For this essay I would like to shift gears a bit. My main focus is on applied epistemology, as it pertains to the mental hell-th system. However applied epistemology is not limited to the mental hell-th system. Rather it is universally applicable. This is why I have provided sound epistemological commentary on the g*d axiom, among others.
In other words applied epistemology is not limited to math and science in the modern world. When knowledge is produced properly we can gain insights into reality. Furthermore when we understand the underlying patterns present in properly produced knowledge we can evaluate the quality of all knowledge.
Essentially in learning how to apply epistemology anyone can effectively become an "Epistemologist". That is, someone who understands and adheres to proper knowledge production.
My criticisms against the mental hell-th system are blatantly obvious for anyone who bothers to understand mental hell-th by tuning in to the dialectical tension within the professional community itself. Indeed I have previously encouraged my audience that the best way to understand the modern mental hell-th system is to read what the professionals are saying amongst themselves in academic papers. What criticisms are they formulating against their own profession, and why?
However today I would like to demonstrate a more advanced application of epistemology. This one is not as obvious as the mental hell-th system. However the problems are worth a broad collective contemplation of the implications (as there are numerous).
Mental hell-th is bad science from the get-go. Thus it is obvious to anyone who bothers to inform themselves properly. Indeed anyone can act as an epistemologist and effectively apply the principles of epistemology upon the field of mental hell-th. It simply takes the personal courage to admit to oneself that they are not and cannot be an expert in mental hell-th. In other words it merely takes individuals to spot their own confirmation bias in order to effectively apply epistemology upon mental hell-th.
However what happens when the science is legitimately "good" to begin with? That is what happens when our hypotheses work out as expected and we produce technologies that do exactly what we say they're supposed to do? This is the Hallmark of good science, right?
Perhaps it is "good" science, but the best science is that which recognizes its own limits.
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES AND THE ARC OF KNOWLEDGE
Now let us examine what happens when we place our broadband wireless network on the Arc of knowledge. As legitimate science we know that we can find plenty of constituent components on the left side of the arc as well as at least some room for growth on the right side. Recall that the extent of our understanding on the left side of the ark informs our ability to build upon the knowledge on the right side of the arc.
This is an Epistemologist's way of saying "let's conduct a hypothetical thought experiment to see how far our wireless technologies can really go". That is we want to use our advanced intelligence to make meaningful predictions about what can happen with wireless technologies based on the application of The Arc of knowledge.
As we look to the left side on the Arc of knowledge the immediate prerequisite knowledge or constituent components are the previous generations of broadband wireless networks. That is 4G 3G 2G, etc.
Also on the left side of the arc we will find the electromagnetic spectrum on which we encode wireless information. Use of the electromagnetic spectrum is not limited to the broadband wireless network.
Indeed humans use other types of electromagnetic frequencies for other purposes. Different electromagnetic frequencies have different characteristics and interact with "solid" reality in distinct manners. For example remote controls often use infrared waves which do not readily pass through solid objects.
We have found that more complex information needs to be transmitted using higher frequencies. Changing the channel with your remote control does not require much information to be transmitted through the infrared waves.
However playing video games across the broadband network does require massive amounts of information to be transmitted.
We need appropriate frequency channels for the complexity of the information we are transmitting.
Why did we need to upgrade in the first place? We needed to upgrade because the data that we have been sending on our broadband wireless network is too complex to to be accommodated by the current frequency channels. Thus we need to upgrade our network and when that happens that is always in the direction of increasing frequency.
In other words there is a positive correlation between complexity of data transmitted on the wireless network and the frequency required to transmit that data.
Our wake up call as a civilization should have been the mandatory government upgrade of television signals from analog to digital. Really this should have been the "canary in the coal mine" situation in that it should have fostered a general social understanding of the limits of any wireless technology. That is as we increase the complexity of information we need a higher frequency.
With this basic understanding of how electromagnetic waves behave we can understand the limits that can be placed on them. We cannot create a civilization dependent on wireless technologies that cannot support it.
Wireless technologies have been with us for decades now. Indeed in the 20th century lower frequency electromagnetic were manipulated to transmit the human voice across great distances, as well as through solid objects.
