Iconic paradigm challenges: Relativity theory & potentialism theory

Share:

Albert-Einstein

How Messrs. Albert Einstein and David Birnbaum fended-off reactionary European academia Conceptual revolutions are often brutal; succeeding generations are gifted the new theory, but the progenitor of the new theory oftentimes faced significant personal and professional hostility initially launching the new theory.

Here’s a historical instance which establishment academe would just as soon forget. When Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, his Theory of Relativity was deliberately omitted from the prize citation; other components of his work were cited; some members of the Nobel Prize committee objected to publicly connecting the new theory with the historic prize. Despite his groundbreaking work on Relativity, Einstein was actually often ridiculed by a segment of European academia that simply wasn’t ready or smart enough to listen to him; and this segment was certainly not willing to accept his shaking the scientific foundations of the entire field of physics.

How bad was the reaction at the time? In 1931, an entire book A Hundred Authors Against Einstein was released. In it, for instance, one author Hans Reichenbach described Einstein’s work as naive and “unintentionally funny.” The hundred authors simply could not accept the new physics world which Einstein’s physics had revealed. The authors calculated, however erringly, that they were more likely to advance in the academic pantheon by ridiculing Einstein, than by getting on-board with the new physics.

However, physics is a science. So, regardless of our opinions, physics inevitably moves on truthfully whether we like it or not. It may unfold haltingly, even generations later, but eventually it unfolds. So, despite push-back, eventually Relativity did win out – because it was correct.

Such has been the current case with David Birnbaum’s Theory of Potential. Birnbaum, an independent scholar and metaphysicist, stepped forward to illuminate an equally – and possibly even greater – game-changing thunderbolt of science/metaphysics – the cosmological theory of Potentialism; once again, ahead of the curve; once again, an extraordinary theory facing a virulent rear-guard push-back from a small but vocal segment of European academia.

Birnbaum comes to us as a visionary with his Quest for Potential Theory. His proposition – ensconced in his iconic treatise about the universe – is something at once compelling and incisively explanatory; as per Einstein, Birnbaum’s work is contrary to politically-correct, intellectually fuzzy European academic-scientific thought. And therein lies the real issue.

To the European academic hierarchy and their hard-line Atheist support group, the universe is random and absent any overarching drive; to the Randomness/Atheists, everything we know exists by random chance happenstance; that ‘everything’ would include among other matters – the Big Bang, the galaxies, supernovas and solar systems; that ‘everything’ would include the 100+ Elements, photosynthesis, life, consciousness, humanity, love et al. Meaning that ‘everything’ is, according to the Randomness/Atheist group, merely a matter of random luck and chance.

Birnbaum, taking an almost polar opposite view, sees the totality of the universe as anything but random; to Birnbaum, chance, however important part it plays, is ultimately an ancillary show to the universe; it is not the ‘main event.’ Per Birnbaum, the universe unerringly – from time immemorial – inexorably seeks after its maximal potential. This overarching drive towards maximal potential – Infinite Quest for Potential – permeates the entire Cosmic Order. And, crucially, this drive is natural, not supernatural.

And that is the very core root of the conflict. European academics had preached for well over a hundred years, that the only alternative to their Randomness/Atheism was a supernatural Creationist God. But Birnbaum has demonstrated that the alternative to the dubious zealot Randomness/Atheist view of a chaotic universe doomed to decay, is not necessarily the supernatural. Rather, the clear alternative is a
universe governed by a natural dynamic – Birnbaum’s hypothesized Infinite Quest for Potential.

Per the theory, this core cosmic dynamic may or may not have evolved into God per se. The core theory works independent of possible Creationist God. Thus, the core Randomness/Atheist debating tactic – either our ‘natural universe of disorder/chaos’ or your ‘supernatural Creationist universe of order’ – is fatally undermined by Birnbaum’s ‘Quest for Infinite Potential natural universe of order.’

Academic science and metaphysics/philosophy had simply missed the core dynamic of the Cosmic Order; it was, after all, ‘hiding in plain sight’ all along (including for the 7,000 years of civilization).

As Birnbaum notes “The metaphysicists erringly looked for a classic Protagonist, while the physicists were simply ‘trying too hard’ – too focused on their sub-atomic particles and physics equations; both key groups missed the obvious. See TheoryCore.com.

Like Einstein before him, Birnbaum initially faced a small but vocal coterie of reactionary European academic resistance. But, like his predecessor, Birnbaum has remained steadfast and has proven unstoppable. Birnbaum’s theory is expounded via his three-part treatise – Summa Metaphysica.

Like Einstein before him, Birnbaum has been the subject, as well, of gratuitous and virulent ad homenim European-based attacks – disinformation included – from narrow corners of academe. But despite this, Birnbaum has steadfastly maintained his course in the name of academia and truth.

