Biography

Robert L. DeMelo

Robert is an independent researcher, amongst other things. He has been actively pursuing the study of physics for over 10 years. Professionally he has a background in engineering and has worked in technology also over 13 years developing systems for multiple industries. His interests of study include science (physics), technology, philosophy, psychology and ancient prehistoric history. He is an advocate for world peace through free universal education. Primary Research: Cosmology (Physics), Gravity, Grand Unification Why: Because I love science and the philosophies surrounding it. I love to question, to challenge and to push limits, because that's how we find answers. I do it because it's fun. Scientific and Skeptical View: Reasoning should be ruled by impartiality, objectivity, the rules of logic and math, obvious measurable observations and ingenuity in regards to testing, multiple perspectives and interpretation of data. Reasoning should be void of all emotion and sociological pressures such as money, reputation, association and policy. True skepticism should take a stance of unknown until proven, not a stance of denial until proven. It is also prudent to understand that nothing can ever be satisfactorily proven and nor should it be. All evidence is ultimately subjective based on the boundary conditions placed on the definition of acceptable evidence. A skeptics role is not to deny but to challenge. Skeptics must also avoid absolutism and conclusiveness because those are the behaviours skeptics must always challenge. This goes for all scientific assertions. Science must be probabilistic and not conclusive or absolute. There is no rule that skeptics must not be open-minded. If anything, a true skeptic must be perpetually open-minded in order to challenge all assertions without resorting to absolutism. To challenge any perspective, understanding all alternate perspectives and interpretations are essential. Scientists and skeptics alike must avoid secular ignorance. What is a Physics Philosopher:  There are many reasons why I like the title of physics philosopher. First, my interest in physics lies not only in finding and defining facts in science but finding the areas of ambiguity in science and exploring them from every conceivable and inconceivable perspective in order to derive truth, no matter how outlandish it may appear. Essentially, a physics philosopher is an ambiguity investigator. I believe the role of a physics philosopher is to question everything and make people think outside the box in regards to our existence in the physical world, the physical world itself and explore different avenues that are plausible (plausibility is itself subjective) under the entire spectrum of modern knowledge using the rules of logic and mathematics. Second, physicists must adhere to conservative procedural and social rules found in modern science while a philosopher's position is to question procedural and social rules for the purpose of exploration on the validity of those rules. A physics philosopher studies the fundamental philosophical questions underlying physics that exist in the areas of ambiguity and the unknown. The philosopher dwells in the realms related to but beyond the known. In order to do any of this, I strongly believe philosophers must question all supposedly known aspects of our physical world, every proposed and assumed fact and definition, and reality itself continuously/indefinitely. Further more, in order to question and explore effectively, they must have a deep (or innate) understanding of the physical world, reality and how it is all perceived utilizing many of the tools we have at our disposal such as mathematics. Thirdly, I believe that the role of theoretical physicist will eventually blend into the role of the physics philosopher and vice-versa, that both roles are themselves ambiguous, because the more that is answered, more difficult questions will arise for which the physicist must step outside his predefined standard role and into the role of speculator and philosopher. I see the role of a physics philosopher as a precursor to the physicist role where they are allowed to question, explore and speculate where physicists are not explicitly or implicitly (the unwritten rules of communal dynamics). Their role is that of brainstormer to produce avenues of legitimate research in order to define possible new protosciences and challenge all existing theories. This fundamental function also depicts physics philosophers as skeptics, and in the broad definition, but argued for in the restricted sense, as scientists. I believe the role of physics philosopher is absolutely invaluable to the future of science. Ethical View: Don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t want done to you. If others wrong us we shouldn't accept it. We should defend ourselves ethically and not feel that we can do the same thing in return and feel absolved from remorse because we would still be doing wrong. We should rise above those who commit offenses against us but we also must be humble and not feel that we are better than others because we feel more ethical. That self-righteous feeling negates good ethical behavior and can be more destructive than good. By doing wrong against a fellow neighbour and feeling satisfaction is evil, but if doing wrong results in remorse that is not evil even though it was still wrong.