"Radios" which we have relied on for decades for entertainment and information sharing purposes, exist because researchers successfully manipulated electromagnetic waves.
Radio waves are one type of electromagnetic wave that exist outside of the spectrum of visible light. In other words radio waves are a form of light itself and travel at the speed of light itself. However their vibrational state is outside that of visible light, and thus we do not see them. It also means that the radio waves behave distinctly from visible light. Whereas visible light cannot travel through a brick wall, radio waves can, to varying degrees. The vibrational states of the radio waves and the brick wall are so disparate that the radio waves can easily penetrate solid objects like brick walls.
As we have seen over the course of nearly a century of radios and then televisions, this technology has wide ranging applications. With the right hardware the human voice and image can be encoded into electromagnetic waves and then decoded back into intelligible sounds and images.
However there are also limits to electromagnetic waves.
The most obvious limit to the electromagnetic waves that we use to transmit wireless information is there are only so many frequencies available on which we can transmit information. Furthermore, the higher the degree of complexity of the information that we want to transmit the higher the frequency that is required to transmit that information.
Put simply high frequencies can carry a lot of information and low frequencies can carry far less information.
The original "radios" utilized a lower frequency than our broadband wireless technologies. Due to their lower frequency there is only so much information that can be carried on them. Perhaps it is enough to transmit the human voice and image across long distances, but it is not enough to transmit the information of complex software applications.
For more complex wireless technologies, higher frequencies are needed. A computer at its foundation is a binary machine. It recognizes the position of "on" and the position of "off." However the computer can do this essentially at the speed of light. In other words it can process binary information so rapidly that it can turn a simple binary language into incredibly complex software applications.
Such is the power of Applied epistemology as realized through the scientific method. Essentially, the higher the frequency the more on/off positions we can encode into the electromagnetic frequency. This allows these electromagnetic waves to carry more information. The more cycles per second that an electromagnetic wave vibrates the more complex things that can be done with it.
This is why wireless technologies are being advanced toward a higher frequency. That is 5G operates at a higher frequency than 4G, which operates at a higher frequency than 3G, etc.
The current 5G rollout allows us to re-examine what was originally considered "good science".
With each generation of wireless technologies we need to upgrade the hardware on which these technologies function. 4G requires that there are cell phone towers roughly every few miles. Indeed this is still an ongoing rollout in some geographic regions. That is 4G cell phone towers continue to be erected.
Having a 4G cell phone tower once every few miles ensures that there is adequate coverage in that region. This does not seem all that intrusive, unless the cell phone company wants to build a cell phone tower on or near your property and you object.
However we have found that 4G is inadequate to meet the massive information demand that our society is placing on our wireless network. When we want everything to be wireless for our own convenience there is a consequence to that. The more wireless information that we produce the more advanced the technology we need to carry it all.
4G has been out for roughly a decade. In other words in about 10 years we have maxed out the capacity of that particular wireless technology. we now need to upgrade to 5G in order to manage all of our wireless devices.
Those who promote 5G are quick to point out it's obvious benefits. Indeed it is an upgrade from 4G and will allow us to transmit significantly more information than 4G. This also allows for new applications such as remote surgeries. The point is not whether we can upgrade, but rather what the long-term trajectory of this upgrade is.
HEAD FIRST INTO A BRICK WALL CALLED REALITY
With the rollout of 5G there has been a lot of criticisms. I am going to depart from the standard criticisms against 5G. My criticism is born of a deep understanding of epistemology and being able to understand how iterations of spatial dimensions can interact over time.
Since I became informed on 5g, my primary criticism has been that the technology is untenable. That is, it is a wireless technology that has substantial difficulties traveling through solid objects from walls to air itself . Doesn't this contradict the point of a wireless technology? This is especially true of a wireless technology upon which we have built our entire social structure.
We don't use infrared waves for much more than remote control technologies because they don't travel through walls either. In other words we understand the limits of infrared waves and don't try to expect more of them than they can accommodate.
However 5G invites the question of:
Are we expecting more of our wireless network than it is capable of accommodating long-term?
