating electron radiates energy. Apparently this concept was based on a confusion between accelerating and causing acceleration. Thus the driver of a vehicle says he "accelerates" it -- a figure of speech that is permissible because the driver does cause the acceleration to occur. But it is the engine that accelerates the car, and a scientific account should distinguish controlling acceleration by starting and stopping from acceleration itself. Acceleration is the second derivative; change of accleration is the third derivative, much as acceleration is change of velocity, and science is based on these distinctions. The scientist might say the control by the driver is a human option and outside of science, but the fact that a guided missile not only controls its acceleration but is guided to do so by the moving target makes it imperative that the third derivative be recognized.
So there is no support for the classical view of radiation, and the fact that the quantum of action made this view obsolete was ignored. Instead it was decided that the laws of classical physics and the laws of quantum physics, since they differed in these two domains, required a division of science into classical and quantum.
There was little justification for this split. Now it is true that thermodynamics -- which, since it deals with billions of molecules, each undergoing random motion, has to be predicted by probabilities, whereas each molecule is subject to exact laws -- does justify a distinction. This is not the case with radiation. All radiation, quantum and classical, originates in quanta.
But the fact that the classical view was retained shows that despite quantum physics there was no paradigm shift. This is borne out by other aspects of quantum physics.
(1) One such is that the nature of light was still not understood. The classical view that it was waves in an ether gave light some objectivity. It was the notion of something at least semi-material, and it did not occur to scientists that since the quantum of action, or photon of light, was without rest mass, without charge or other material properties, outside of time (clocks stop at the speed of light), and indifferent to space because a photon from Sirius retained the same energy it has when leaving Sirius, that the quantum had no objective existence.
The complete confirmation of the non-objectivity is that no two persons can see the same photon. Its detection on a photographic plate annihilates the photon, so there is nothing left to predict. Even in the photoelectric effect, in which a part of the photon's energy is annihilated, the part that remains is a new photon with its own complete uncertainty.
But all such was ignored. Science retained its basic credo, that the world is exclusively objective. This again shows that there has been no paradigm shift.
(2) Another piece of evidence that is of special interest because it came before quantum physics was the use in relativity of an event to replace the previous notion of a point. An event occurs in time, so it includes the so-called fourth dimension.
The past and the future are the same -- time is symmetrical; nothing happens. Thus the Civil War could be called an event, and relativity would so treat it. But the Civil War was also a change of state. The nation was not the same after it.
Thus relativity had to ignore history, whereas the quantum of action always produces a change of state. It can cause the atom to become an ion and lead to its forming a chemical compound; it may cause a change in the retina of the eye, producing vision. It is like a small spark which can ignite a forest fire.
Science was so impressed by relativity that it preferred to think of time as similar to space and to ignore the asymmetry implied by change of state. The paradigm shift of quantum theory was ignored. Classical science depended on forces between "billiard balls," whereas quantum physics showed that the quantum has more resemblance to a human decision or a message than to billiard balls bumping into one another.
If the reader experiences a shock that I've again introduced an anthropomorphic or human reference, I cannot withdraw it; it is part of the even larger significance of the paradigm shift that should have occurred with quantum physics.
Before leaving relativity I could also add that the measures that science can correctly say are objective, velocity and position, are set aside by relativity as not significant, emphasis being placed on acceleration, which is considered invariant and therefore important. Another invariant, recognized by Einstein, Bridgeman, and Eddington, but not made use of, is rotation -- a very important part of the paradigm shift that should have occurred, which we will get to later.
(3) I now get to the most difficult part of my thesis. The considerations I've described might be admitted by some readers, but they do not convey the magnitude and significance of the paradigm shift I think is overdue, so I will have to resort to a rather crude example.
Suppose I were to present a plate of food to a child to eat, and the child were to turn the plate upside down, spilling the contents about, and proceed to separate it into different ingredients -- to count the peas, etc. We have been given this marvelous world to experience, but science prefers to analyze it -- a worthy undertaking, but it becomes absurd if the food is not eaten. Analysis may be food for science, but this doesn't mean that the eating of the food should not be included in the theory.
