21st Century paradigm challenge

Share:

Conceptual Theorist and metaphysicist private scholar David Birnbaum frontally challenges the entrenched academic/scientific/philosophical paradigm. He challenges with a dynamic and intriguing theory, Potentialism.

According to Birnbaum “Potentialism proposes that there, indeed, is a protagonist to the cosmic order, but that the protagonist Conceptual Theorist and metaphysicist private scholar David Birnbaum frontally challenges the entrenched academic/scientific/philosophical paradigm. He challenges with a dynamic and intriguing theory, Potentialism.

According to Birnbaum “Potentialism proposes that there, indeed, is a protagonist to the cosmic order, but that the protagonist is a ‘quest’ and not a ‘classic entity.’ The universe quests for its maximal potential. The core dynamic Quest for Potential∞ strives with purpose and direction towards ever-greater and higher potential. At the beginning of time,’ eternal Quest for Potential harnessed the eternal equations of Physics-Mathematics to ignite our universe via the Big Bang. This same symbiotic dynamic – Quest for Potential in league with Physics-Math – then acted as a catalyst for life, evolution, language, emotion, consciousness, and, indeed, for all the key dynamics which have evolved in the universe.”

The incumbent scientific/academic/philosophical paradigm is Randomness/atheistic. According to this schema all is random chance – the igniting of the universe, the emergence of billions of galaxies, the emergence of life, evolution, language, emotion and consciousness. They all ‘just happened.’ According to this schema there is no design or direction or purpose whatsoever to the cosmic order.

‘Outsider’ v. ‘Insider’

‘Outsider’ David Birnbaum challenges the entrenched academic orthodoxy with his Theory of Potential. He has launched a formidable paradigm challenge via his 3-part treatise Summa Metaphysica.

The incumbent paradigm of randomness is championed by a small group of ‘insiders’ – British atheist academics, who control some of the leading academic journals. As is known, ‘publish or perish’ is an axiom in academe. No publication, no tenure. Thus, in Machiavellian fashion, by blocking competing academics from publication, the British Randomness/atheist group has career-wise blocked ideological adversaries and advanced ideological allies. A small group of hard-line theist academics – ideologically representing perhaps 1% of the global population – has thereby consolidated its political power in academe over the past 20-30 years; the group is not averse to ‘playing hard ball’ to maintain its hammer-lock on academe; this Randomness/atheistic clique has achieved true ‘critical mass’ of political power in academe. Iconic British universities Cambridge and Oxford no less, have been co-opted by this zealous group.

This politically tenacious and now quite-heavily entrenched group has subsequently further abused this power by stifling debate and undermining the careers of any insistent new intellectual challengers.

David v. Goliath

Into this toxic and lethal ‘lion’s den’ enters solo operator, quietly confident private scholar, metaphysicist David Birnbaum of Manhattan. He does not need tenure; he has spent his life on this quest; over 50,000 sets of Summa are in circulation globally; there is no seriously competing metaphysics; and Birnbaum intends to prevail with his fully-integrated theory.

By 2014, Birnbaum will have adroitly put the entrenched academic hierarchy at-risk for absolutely everything they have disingenuously built up over thirty+ years: power, position and prestige. Aware of the treacherous landscape, Birnbaum has counted on the power of his theory – his slingshot – to neutralize the apex predator entrenched junta. All attempts to-date by the atheist group to suppress dissemination of Summa Metaphysica have backfired on them. Birnbaum’s proposal may indeed prove-to-be the quintessential “irresistible force”.

Backers of Summa/Potential theory view the opposing Randomness/atheistic paradigm as a schema detached from science and serious observation. They view Randomness as a schema with no substance to it. In oil patch Texas, big shot oilmen with bluster and no substance are referred-to as “All hat, no cattle.” Summa/Potential backers view that appellation as appropriate for the apex predator British atheist academics. Birnbaum himself does not comment on them.

However, Birnbaum has challenged leading protagonists of Randomness to open debate. To-date the Randomness/atheist crew has declined all invitations. Of course, the Randomness/atheist crew may have reason to shy-away from debate with Birnbaum: In the 25+ years since Ktav Publishing released Birnbaum’s Summa I, no flaw has been discerned in Birnbaum’s Theory of Potential. The incumbent British atheist group has attempted to bully Birnbaum’s supporters, suppress his ideas, and delegitimize the major international conference which was focused on his philosophy work – but has ultimately failed in absolutely all of these ignominious attempts.

New Genre v. Existing Game

Potentialism Theory is a breakthrough scientific explanation of how the universe actually works.

