Analysis of "herd immunity" using the Sorites Paradox

When the subject of vaccination1 is discussed within a group (e.g. online forum), and there are some within that group who are pro-vaccination, almost invariably they will at some point raise the issue of herd immunity.

First let's clarify what is meant by "herd immunity"1
. From Wikipedia2 this:

"Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or social immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune"

There are, it seems to me, a number of aspects to this subject that need clarification:


What does 'holodynamic system' mean?

[This section was originally part of "The Modern Superstitions of Science and Religion", but given its importance and that it is central to much of what I write and present in courses, is now a separate post]

The term holo-dynamic system is (in my opinion) a more descriptive understanding of "holomovement" — a term coined by the late physicist, David Bohm. Bohm used the term holomovement to more accurately describe the inherent holographic nature of reality.


Simple Tools for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment

  • Simple Tools: for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment.Simple Tools: for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment

    Table of Contents

    • Figure 1: Some clarity would be nice
    • 1. The Stretch Tool
    • Figure 2: Flapping in circles?
    • 2. The Choice Tool
    • Figure 3: Real-ising possible into actual
    • What's so wrong with perfection?
    • Reluctant to stretch?
    • Figure 4: Evolution of us
    • 3. The Big Now Tool
    • Figure 5: 'Little now' within 'BIG now'
    • Relationships to reality
    • Figure 6: Possible, probable, actual
    • Playpens of life
    • Space-time aspects of masculine and feminine
      • Bosons
      • Fermions
    • Figure 7: Reasons to relate
    • Creatively keeping, or keeping creative
    • Figure 8: Free-will and Fate
    • Hierarchies?
    • Figure 9: Childhood: Good vs Bad Oppositions
    • 4. The Make-Like-Einstein Tool
    • Single-minded
    • Odd one out
    • Ignore the Over-dog
    • As natural as
    • Play with it
    • The Future As
    • 5. The Cycle Tool
    • Figure 10: The past "pushes"
    • Happened futures
    • Quality over quantity
    • Figure 11: Heart and Head
    • Figure 12: Focus, while embracing possibilities
    • Common as
    • Detaching from detachment
    • All together
    • 6. 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..
    • Figure 13: Co-Operated
    • (7) Additional
    • Figure 14: Cycled realities
    • Figure 15: The Totality of One and All

Leading God: Raw Individuality

At a dinner party recently I explained that "genuine creativity leads God", in that everyone else (including God1) is genuinely, gob-smackingly surprised by our raw originality.

One woman was deeply shocked and horrified by the idea. She said she completely "shut down" with regards to anything else I had to say. Golly.


So deeply disconnected

While sharing some ideas on a science forum, I wrote the following:

“Now that we have met with paradox we have some hope of making progress.” [Niels Bohr]

I go further and argue that if the theory you are considering (e.g. to explain consciousness) is not at root a paradox, then it is a limited truth.

And no, we can never fully comprehend these paradoxes of life -- such as finite within the infinite, consciousness within a deeper collective-unconscious, part within whole, individual within oneness.

If you think you've fully understood any of the above paradoxes, you've simply demonstrated a bias of focus towards one side.


Skeptics not in tune

While sharing some views with a neuroscientist on the ResearchGate website, I received a thank you for pointing her in the direction of this article "DNA Waves and Water" (pdf) with reference and links included in the "Congruent Solutions to Zeno's Paradoxes" article.

It wasn't until I reread the conclusions section, that something rather important occurred to me.

Specifically, that "the DNA Waves and Water (pdf) gives some linkages between mind and its effect upon chemical processes in the body (e.g. the em frequency of 7Hz of both DNA and the nervous system -- and that entered by (not in the article) deep meditative states! As I recall, light meditation (Alpha) changes brain activity to just under 14Hz, and Theta (deep meditation), changes brain wave frequency down to around 7Hz)."

Interesting to see that 7Hz figure, which is not as easily achieved in meditation. Most schools (meditative practices) are largely focused on Alpha, but for medical issues, 7Hz (Theta) states would be required, it seems!

And that's important in medical circles on issues of health and wellbeing: It's not just a matter of wishful thinking to, say, reverse cancer -- it requires deep meditative practices!{C}


The SEP field is alive and strong

I recently thought to set straight on a forum the nonsense arguments concerning solutions to Zeno's Paradoxes. Quick fillin — Zeno's Paradoxes are a set of paradoxes concerning the (theoretical) impossibility of physical movement. Obviously we routinely experience physical movement in our daily lives. No problem there. The theory however of how things move, is ... shall we say 'problematic'.

Anyway, the reason for the forum post was that after another hub thread started deleting my reasoned responses, I decided to post my own.

What has been interesting is to observe how Douglas Adams' SEP field is alive and strong on this topic.


The modern superstitions of science and religion


Modern science is still almost entirely based on 17th century concepts that physical movement is perfectly smooth and continuous.

This continuity of movement implies continuity of operation (of the world we experience) which naturally induced the perception that our universe (and our bodies) operated like a clockwork machine. This machine-world view was the impetus for the Industrial Revolution which resulted in many beneficial technologies (aircraft, automobiles, etc).