So this is my main thesis. Science describes and analyzes the world, finds out the laws of its behavior, but it never occurs to theoretical science that the law of cause and effect can be applied and used for our own benefit -- communication, transportation, all machines -- using the laws of nature to increase our freedom.
This cannot be dismissed as mere application and anthropomorphic, because all life does the same. Plants control their metabolism to achieve growth and reproduction; animals learn mobility and are able to achieve short-term goals (including some long-term goals such as migration). This is not just technology; it is the basis of life.
©1996 The Estate of Arthur M. Young
Go to Arthur M. Young Page
Go to Essays and Journal Entries
Kuhn's Paradigm Shift Theory of 1962
and came upon the realization that:
"I can make money off this."
So, I made some notes and came up with:
[u]Capitalizing on Paradigm Shifts[/u]
Just come up with a list of locks of things to
get in on the ground floor, inexpensively,
so as to minimize the risk and maximize the net.
Buy low. Sell high. Sooner or later.
People are going to start having "7of9" blackberry earphones/earpiece "earwigs" headsets
The coming paradigm shift in TV broadcasting - iPod
Just to make sure we're all on the same page, here's a clear definition of the phrase, which was coined by Thomas Kuhn in his ground-breaking 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:
"Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It does not just 'happen', but rather it is driven by agents of change."
The paradigm shift I refer to is being driven by LUXXXCORP in response to technological, competitive and market forces, and it has three major aspects:
* End of the rat race, replaced by multi-core processor development.
* A focus on performance-per-keystroke and efficiency.
* New ways of assessing and ranking performance.
A paradigm (pronounced "paradime") is a world view. We all look at the world around us in accordance with a certain paradigm. The paradigm we use depends on what we believe is reliable and true. Scientific materialism is a very powerful paradigm that many people use today to find answers to some of the issues that face humanity.
But does this paradigm really explain our world?
We believe that it cannot and hope that this web site will help you to experience a paradigm shift that will change the way you look at the world.
Introduction
A paradigm is a world view that controls the way we understand the world in which we live. A paradigm shift occurs when the dominant paradigm is replaced by a new paradigm. Some examples of paradigm shifts are given below. One of the most significant paradigm shifts occurred in science when the paradigm that united all truth into one was replaced by a paradigm that separated the revealed truth of the Bible from scientific truth. Newton wrote that, "He was thinking God's thoughts after him.", because he saw scientific investigation as a branch of Biblical truth. This paradigm has been replaced by today's methodological naturalism. The problem with today's paradigm is that science has become the only means of determining truth. There is no way to evaluate the claims of modern science. However, we believe that there is a need to evaluate the conclusions of scientists by measuring them against absolute truth as revealed to us in God's word, the Bible.
Geocentrism to Heliocentrism
In 1610 Galileo pointed his telescope at Jupiter and observed the orbits of four of its moons. He believed that there was a force (which we now call gravity) that keeps the moons of Jupiter in their orbits and the same force could keep the Earth's moon going around it as the Earth moved around the Sun. His observations convinced him that the Earth orbits the Sun along with the other planets. Thus Galileo refuted those who believed that the Sun and all the planets orbited the Earth. On the basis of his scientific observations Galileo became a heliocentrist.
However the consequences of this paradigm shift was even went far beyond astronomy; not so much because of the change that occurred but why it occurred and who opposed it.
The Church opposed this scientific change not because it had a biblical position but because it defended an Aristotelian system of science that stated that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Galileo and others believed that science was a higher authority than the church's. As a consequence the authority of the Bible was undermined.
Catastrophism to Gradualism
During the 17th and 18th centuries the dominant geological paradigm was catastrophism. The catastrophists, like Cuvier, believed that the geological features of the Earth were the result of many catastrophic events, one of which was the worldwide flood in the days of Noah.
However, by the end of the 18th century people were starting to propose new ideas. Hutton and Lyell were two leaders of this paradigm shift. They proposed that the geological features had not been formed quickly as the result of a series of catastrophes. Their new paradigm was one of gradual change. They argued that geological features were the result of processes that are occurring all the time. The gradual processes of erosion and deposition could if given enough time produce the many layers of sedimentary rock that the catastrophists said were formed quickly. The gradualists explained away the global flood of Noah that we read about in the Bible and other ancient writings.
