Foreword
I wrote this book because, due to my experience with nature, I became convinced that science, with all its significance and successes in modern life, and with all the fascination it radiates, has come to be on a problematic course. It is a wrong path which, in my opinion, has serious consequences for society, education and the development of bio-analog technologies.
A century ago, within the framework of quantum theory and Relativity Theory, science began to accept irrational scientific ideas and conclusions that are contrary to human experience and to apply them to many natural phenomena. This created an environment of tolerance for “non-understanding”. This “non-understanding” now permeates science as a web of established theories that contradict human logic. This overriding of human reason could be a cause that prevents us from logically recognizing upcoming problems and also from successfully reproducing the fascinating energy technologies of biology. It could also distract us from the fact that a convincing idea of nature must also include an explanation of intelligence and consciousness and their evolution. Without a research strategy based on rational principles, we will never properly understand the reality of our universe, nor why evolution has given man an instinct for rationality and confidence in causality.
The reality in today’s science tells a different story. The trend towards irrationality is underpinned by an increasing number of abstract and largely opaque physical-mathematical models. More and more incomprehensible theories are currently being proposed to further support the irrational construction of knowledge. Everything in our real environment changes in one direction, following a time arrow. Only the current natural sciences describe and explain the building blocks of nature as time-neutral and design their fundamental laws in such a way that they are reversible in time. Conceptions of non-causality, of effects without causes, of non-locality, of objects simultaneously located in two places, and of an empty space manipulating movement and time are already established. There are others, include the Big Bang scenario about the origin of the universe, mysterious energy appearing from nowhere, an enormous inflation of empty space, and time travel. Dark matter, dark energy and an ever faster expanding universe with galaxies whose flight is approaching the speed of light are currently confusing our ideas. Does nature really behave that strangely, acting as a “block universe”, where time is an illusion? Are essential fundamental mechanisms of nature really illogical? Or is it, as I suspect, that science relies on irrational explanations because it does not know any other answers while insisting on a time-neutral world? If this is so, science is really on the wrong path; it is drawing the universe as it does not really exist.
As a boy growing up in a small mountain village in the region called Friuli, located in north-eastern Italy, I learned early that there was little future in cultivating this harsh, rocky land. The alternative was to leave the place and learn a modern profession. Because I was fascinated by nature, I wanted to understand it. That's how I became a natural scientist. Science gave me satisfactory answers to many questions. At the same time, however, it created deep confusion as it also insisted on irrational explanations for relevant fundamental mechanisms.
Is nature really irrational in its approach to such fundamental phenomena as causality? Are space and time really interwoven and manipulated by matter? Can energy and particles actually emerge from nothing? If this fundamental irrationality were part of nature, why don’t we experience illogical situations in any of the fantastic technological developments in living nature? There, everything that was discovered and investigated is ultimately logically understandable. There is no room for irrational mechanisms. Were such mechanisms invented by physical science due to lacking comprehension?
If one assumes that irrationalities arise from a lack of information in connection with scientific theories, then one has to deal with the applied notion of energy. The reason is clear: Information requires energy. If information is missing, then energy is missing or it is not being handled properly. It can be concluded that essential theoretical models concerning energy-relevant issues are incomplete or wrongly designed. Passive energy and time neutrality also seem to lead to a dead end because energy turnover generates movement and change. The search for inconsistencies in our established energy concept thus became the key to my intellectual challenge and the basis of a working strategy.
So in this book I will begin with a brief excursion into the history of scientific thinking about energy. I discovered a contradiction in it and so I propose a change in the idea of how energy behaves. Energy should not, as current