Our decisions today on how to advance wireless technologies will have ramifications well into the future. We may not think that our continual insistence on the newest app and the newest technology can lead to something bad or even catastrophic. However our collective refusal to seriously evaluate the implications of our current dependence on wireless technology can be conceptualized as a threat to the species itself.
5G AND A BOX ON EVERY BLOCK
The obvious disadvantage of 5G wireless technologies is that they don't travel through solid objects all that well. The situation is not as black and white as it is with infrared technologies. If you stand behind a wall and try to change your TV with your remote, this will not work at all. However 5G technologies do penetrate solid objects to a certain degree. This means that a 5G signal will be adversely affected when it has to pass through a solid object.
How many solid objects can we find in daily life? Indeed we live in a world of brick and mortar buildings that are not conducive to 5G technologies.
The solution of cell phone companies is apparently to put 5G boxes everywhere. We currently have 4G cell phone towers once every few miles. However with the obvious disadvantages of 5G technologies, 5G "towers" will be installed on every street corner. my understanding is that they are more like boxes than towers.
This is where real Prudence is required when we produce knowledge with apparently "good science".
In other words our 5G technology does not exist in a vacuum. Rather it exists in a world full of distinct types of technologies each on their own trajectory. Indeed the buildings constructed in 2023 are done so with a better understanding of engineering than the ones constructed in 1823. We can construct buildings more effectively and with higher quality than our ancestors. We can now choose to live in a world of extreme convenience because our engineering capabilities are so advanced.
Hmmm.... What happens when technologies collide?
5G MEET THE WALL BUILT BY HUMAN ENGINEERING
Human engineering began prior to the Advent of wireless technologies. Indeed constructing buildings is less advanced than converting signals into electromagnetic waves and then back into signals which can be understood by a human.
In other words human engineering as a technological Endeavor is on its own trajectory. The trajectory is distinct from that of wireless technologies. Constructing a sturdier building does not require wireless technologies. Indeed we can construct better buildings with or without wireless technologies.
This means that in pursuing wireless technologies we have to account for their limits, including how they will inevitably interact with other technologies.
Our current technological advancement in the field of engineering requires the use of materials which obstruct wireless technologies. Specifically we tend to use brick, as well as other solid objects that obstruct 5G technology.
We have not yet developed materials that can allow 5G waves to pass through them, if such a thing is even possible. Even if we were to develop such a technology we would have to tear down all our previous structures and rebuild them with this new material. This is such an absurd proposition it is laughable!
Currently the 5G rollout is facing significant opposition for various reasons including the notion that it simply impractical to produce and position all of the hardware necessary for a global 5G Network.
A box on every block? It will likely take some time to convince all of society that this is the best path forward. However each daily decision of average humans in modern Earth toward advancement of wireless technologies puts us on a trajectory for a brick wall called reality.
In other words, when you or someone you know downloads the latest app, purchases the latest technology, or tries to integrate their entire life into the world of wirelessness and call it a "smart home", we are One step closer to....
SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE HAVE TO UPGRADE TO 6G?
Currently 5G can be conceptualized as "the canary in the coal mine". Much like the safety of a coal mine we don't know the long-term trajectory of our wireless technologies.
As a history lesson, canaries were often brought down into coal mines with humanz in order to gauge the levels of toxic fumes in the mine. The canary was more sensitive to these fumes than humans. The canary would die at a low dose of toxic fumes. However a higher dose of those same fumes could kill a human. Thus, if the canary died in the coal mine the miners vacated rapidly.
5G and it's limited ability to penetrate solid objects should be a canary in the coal mine situation for us and our wireless lifestyles. Indeed average citizens contribute to the information demand placed on our wireless network. As this information demand increases we will inevitably have to increase the frequency of our wireless technologies in order to handle that level of information.
The scenario is not much different than the transition from 4G to 5G and the underlying reasons for it. That is our modern society has become so integrated with wireless technology that we are on a trajectory for a brick wall.
We can never forget that there are only so many frequency channels available on which we can encode wireless information. What happens when we run out of viable frequency channels?
The fact that we cannot see the electromagnetic waves with our eyes does not somehow mean that there's a limitless supply of them.