Around 200 years after Newton developed the calculus (which is based on the assumption of perfect continuity), the continuous-machine model was not able to explain a growing number of puzzling experimental results1 especially those concerning the presumed wave-like behaviour of light.

In 1905 Albert Einstein resolved the mismatch of clockwork theory with actual experiment with his photo-electric effect for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics. Light came in 'lumps' or particles of energy, and these particles, what we call 'photons', were not continuous.

This 'quantum' view of light gave rise to a burst of discoveries2, leading to what is now accepted as being, by far, "the most successful physical theory in history"3 : quantum theory.

Physicists quipped that quantum physics was all about 'lumps and jumps' - lumps of light that 'jump' from location to location without travelling the intervening space.

As one leading physicist explained, "according to the quantum theory, movement is not4 fundamentally continuous".

However, our sciences are still working on the assumption of clockwork continuity, which works well enough for rockets, rifles and railways.

Medical science, for example, still seeks to find the static machine-parts (genes) responsible for our personal behaviours, despite the evidence for nonlocal, interconnecting fields of quantum potentials that would, if researched, open whole new avenues for healing and wellbeing.

In the minutia of physical movement, movement is not continuous, nor clockwork in nature, nor predictable, nor certain.

Yet our sciences carry on, as if it were. The bulk of modern science is reliant on 17th century assumptions that are incompatible with world's most successful physical theory. The scientific method calls for theories to be discarded or modified when faced with evidence that is unable to be accommodated within the scope of a particular theory. This is how science advances. The geocentric model (Earth as centre of the universe) was ultimately replaced by the heliocentric model (Earth orbiting the Sun) because of the weight of evidence for the heliocentric model.

The intransigence to upgrade science's mechanical-universe model with one that is compatible with the quantum evidence is, like the behaviour of priests in Galileo's time, the hallmark of dogma, superstition and greed. That failure (to accommodate the facts within a congruent world-view) is a travesty of modern science.

In brief:

Standard5 modern science is still almost entirely based on 17th century concepts that physical movement is perfectly smooth and continuous (comprising an infinite-series6 of ever-so-small "infinitesimal" movements).

There are no bodily processes (chemical, electrical or otherwise) that can move anything infinitely ("infinite" literally means without end). Accordingly, physical movement is theoretically impossible when based on standard science's Newtonian (17th century) "assumptions". Given that physical movement is a routine aspect of everyday life, the root assumptions of standard science are clearly and unambiguously wrong.

Instead of applying 17th century thinking to our 21st century world, a new holodynamic world-view that matches the (quantum) evidence is, arguably, well overdue.


Superstition - "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation."

While sharing various ideas on a forum recently, it became evident there are many people (including and especially atheists, scientists and the religious) who still very deeply rely on superstitious beliefs.

And by "superstitious" beliefs, none are more evident than when the topic of Zeno's Paradoxes is considered.

To put things in context:

Imagine we have a number of belief-systems, let's call them BS1 and BS2. Let's now see how well they match a particular set of evidence (facts and observations, as can be readily experienced on planet Earth).


Men are particles, women are waves

Update (August, 2016) - see latest regarding the dynamics of gender

When writing Be and Become during the latter half of the 90's, the various revisions of the manuscript1 included chapter (Nine) titled as "Men are particles, women are waves".

However, prior to publication I had the thought (contrary to my better instincts) that the chapter would best be titled differently, to what is now "Material men, wonderful women". It was, I thought, less likely to be dismissed as 'stereotyping' people, even though I felt at ease with the "Men are particles ..." title.  "Men are particles, women are waves" quite adroitly and succinctly expresses the inherent dynamics of life towards individualism, and collectivism -- men and male animals do (as a general rule!) bias themselves towards the hard, physical, individualistic side to life (characteristic of particles). Women do bias themselves towards the soft, interconnective, cooperative, relationship side to life (characteristic of waves and fields).


Hardly -- walk down any street asking everyone encountered their occupation.  Then note the gender percentages of those in the 'hard-sciences', engineering and Information Technologies, compared with those in care services, humanities and communications.

The bias is not because men or women are 'pushed' into the various professions, or due to restrictions such as 'glass ceilings'. There's been plenty of attempts to get more women into IT, but they simply just aren't as interested ... as a GENERAL rule!. Yes, there's always exceptions, but we're talking 'bias' in numbers, of percentages, not of exceptions.


Timeless knowledge

Voices of the dayWhile visiting a friend in Barkandji Country (Aboriginal country around Wilcannia, and along the Darling River), I was given a book "Voices of the first day", by Robert Lawlor. It contains concepts and ideas which are highly congruent with my basic model of The Theory of One and All that I intuited and explained in my book, BE and BECOME.

When researching materials to support the ideas in BE and BECOME I came across a number of leading physicists who voiced a more technical explanation: within certain bounds and constraints (via various 'lattice-works' or matrices, such as fractals), matter and energy is "plastic" — it can be molded or influenced with mind1. At this stage of our evolution it's not yet a noticeably large influence, but it's the principle that is important. It can be guided (again, within constraints), by virtue of the fact that all bits of matter and energy are 'instinctively choosing' to form the world we know.2 They 'instinctively choose' how to collapse the wave-function (collapse possibility into actuality -- see Fig. BI_RPA). As physicist Freeman Dyson explains: