Wednesday, February 20, 2019

The Philosophical Vanguard

The article is based upon the Potentialism Theory. It also explains the views and opinions of world's famous researchers on this subject.

Potentialism Theory et al.

For the greater part of the last century, cosmology has increasingly moved to a mechanistic model of the universe. In particular, Randomness has become the central theme of the “hard” science community. Physicists have tried valiantly to prove the history and meaning of the universe in simple, mathematical and purely physical terms. Its ‘crowning achievement’ is Randomness. However, ‘crowning achievement’ does not always mean success (or validity), as we will see.

In Randomness cosmology, the universe exists without purpose or meaning or direction and is doomed to slowly decay into oblivion. But Randomness is like a 2-D impression of a three dimensional world. Cosmology itself is rooted in philosophy, not applied science. This is so for very good reason. The physical sciences alone cannot express the true nature and breadth of the universe. In their conceit, physicists have forgotten this important lesson; their only understanding one of the many pieces that make up the universe, have drawn skewed, incorrect and ignorant conclusions about the nature of the totality of existence.

The Advance Guard

But the overreach of the atheistic scientific community is being challenged in the 21st century. Cosmologists, metaphysicists and philosophers are reclaiming their home-ground and puling academia back from the precipice of ignorance. In particular, three brave men have answered the call for truth: David Birnbaum, Thomas Nagel and David Gelernter. Make no mistake about the brave part. The scientific community has fought bitterly to hold claim over cosmology – a discipline they are ill-equipped to understand much less teach. But these three men have blazed a trail towards a modern understanding of the cosmos in spite of the incessant ad hominem attacks of the academic orthodoxy – each of the three adding his own opus to the grander understanding of the universe. See

Each, in their own way, have added to a broader tapestry of understanding about the nature of cosmology. Gelernter has brought a resurgence of humanism into the cosmological debate. Nagel, for his part, has focused on the importance of the qualitative, something modern physics has ignored or dismissed entirely. Perhaps most audaciously, Birnbaum has not only pre-empted (in 1988 and 2005) many of the principles of Nagel (2012) and Gelernter (2014), but has brought spirituality itself into the fold of modern cosmological understanding.

1988 David Birnbaum

Independent metaphysicist and Harvard and Yeshiva educated, David Birnbaum sought to discover, describe and name that force of teleological impetus that drives the universe. See

Beginning in 1988, Birnbaum released the first of his three-part treatise – Summa Metaphysica – describing the central force of universal creation and evolution – Potentialism. In Potentialism Theory (aka Quest for Potential? Theory aka Q4P-Theory), the universe is driven by a universal Quest for Infinite Potential. Put simply, the universe is drive, teleologically, to seek out its own higher levels of potential and complexity. As a universe. Force of creation, Potential permeates every facet of existence – from the atoms to distant galaxies, driving the universe to greater levels of what Birnbaum calls Complexification.

Distinct from mechanistic complexity, Complexification describes increasing degrees of complexity on both quantitative and qualitative levels. It is an answer to Nagel's query to come 24 years later in 2012. It is the missing element in the physical formula of universal origin and its continuing destination which accounts for both the physical and humanistic elements of the universe.

Potentialism is the evolution and culmination of cosmology – the unifier of physical science, humanistic philosophy and even the spiritual and religious. A wholly inclusive philosophy, Potentialism is, at once, just at home in explaining gravity and quantum mechanics as it is in describing the nature of spirituality and religion – and their respective places in the greater cosmological order. Where once people needed to look at the world from either a spiritual/religious perspective or a scientific one, Birnbaum has provided an overarching, metaphysical science where both can exist complimentary to each other. See

This full-spectrum metaphysics breaks all convention, but is perhaps a reflection of Birnbaum’s Modern Orthodox (Jewish) upbringing, where the concept of synthesis (of timeless spiritual and contemporary science) is inculcated from the get-go. Of course hitherto it was inculcated without the underlying metaphysics to anchor it and underpin it. Now that metaphysics is, indeed, at-hand.
Indeed, the synthesis of Potentialism is perhaps why, as well, the (ever-synthesizing) Jesuit elite gravitate to Birnbaum’s Potentialism Theory (aka Quest for Potential? Theory aka Q4P-Theory). Indeed, they backed the Birnbaum ‘race horse’ before the Modern Orthodox came on-board.