When we need to upgrade to 6G, where are we going to find more frequency channels? How are we going to manage a network built on a higher frequency that has less capability to travel through solid objects than 5G? Recall that for increasing complexity of information we need a higher frequency. In other words it needs to vibrate at more cycles per second so that we can encode more bits of information.
The answer should be obvious in that we're going to meet a brick wall called reality when our 6G technologies can't travel through brick walls!
Imagine an entire society that is utterly dependent on 5G and needs a 6G solution to sustain its addiction to wirelessness.
I'm going to allow the imagination of the audience to play around with this idea. How would you create a wireless network that requires nodes positioned so close together that they can surmount the challenge of not being able to transmit information through walls.
Will we then have to live wearing wrist watches which serve as nodes on the wireless network?
Impractical is an understatement.
WHY CAN SOME WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES PASS THROUGH WALLS AND OTHERS CAN'T?
Let's remind ourselves that the electromagnetic spectrum is indeed a spectrum. Visible light is a small part of the spectrum. If you notice visible light tends to reflect off of other things. Light tends to bounce around and continue to do so until it gets absorbed. Our human perception of color is created because some frequencies in the visible light spectrum become absorbed by an object whereas others are reflected. We see the reflected color but not the absorbed colors.
The alignment between the visible light waves and the color of the object produces our perception of a colored object.
Red light bounces off of a red object.
The challenge with wireless technologies is that some of them have frequencies which are very different from solid objects. However others have frequencies that are closer to the vibrational state of solid objects. We already learned that infrared waves do not pass through solid objects. However other frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum readily pass through solid objects.
The highly aligned state of high frequency electromagnetic waves makes them impractical to pass through highly aligned solid objects such as brick walls. Recall from basic science that solids have the most densely organized energetic structure, liquids are in the middle, and gases have the least densely organized energetic structure. 5G technologies can be obstructed by all three of these.
The highly aligned frequencies of certain wireless technologies bounce off of the highly aligned vibrational States of certain solid objects. This causes the original signal to dissipate. If the 5G signal bounces off too many objects then the information we originally encoded is adversely affected.
What all this means that we have to develop a deeper understanding of what wirelessness really means. Just because something is wireless does not mean that it can pass through all objects in time and space.
We then have a responsibility to use this increased understanding of wirelessness to make prudent long-term decisions for our species. I honestly don't want to imagine a scenario in which humanity has forced itself into a position where it must upgrade to a 6G technology.
At this point we are on a trajectory in which our wireless technologies will literally meet a brick wall called reality. When we have produced so much wireless information that our 5G Network cannot handle it, are we then going to turn to profit- oriented corporations to give us an even less practical technology than 5G?
IN REFLECTION
Human civilization has existed for roughly the past 10,000 years. We are at the Advent of modernity. That is we cannot look to our ancestors for specific guidance on how to navigate the challenges that our generation faces. Indeed, we are the first generation to navigate the challenges inherent with profound and rapid technological advancement. This requires a high degree of personal responsibility. Through Epistemology, I hold myself to this high degree of personal responsibility.
This is the first generation that is facing the advantages and disadvantages of a broadband wireless network. It is the only generation that will have to face it because within a single generation there will be a significant resolution, whether positive or negative.
We can begin today by placing limits on our broadband wireless network. We can begin to recreate a wired world. While there remains obvious advantages to wireless technologies, at this point it is most prudent to place limits on the application of this technology. Inevitably there will be a solution. We can either collectively find one proactively or wait for those with the most power to find one reactively.
What is needed in order to navigate all the converging strands of technological advancement that have been coalescing for the last 10,000 years is a "wisdom-ocracy". We need wise leadership, not popular leadership.
A simple and prudent guiding question for technological advancement can be:
"What are the next two iterations of this technology?"
In other words what happens after this one and then what happens after the next one?
If we cannot effectively answer those questions and arrive at a prudent long-term trajectory then we need to be responsible and place limits on the advancement of the technology.
At this point in Civilization "good science" no longer makes the cut. Rather we can only accept the "best science".
Humility, Epistemology and Wisdom is what I can offer.
Thank you and have a Content day
Sean