Robert DeMelo was born and raised in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is a technology consultant, software developer, and an independent researcher in this spare time. 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 for over 17 years developing systems for multiple industries. He is a perpetual student with interests of study in science (physics), technology, philosophy, psychology and history.
Primary Research: Cosmology (Physics), Fractal Cosmology, Gravitation, Quantum Gravity, Grand Unification, Comparative Mythology
Because I love science and the philosophies surrounding it. I love mysteries and attempting to decipher them. 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.
I am a firm believer that the solutions to all our world problems lie in education and in educating everyone. This is why I believe education should be universally free. To a vast majority, education is not an accessible option due to many reasons but primarily due to the cost prohibitive nature of formal education all over the world, which is extremely unfortunate, not only for the individuals that cannot attain a formal education, but to society as a whole as entire pools of potential innovation and ingenuity are omitted due simply to cost which is itself a problem. To hundreds of millions, the Internet has become a source of education which is excellent. The Internet has helped the world to essentially wake up by learning and realizing things that were previously limited or inaccessible. This is just a start and has far to go. The way we learn and the way educate should be continually reviewed and revised in a truly scientific application to determine the best and most effective approach to education considering current educational challenges such as remote access and that not everyone learns the same.
The problem to many if everyone becomes educated is the level of competitiveness globally increases increasing supply to professionals but in turn lowering the cost for such supply. This highlights another problem in our society which is a very dysfunctional form of capitalism that has made itself very apparent over the last several years. My own personal solution to this mess is a mixture of capitalism and socialism (socio-capitalism), but by first attacking the root cause for any imbalance in society which is greed, lack of empathy, narcissism and laziness, once again, through education in philosophy and ethics on the need for sustainability and peace in a world that is progressive in a healthy fashion. Any future socio-economic system should be geared to achieve balance and sustainment on all aspects of society by eliminating extremes (poverty, wealth, ignorance) and strive towards a society that thrives with technology bettering it – not destroying it. If ever one day we take to the stars, where there is a high probability of life existing out there, we should be at our best, clean from the ailments that currently hinder our development as a people.
First, my interest in physics lies not only in investigating science but finding the areas of ambiguity in science and exploring them from every conceivable and inconceivable perspective in order to derive deeper truths, no matter how outlandish they may appear. Essentially, a physics philosopher is an investigator of ambiguity, the unknown and speculation. I believe the role of a physics philosopher is to question everything and make people think outside the box to derive insight in regards to our existence in the physical world, the physical world itself and explore different avenues that are novel and plausible (plausibility is itself subjective) under the entire spectrum of modern knowledge using the rules of logic and mathematics. Second, physicists must adhere to critical and 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 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 and 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, logic and statistical data. Thirdly, I believe that the role of theoretical physicist blends into the role of the physics philosopher, 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 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. Their role is that of brainstorming to in hopes to produce avenues of legitimate research in order to define possible new protosciences, derive ingenious solutions to existing problems and challenge to 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.
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.