In any event, Birnbaum’s “macro view” of the universe has been fundamental in perceiving the greater underlying order of the cosmos itself. Where physical science saw the universe like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, Potentialism shows the universe in its full-spectrum totality as it strives towards ever greater-and-greater richness and wondrousness. See

2012: Thomas Nagel

Enter the second musketeer – Thomas Nagel of NYU. Comparatively soft-spoken, Nagel is a champion of the human mind and consciousness. Nagel attacks our perception of the universe both from a human and a physics perspective, arguing that neither is truly superior. He addresses physical properties as “primary qualities”, things which can be physically measured – like mass, shape and volume. However, he attributes just as much importance to “secondary qualities” – those which rely on human interpretation, such as color and taste. In a nutshell, it is the comparison to qualitative and quantitative measurement – Nagel arguing that ignoring either distorts our view and gives us an incomplete perspective on the true nature of an object.

By extension, this leads to a discussion of the nature of the purely qualitative – that which has no physical form. Thought, emotion, morality – anything which can be discussed and has an impact on the world around us. To Nagel, these concepts are just as legitimate as matter and energy – having a rightful place in the universe and, thus, necessary to consider if trying to have a full understanding on how the universe itself works.

To this end, Nagel has found evolution entirely insufficient to account for human intelligence. It must be remembered and understood that Nagel is an atheist. When he argues against the limitations of evolution, he is not arguing for the existence of the divine. He is simply stating that universal complexity is simply too much to be explained away by the purely mechanistic approach of biology, evolution and physics. Nagel, instead, works towards a cosmological theory based on teleology. To Nagel, the universe is simply too ordered to not be following some inherent “script” or design.

Interestingly, it has required a stunning amount of willful ignorance from the mainstream scientific community to dismiss Nagel. One of the founding principles of the competing Randomness theory is entropy – the theory that everything in the universe is in decay and falling apart. However, Nagel correctly illustrates this is simply not the case.

Unlike many theories, Randomness is rather easily refuted (dismissed) through simple observation of the world around us. Take, for instance, the earth. It would seem, reasonably, that if we were in the grips of entropy – we would start with the wonderfully complex world around us today with its myriad weather patterns, life forms and even humanity and devolve into some primitive, lifeless planet. That is very clearly not the case. In fact, the opposite has happened. For the entrenched British scientific community to, at the same time, champion evolution and declare us simultaneously in the hold of entropy is simply contradictory.

2014: David Gelernter

Gelernter has been the brazen champion of truth in modern cosmology. The most pugnacious into battle as it were. He has chosen to attack scientific academia head on for its cowardice, bullying and suppression of scientific discovery.

In 2014, Yale's David Gelernter, stepped forward to issue a challenge to the scientific community at large. In the Closing of the Scientific Mind, computer science professor at Yale and parallel computing specialist, Gelernter, struck back in defense of discovery and the scientific process. He particularly attacked the scientific hubris which has been on a campaign to intimidate and destroy humanism in the scientific community.

Gelernter specifically singles out the importance of values, morality, spirituality and even beauty and religion in humankind's broader understanding of the universe as a whole. In the scientific community's rapidly increasing need to reduce the entirety of the universe to quantifiable values, they've morphed into an academic clique which attacks any semblance of humanism as invalid in understanding, truth and cosmology as a whole. Gelernter notes that a scientist has about as much understanding of humanism as the average man on the street has of quantum physics – and rightly so.