Creation to Evolution
The 19th century was one in which people's confidence in the Bible was undermined. The paradigm shift in geology meant many people believed the Earth was millions of years old. The way was open for a Darwinian explanation of biological origins. The theories of evolution that where popular during the early 19th century required a lot of time. The gradualists geologists gave evolutionary theorists the time they needed. Darwin provided a mechanism for the origin of species. Natural selection could if given enough time produce all the modern species of plant and animal. There was no need for God to create each kind of animal.
Faith in God to faith in science
These and many other paradigm shifts have marginalised and finally eliminated God. People today have faith in science. The technological achievements brought about by modern science have demonstrated its power to provide answers. Faith is under attack and the Bible is undermined. Even prominent figures in the church argue for evolutionary interpretations of the scriptures. We are ceaselessly bombarded with the "fact" that the universe, the world and all that is in it is the result of purposeless processes. The media and state education are part of the system that has been used by Satan to promote atheistic science to blind people to the fact that God made everything. God no longer serves any purpose and the scientists of today have declared him to be dead. Yet the Bible still speaks today and tells us that
God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.
OLD PARADIGM
NEW PARADIGM
Beliefs
Based on Bible
Blend of New Age & earth-centered religions
Culture
Western individualism
Global solidarity
Values
Based on the Bible
(absolute, unchangable truth)
Based on human idealism
(easy to manipulate)
Morals
Moral boundaries
Sensual freedom
Rights
Personal freedom
Social controls
Economy
Free enterprise
Socialist collective
Government
By the people
By those who control
the masses
A Metaphor for a Worldwide Paradigm Shift
Major World Mind Change as a Paradigm Shift in Our Time. The Process of Paradigm Shift. The Process of Change and the Community Metaphor. Land's S-Curves
Paradigm Shift - Magick, Music, and Media
An online journal of cutting-edge interviews and articles about music, magick, media, hypnosis, NLP, entheogens, consciousness
Thomas Kuhn gave us an interesting and provocative book in his Nature of Scientific Revolutions, in which he described science, under the stimulus of new discoveries, as making a radical change in its philosophy or basic assumptions.
The idea is appealing and it did seem that there were several such shifts, beginning with the Copernican "revolution," in which, supported by the labors of Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, it was realized that the earth revolved around the sun and not the contrary.
But as I've elsewhere shown, this was rather the beginning of Western science, the emphasis on experiment and fact as the basis for theory, instead of authority.
However, it was assumed by Kuhn, and we all agreed, that Planck's discovery of the fact that light is radiated in quanta of action all of the same "size," rather than as energy, created a new paradigm. This discovery was the first clue to the true nature of light, previously thought to be waves in an ether. These waves were thought to spread out in all directions and diminish as the square of the distance. The change was revolutionary, and dispensed with the need for a medium (the ether) to carry the waves (much as sound is carried by waves in the air). It introduced quantum physics, and the quantum was found to account for other enigmas.
One especially was that, according to classical physics, the revolving electron should radiate and thus lose energy and fall into the nucleus. Bohr realized that since to radiate it had to do so in quanta, the electron could not radiate unless it changed to an orbit having different angular momentum. (The quantum is a unit of angular momentum; it can have any amount of energy, always associated with a period of time such that the energy multiplied by the time is a constant.)
This contribution of Bohr was accepted by the scientific community to apply to quantum phenomena, but it did not occur to anyone to question the classical view. This I have done recently in my short essay "Confusion in Science," where I can find no basis, theoretical or empirical, for the concept that an accelerating electron radiates energy. Apparently this concept was based on a confusion between accelerating and causing acceleration. Thus the driver of a vehicle says he "accelerates" it -- a figure of speech that is permissible because the driver does cause the acceleration to occur. But it is the engine that accelerates the car, and a scientific account should distinguish controlling acceleration by starting and stopping from acceleration itself. Acceleration is the second derivative; change of accleration is the third derivative, much as acceleration is change of velocity, and science is based on these distinctions. The scientist might say the control by the driver is a human option and outside of science, but the fact that a guided missile not only controls its acceleration but is guided to do so by the moving target makes it imperative that the third derivative be recognized.