Metaphysicists stand in a particularly demanding place where they are required to have expertise in a myriad of fields – philosophy, physics, math, astrophysics, biology – as well as cognitive function and emotion. So, it is of little surprise that Birnbaum himself is not shocked by the fear and inertia of segments of the European academic community. As well, that same establishment is heavily-invested in the old theory.

So, does this reactionary push-back affect the truth in any way? It can certainly slow down the advance of truth – sometimes very significantly; typically, however, virulence aimed at a correct theory cannot stop it – if at least some traction is achieved by the new theory at the get-go. Europe was the cradle of the Renaissance; unfortunately it intermittently shows severe resistance to new truth when that truth doesn’t comport to the status quo. Such is the case with Potentialism. But, like Einstein before him,

Birnbaum has committed himself to the long haul; and he remains resolute. Indeed, in response to the gratuitous attacks, both Einstein and Birnbaum upped-the-ante by generating additional academic work enhancing their respective theories. Eventually, the carping crowd was exposed for being on the wrong side of history.

Academics who have spent their lives defending the past theories of such cosmologies as Randomness, will likely never be won over. They simply have too much invested in these failed theories – whether through their books, articles, seminars or awards – to accept a new truth when it arrives on their doorstep; and certainly not a revolutionary newly-discerned truth. As legendary physicist Max Planck noted – veteran physicists do not yield to new truths so readily; they simply have too much invested in the status quo. In the case of Randomness Theory there another twist – as these academics are aided & abetted in the media by non-academic (religious zealot) Atheism believers.

The 1962 classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (University of Chicago Press) analyzes the oftentimes almost intractable resistance by existing science to new science. In the case of Birnbaum, he proposes not only new science, but a complete and revolutionary new metaphysics – fully wrapping-around exiting science. It is virtually a ‘10’ on the academic Richter Scale, an ultimate earthquake in scientific/academic thought. Indeed, to the extent that Summa Metaphysica’s Theory of Potential is disseminated, the world will simply no longer be the same.

Birnbaum will remain unfazed by European inflexibility though. Indeed, a vanguard of elite American scientists and thought leaders have recently emerged, whose recent works dovetail with the Birnbaum metaphysics (see section titled ‘Dovetailing” below). Taking notes from his predecessor in the General Relativity field, Birnbaum remains true to his theory; he is unbowed and unapologetic.

Such is the foundation of all modern science. Europe may posture as the heart of academia and scientific thought, but for over a hundred years, it has de facto calcified debate over cosmology.

Fortunately, Birnbaum, like Einstein before him, understands this, and stands steadfast and defiant.

Potentialism Theory: The Summa series:
Summa Metaphysica I: Religious Man: God and Evil (Ktav, 1988);
Summa Metaphysica II: Spiritual Man: God and Good (New Paradigm Matrix, 2005);
Summa Metaphysica III: Secular Man: The Transcendent Dynamic (New Paradigm Matrix, 2014).
See SummaMetaphysica.com.
Over fifty thousand volumes of Summa I, II or II are in circulation.

Potentialism Theory: Context
Summa Metaphysica has been –
# the prime focus of a major international academic conference (see Conference1000.com)
# a Course Text at over a dozen colleges (see SummaCourseText.com)
# the focus of over 100 feature articles (see SummaCoverage.com)

Potentialism Theory: Dovetailing
Birnbaum draws his core support from elite American academe: Harvard, Yale, and NYU. He is at the cutting-edge of Renaissance II, spearheaded by confident and cutting-edge American Thought Leaders.
Recent hi-level academic works dovetailing with Birnbaum’s Theory of Potential (see PotentialismTheory.com) include the following:
Programming the Universe (Knopf, 2006) by Professor of Quantum Mechanics Seth Lloyd of MIT;
Mind & Cosmos (Oxford Press, 2012) by Professor of Philosophy & Law Thomas Nagel of NYU;
Our Mathematical Universe (Knopf, 2014) by Professor of Physics Max Tegmark of MIT.

Potentialism Theory: Counterattack

See The Closing of the Scientific Mind by Gelernter of Yale, Commentary Magazine, January 2014.
See SelectedRelated.com for the Gelernter piece plus related articles. All counter-attack against the nihilistic (and academically abusive) Randomness/Atheistic crew.

Potentialism Theory: Paradigm Challenge
Via his revolutionary true theory of everything (see TTOE1000.com ), Birnbaum has instigated a global paradigm challenge (see ParadigmChallenge.com). Literally all fields of study are impacted.
David Birnbaum himself is known globally, as well, as the author or the editor-in-chief of several important series on history and spirituality. His New Paradigm Matrix platform has over 180 Thought Leaders from around the globe under its aegis.

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.