So, how has modern academia gotten away with slipping these blinders over people as a whole? Gelernter says the answer is obvious. Scientists have sought to, “belittle human life and values and virtues and civilization and moral, spiritual, and religious discoveries, which is all we human beings possess or ever will, they have outrun their own empiricism. They are abusing their cultural standing. Science has become an international bully.”

To Gelernter, modern scientific academia has become a sadly ironic parody of their greatest adversary. At one time, the religious authority of Europe (the Vatican) systematically sought to crush scientific discovery and progress for the sake of maintaining the dogma of the Catholic church. In a bizarre twist, the scientific atheist orthodoxy now seeks to do the same in defending itself against humanism and the broader spiritualistic cosmology. For this, Gelernter has called academics to task – and he's done so with a righteous vengeance.


Birnbaum delineated a teleology and overarching dynamic to the Cosmic Order; Gelernter explained to us the lacking tools of physical science and Nagel re-enforced the necessity of some inherent “blueprint” to the cosmos.

It has always been known that physical science cannot understand the totality of the universe. Physics is not thought. Physics is not art. Physics is not morality. Yet, all these things exist in our universe. Physicists and the scientific community at large, in an attempt to hijack cosmological discourse, have sought to incorrectly banish humanism as myth – even as the evidence of this lie is self-evident. It's as valid as trying to say liquid mechanics rules all matter universally by denying solids and gases exist. It's, simply stated, ludicrous.

It would seem painfully clear that physicists are aware of this absurdity as well. As evidence, it should be noted the ceaseless attacks philosophers and humanists have been receiving. To be clear, it is not attacks on their positions that should be noted – that is the hallmark of good science and cross-examination is to be expected. No. What stands out are the personal attacks, academic intimidation and concerted character attacks being performed by academics to try and silence anyone brave enough to question established theory.

But the vanguard of 21st century cosmology has arrived. And they've no intention of being silent. Philosophy and metaphysics have come to reclaim their rightful place as the defenders of cosmology. See

Three dynamic thinkers – with roots in Harvard, Yale and NYU – have taken on the entire entrenched Cambridge-Oxford axis. Do not bet against the Yanks. See

About the Writer

Myself, Vikas Sharma, Engineer in Information technology who loves to write about different subjects as and when I encounter in my day to day life.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

1 comments on The Philosophical Vanguard

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By riginal on November 20, 2014 at 10:26 am

science will never become an international bully,if one retains ones own individuality ignoring 'fairy floss' ideas and computationary randomness which in itself is an educated/uneducated guesstimate? Depending on forgetting about other planetary diversions of 'maybe.' Forgetting about, or at least not over emphasing our reason for being and the fact that we a rooted in the present. Scientists and philosophers can try to out think the creator in wordy presumptions but the nitty gitty boils down to the fact that when their toilets block up and they run out of food,who they gonna call? Physic Ghostbusters? Nothing wrong with conjecture or advanced opinion of long as there's a plumber round to fix the cold hot water system when you're deep in furrowed thought. Doesn't really matter does it how many scholars are rooted in physics, and arguing with the U.S. team over it. ... discussing higher planes? Better to discuss or re educate people who shoot planes out of the sky for no reason, leaving humanity rooted in evil.In other words leave the mystery of creation and beyond up to God, concentrate on solving the here and now. Unless you can predict when i'm going to die so that i can borrow an inordinate amount of money JUST prior and have the last laugh on the bank? If you come across a philosopher who has been to the other side and back and conversed with an alien and can tell me how to win at the that would interest me. Don't get me wrong, but didn't over curiousity kill something...or am i pussy footing with the fur of semantics? Then again, some are rooted in argument with long stemmed philosophical smoke and mirror pipes...some are happy to watch the Simpsons and gaze at the stars,wondering where their next intellectual meal is coming from? But then you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work that out?...or maybe we do? Nice post, but are we putting the intellectual hoarse before the cart of 'dry throat' arguing syndrome? :>)

 Report abuse

Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.

Rate This Article

Your vote matters to us