Infinite Quest for Potential transcends classic science. Birnbaum is proposing a new genre, sort of a beyond-science science. Birnbaum will remind you that such is exactly what metaphysics is all about by definition – beyond physics. And he will remind you that the name of his little 3-volume paradigm-shattering treatise is Summa Metaphysica (translation: the sum of all metaphysics).

Math and physics are just a few disciplines needed to explain Birnbaum’s Infinite Quest for Potential. Professor of quantum-mechanical engineering at MIT, Seth Lloyd, agrees with Birnbaum’s placement of physics as the scientific bases of his theory to describe the cosmic order. University of Maine Professor of Biology and Ecology Andrei Alyokhin believes that Summa Metaphysica should be deployed globally by academics as the working hypothesis for the cosmic order.

Infinite Quest for Potential is an overarching integrating dynamic – bridging science, philosophy and religion. Looking at the newly-elucidated cosmic chessboard, it now becomes clear that mathematics and physics simply cannot give us a complete understanding of the universe. The Math-Physics combination alone has been tried for centuries, but it fails. Math-Physics can teach us a great deal, but cannot get us to ‘the goal line’– the key to the cosmic code.

On this crucial score ‘outsider’ Conceptual Theorist Birnbaum was prescient. On this score, the ‘insider’ academic establishment was ‘dead wrong’; the key to the cosmic code would be a new concept (Quest for Potential∞) as sought-after by Birnbaum and would not simply be a new physics equation, as sought after by the scientific establishment.

Iconoclast v. Mainstream

While private scholar Birnbaum’s Summa Metaphysica has been used as a Course Text at over a dozen institutions of higher learning globally, his non-affiliation with a university has unsettled many who have paid their dues to formal academia. However, Birnbaum is now on ‘center stage’ of global discussion; indeed, more than a dozen journals have featured Birnbaum’s Summa Metaphysica and its Theory of Potential in 2013-2014 alone. Supporters of Summa Theory point out that many great philosophical breakthroughs were originated by ‘outsiders’ to the academic establishment; included in these numbers might be Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard, among others. In the realm of physics patent clerk Albert Einstein comes to mind.

The two groups – David Birnbaum, solo in one corner and the academic establishment in another corner – are playing not only by different ‘rule books,’ they disagree as to whether there even is a ‘rule book.’

Conceptual v. Equation

Birnbaum felt that the key to ‘cracking the cosmic code’ was conceptual, which intuited was probably ‘hiding in plain sight.’ To the establishment, however, the route to ‘cracking the cosmic code’ was to get a degree in physics, publish papers, achieve academic distinction and then one day publish the ‘eureka equation.’ Adolescent David Birnbaum was dubious of this approach; parlaying traditional concepts had been tried endless times prior, and had failed. The metaphysics author felt that a ‘conceptual breakthrough’ was necessary to break the 7,000-year impasse.

Common Denominator v. Laboratory Physics

The questions was “What drives the cosmic order?

Birnbaum felt that the cosmos is too extraordinary and rich to be ignited by a physics equation alone, any physics equation. The universe needed a new conceptual catalyst discerned; and that catalyst was to be found via carefully observing the world – the worlds of astrophysics, the world of biology and the greater world at large – and then trying to discern the ‘common denominator.’

Academic physicists peer into microscopes to discern ever smaller and smaller sub-atomic particles. Rather, Birnbaum elected to peer into his own creative mind to process the massive data and stimuli. Following his own path, Birnbaum searched for the common denominator of the cosmos. He surveyed natural sciences, field after field.

Birnbaum looked at the individual dynamic components of the universe – past and present – to find one ‘thing’ that (absolutely) all its pieces seemed to do over and over, without exception. What he found after a twenty year (informal) search, was Quest for Potential∞.

The proof of it is that every dynamic part of the cosmos – large or small – can be explained using it. If one looks at 100 random Science Channel one-hour programs, all the dynamic components of all the presentations comport to the Birnbaum theory. Potentialism’s proof is the universe itself.

Revolutionary v. Entrenched

Now, compare (revolutionary) Quest for Potential∞ with the completely opposite (and entrenched) theory of Randomness. While Potentialism is ultimately optimistic, Randomness is invariably pessimistic. Potentialism places ‘growth and advance’ at the core of its Quest for Potential∞ centerpiece; Randomness places ‘decay’ at the core of its ‘random chance’ centerpiece. Potentialism posits a specific (and thoroughly revolutionary) overarching design dynamic and direction to the cosmic order; Randomness rejects any design or order or direction to the universe.