So there is no support for the classical view of radiation, and the fact that the quantum of action made this view obsolete was ignored. Instead it was decided that the laws of classical physics and the laws of quantum physics, since they differed in these two domains, required a division of science into classical and quantum.
There was little justification for this split. Now it is true that thermodynamics -- which, since it deals with billions of molecules, each undergoing random motion, has to be predicted by probabilities, whereas each molecule is subject to exact laws -- does justify a distinction. This is not the case with radiation. All radiation, quantum and classical, originates in quanta.
But the fact that the classical view was retained shows that despite quantum physics there was no paradigm shift. This is borne out by other aspects of quantum physics.
(1) One such is that the nature of light was still not understood. The classical view that it was waves in an ether gave light some objectivity. It was the notion of something at least semi-material, and it did not occur to scientists that since the quantum of action, or photon of light, was without rest mass, without charge or other material properties, outside of time (clocks stop at the speed of light), and indifferent to space because a photon from Sirius retained the same energy it has when leaving Sirius, that the quantum had no objective existence.
The complete confirmation of the non-objectivity is that no two persons can see the same photon. Its detection on a photographic plate annihilates the photon, so there is nothing left to predict. Even in the photoelectric effect, in which a part of the photon's energy is annihilated, the part that remains is a new photon with its own complete uncertainty.
But all such was ignored. Science retained its basic credo, that the world is exclusively objective. This again shows that there has been no paradigm shift.
(2) Another piece of evidence that is of special interest because it came before quantum physics was the use in relativity of an event to replace the previous notion of a point. An event occurs in time, so it includes the so-called fourth dimension.
The past and the future are the same -- time is symmetrical; nothing happens. Thus the Civil War could be called an event, and relativity would so treat it. But the Civil War was also a change of state. The nation was not the same after it.
Thus relativity had to ignore history, whereas the quantum of action always produces a change of state. It can cause the atom to become an ion and lead to its forming a chemical compound; it may cause a change in the retina of the eye, producing vision. It is like a small spark which can ignite a forest fire.
Science was so impressed by relativity that it preferred to think of time as similar to space and to ignore the asymmetry implied by change of state. The paradigm shift of quantum theory was ignored. Classical science depended on forces between "billiard balls," whereas quantum physics showed that the quantum has more resemblance to a human decision or a message than to billiard balls bumping into one another.
If the reader experiences a shock that I've again introduced an anthropomorphic or human reference, I cannot withdraw it; it is part of the even larger significance of the paradigm shift that should have occurred with quantum physics.
Before leaving relativity I could also add that the measures that science can correctly say are objective, velocity and position, are set aside by relativity as not significant, emphasis being placed on acceleration, which is considered invariant and therefore important. Another invariant, recognized by Einstein, Bridgeman, and Eddington, but not made use of, is rotation -- a very important part of the paradigm shift that should have occurred, which we will get to later.
(3) I now get to the most difficult part of my thesis. The considerations I've described might be admitted by some readers, but they do not convey the magnitude and significance of the paradigm shift I think is overdue, so I will have to resort to a rather crude example.
Suppose I were to present a plate of food to a child to eat, and the child were to turn the plate upside down, spilling the contents about, and proceed to separate it into different ingredients -- to count the peas, etc. We have been given this marvelous world to experience, but science prefers to analyze it -- a worthy undertaking, but it becomes absurd if the food is not eaten. Analysis may be food for science, but this doesn't mean that the eating of the food should not be included in the theory.
So this is my main thesis. Science describes and analyzes the world, finds out the laws of its behavior, but it never occurs to theoretical science that the law of cause and effect can be applied and used for our own benefit -- communication, transportation, all machines -- using the laws of nature to increase our freedom.
This cannot be dismissed as mere application and anthropomorphic, because all life does the same. Plants control their metabolism to achieve growth and reproduction; animals learn mobility and are able to achieve short-term goals (including some long-term goals such as migration). This is not just technology; it is the basis of life.
©1996 The Estate of Arthur M. Young
Go to Arthur M. Young Page
Go to Essays and Journal Entries
Guide created: 06/26/07 (updated 06/26/07)
Thank you for voting. If your vote meets our 