Randomness isn’t so much a structured theory, but rather a denial of any theory. Randomness Theory has actually forced itself into an intellectual corner. Lacking the robustness of Potentialism, it is a house of cards – waiting for one elegant theory to challenge it in the crucible of actual debate – to bring it all tumbling down. That challenger theory has now arrived. And it is unlikely to go away.

is a ‘quest’ and not a ‘classic entity.’ The universe quests for its maximal potential. The core dynamic Quest for Potential strives with purpose and direction towards ever-greater and higher potential. At the beginning of time,’ eternal Quest for Potential harnessed the eternal equations of Physics-Mathematics to ignite our universe via the Big Bang. This same symbiotic dynamic – Quest for Potential in league with Physics-Math – then acted as a catalyst for life, evolution, language, emotion, consciousness, and, indeed, for all the key dynamics which have evolved in the universe.”

The incumbent scientific/academic/philosophical paradigm is Randomness/atheistic. According to this schema all is random chance – the igniting of the universe, the emergence of billions of galaxies, the emergence of life, evolution, language, emotion and consciousness. They all ‘just happened.’ According to this schema there is no design or direction or purpose whatsoever to the cosmic order.

‘Outsider’ v. ‘Insider’

‘Outsider’ David Birnbaum challenges the entrenched academic orthodoxy with his Theory of Potential. He has launched a formidable paradigm challenge via his 3-part treatise Summa Metaphysica.

The incumbent paradigm of randomness is championed by a small group of ‘insiders’ – British atheist academics, who control some of the leading academic journals. As is known, ‘publish or perish’ is an axiom in academe. No publication, no tenure. Thus, in Machiavellian fashion, by blocking competing academics from publication, the British Randomness/atheist group has career-wise blocked ideological adversaries and advanced ideological allies. A small group of  hard-line theist academics – ideologically representing perhaps 1% of the global population – has thereby consolidated its political power in academe over the past 20-30 years; the group is not averse to ‘playing hard ball’ to maintain its hammer-lock on academe;  this Randomness/atheistic clique has achieved true ‘critical mass’ of political power in academe. Iconic British universities Cambridge and Oxford no less, have been co-opted by this zealous group.

This politically tenacious and now quite-heavily entrenched group has subsequently further abused this power by stifling debate and undermining the careers of any insistent new intellectual challengers.

David  v. Goliath

Into this toxic and lethal ‘lion’s den’ enters solo operator, quietly confident private scholar, metaphysicist  David Birnbaum of Manhattan. He does not need tenure; he has spent his life on this quest; over 50,000 sets of Summa are in circulation globally; there is no seriously competing metaphysics; and Birnbaum intends to prevail with his fully-integrated theory.

By 2014, Birnbaum will have adroitly put the entrenched academic hierarchy at-risk for absolutely everything they have disingenuously built up over thirty+ years: power, position and prestige. Aware of the treacherous landscape, Birnbaum has counted on the power of his theory – his slingshot – to neutralize the apex predator entrenched junta. All attempts to-date by the atheist group to suppress dissemination of Summa Metaphysica have backfired on them. Birnbaum’s proposal may indeed prove-to-be the quintessential “irresistible force”.

Backers of Summa/Potential theory view the opposing Randomness/atheistic paradigm as a schema detached from science and serious observation. They view Randomness as a schema with no substance to it. In oil patch Texas, big shot oilmen with bluster and no substance are referred-to as “All hat, no cattle.” Summa/Potential backers view that appellation as appropriate for the apex predator British atheist academics. Birnbaum himself does not comment on them.

However, Birnbaum has challenged leading protagonists of Randomness to open debate. To-date the Randomness/atheist crew has declined all invitations. Of course, the Randomness/atheist crew may have reason to shy-away from debate with Birnbaum: In the 25+ years since Ktav Publishing released Birnbaum’s Summa I, no flaw has been discerned in Birnbaum’s Theory of Potential. The incumbent British atheist group has attempted to bully Birnbaum’s supporters, suppress his ideas, and delegitimize the major international conference which was focused on his philosophy work – but has ultimately failed in absolutely all of these ignominious attempts.

New Genre v. Existing Game

Potentialism Theory is a breakthrough scientific explanation of how the universe actually works.

Infinite Quest for Potential transcends classic science. Birnbaum is proposing a new genre, sort of a beyond-science science. Birnbaum will remind you that such is exactly what metaphysics is all about by definition – beyond physics. And he will remind you that the name of his little 3-volume paradigm-shattering treatise is Summa Metaphysica (translation: the sum of all metaphysics).

Math and physics are just a few disciplines needed to explain Birnbaum’s Infinite Quest for Potential. Professor of quantum-mechanical engineering at MIT, Seth Lloyd, agrees with Birnbaum’s placement of physics as the scientific bases of his theory to describe the cosmic order. University of Maine Professor of Biology and Ecology Andrei Alyokhin believes that Summa Metaphysica should be deployed globally by academics as the working hypothesis for the cosmic order.

Infinite Quest for Potential is an overarching integrating dynamic – bridging science, philosophy and religion. Looking at the newly-elucidated cosmic chessboard, it now becomes clear that mathematics and physics simply cannot give us a complete understanding of the universe. The Math-Physics combination alone has been tried for centuries, but it fails. Math-Physics can teach us a great deal, but cannot get us to ‘the goal line’– the key to the cosmic code.

On this crucial score ‘outsider’ Conceptual Theorist Birnbaum was prescient. On this score, the ‘insider’ academic establishment was ‘dead wrong’; the key to the cosmic code would be a new concept (Quest for Potential) as sought-after by Birnbaum and would not simply be a new physics equation, as sought after by the scientific establishment.

Iconoclast  v.  Mainstream

While private scholar Birnbaum’s Summa Metaphysica has been used as a Course Text at over a dozen institutions of higher learning globally, his non-affiliation with a university has unsettled many who have paid their dues to formal academia. However, Birnbaum is now on ‘center stage’ of global discussion;  indeed, more than a dozen journals have featured Birnbaum’s Summa Metaphysica and its Theory of Potential in 2013-2014 alone. Supporters of Summa Theory point out that many great philosophical breakthroughs were originated by ‘outsiders’ to the academic establishment; included in these numbers might be Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard, among others. In the realm of physics patent clerk Albert Einstein comes to mind.
The two groups – David Birnbaum, solo in one corner and the academic establishment in another corner – are playing not only by different ‘rule books,’ they disagree as to whether there even is a ‘rule book.’

Conceptual v. Equation

Birnbaum felt that the key to ‘cracking the cosmic code’ was conceptual, which intuited was probably ‘hiding in plain sight.’ To the establishment, however, the route to ‘cracking the cosmic code’ was to get a degree in physics, publish papers, achieve academic distinction and then one day publish the ‘eureka equation.’ Adolescent David Birnbaum was dubious of this approach; parlaying traditional concepts had been tried endless times prior, and had failed. The metaphysics author felt that a ‘conceptual breakthrough’ was necessary to break the 7,000-year impasse.

Common Denominator v. Laboratory Physics

The questions was “What drives the cosmic order?

Birnbaum felt that the cosmos is too extraordinary and rich to be ignited by a physics equation alone, any physics equation. The universe needed a new conceptual catalyst discerned; and that catalyst was to be found via carefully observing the world – the worlds of astrophysics, the world of biology and the greater world at large – and then trying to discern the ‘common denominator.’

Academic physicists peer into microscopes to discern ever smaller and smaller sub-atomic particles. Rather, Birnbaum elected to peer into his own creative mind to process the massive data and stimuli. Following his own path, Birnbaum searched for the common denominator of the cosmos. He surveyed natural sciences, field after field.

Birnbaum looked at the individual dynamic components of the universe – past and present – to find one ‘thing’ that (absolutely) all its pieces seemed to do over and over, without exception. What he found after a twenty year (informal) search, was Quest for Potential.

The proof of it is that every dynamic part of the cosmos – large or small – can be explained using it. If one looks at 100 random Science Channel one-hour programs, all the dynamic components of all the presentations comport to the Birnbaum theory. Potentialism’s proof is the universe itself.

Revolutionary v. Entrenched

Now, compare (revolutionary) Quest for Potential with the completely opposite (and entrenched) theory of Randomness. While Potentialism is ultimately optimistic, Randomness is invariably pessimistic. Potentialism places ‘growth and advance’ at the core of its Quest for Potential centerpiece; Randomness places ‘decay’ at the core of its ‘random chance’ centerpiece. Potentialism  posits a specific (and thoroughly revolutionary) overarching design dynamic and direction to the cosmic order; Randomness rejects any design or order or direction to the universe.

Randomness isn’t so much a structured theory, but rather a denial of any theory. Randomness Theory has actually forced itself into an intellectual corner. Lacking the robustness of Potentialism, it is a house of cards – waiting for one elegant theory to challenge it in the crucible of actual debate – to bring it all tumbling down. That challenger theory has now arrived. And it is unlikely to go away.

This entry was posted in Theorists and tagged by Kevin. Bookmark the permalink.

About Kevin

Kevin is a co founder of the world.edu project. The past 20 years have been involved in publishing to the education sector in print and the internet. Kevin has a degree in Education and has a many years experience in developing companies and projects.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *