A magnificent achievement, but too dense for the general reader and too tendentious for the scientist.
Blog 20161019 Rare 1984 version of “The Scientific Worldview” now available for free download
Not many folks know that "The Scientific Worldview" was first published by PSI as a limited edition in 1984. The widely distributed edition of 2007 is nearly identical.
With the advent of easy digital scanning, we have decided to put the 1984 manuscript on Research Gate as a free download at:
You may wonder: Why the 23-year delay? Well, for one, my literary agent shopped it around to a dozen conventional publishers with no success. This quote from Random House was a typical response:
For another, I knew that every book has its optimal time. Books, like everything else, are part of a univironment. Controversial books, like TSW, are swords only useful in the philosophical struggle. Darwin delayed publication of his “Origin” for two decades as well. Upon publication in 1859, it became an instant bestseller among the educated who had benefited immensely from the “first industrial revolution” that occurred in Britain between 1750 and 1850. It was part of the struggle between capitalism and feudalism that continues to this day. I wonder: Is TSW still too dense and tendentious?
 Borchardt, Glenn, 1984, The scientific worldview: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [10.13140/RG.2.2.16123.52006].
 Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].
 Deane, Phyllis, 1979, The first industrial revolution (2nd ed.): New York, Cambridge University Press, 332 p.
Blog 20161012 Infinity and eternity
“When I read your closing "infinity for eternity", I liked it. Then I started thinking... I may be getting the concepts mixed here but it seems like infinity refers to a space or volume. But it can't, because by definition it is boundless. Eternity is based on time. Essentially it is infinite time. But if time doesn't exist then eternity can't either. Hmmm. I might be tossing all night over this one... Is our language inadequate to accurately describe either of these terms or are my wires completely crossed here?”
[GB: Thanks Ed for the interesting question. I used to close with “Infinity forever,” but was persuaded to change it by Nick. Now, I might change back again. Actually, infinity is difficult for most folks to imagine. In Infinite Universe Theory we assume that the universe consists of an infinite number of microcosms in motion. There can be no end to the universe, either macrocosmically or microcosmically. In particular, there is one “thing” that the universe cannot produce: perfectly empty space. Universal time is the motion of each of these microcosms with respect to all the others. Per conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), each of these microcosms (xyz portions of the universe) is continually changing. These changes are motions and, as you mention, motion does not exist. If motion does not exist, then neither does eternity.
You are correct in implying that our use of the word “eternity” is an objectification of motion, which was Einstein’s most important philosophical error. Of course, that happens whenever we use time as a noun. I wish there were more appropriate words for describing motion, but we just need to keep in mind that those are descriptions, not of xyz things, but of what those xyz things do.
Ed, you are correct that eternity cannot exist, for only things can exist. There certainly is no such thing as “an eternity.” Nonetheless, we are part of an unbounded Infinite Universe in which innumerable things are moving in all directions without cease. Back to “infinity forever,” which seems to involve just a little less objectification.]
 Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].
Blog 20161005 Regression of the week: Tyson thinks he might be living in the matrix
Thanks to Steve Puetz for this heads-up on the latest regressive outrage:
This comes as a special shock because Neil Degrasse Tyson is supposed to be the modern replacement for Carl Sagan. That a well-trained scientist would bother himself with such sci-fi notions shows just how far astray regressive physics and cosmogony have gone. This propensity needs a little explanation:
It is particularly revealing because Tyson gives no physics in his answer, just pure speculation based on immaterialism. After all, if you can believe in Einstein’s “immaterial fields” you can believe almost anything else. In addition to the matrix idea, others have considered that we might be part of a grand simulation. Tyson couches this in terms of probability, which just goes to show that he has not been able to make up his mind and that he lacks principles that would help him do so.
Those familiar with "The Ten Assumptions of Science" know that neither materialism nor immaterialism can be proven correct. That is why I wrote materialism like this: “The external world exists after the observer does not.” Clearly, there can be no personal proof of that. Likewise, we could be imagining all the things and all the occurences around us, with our senses being part of that imagining. Berkeley’s chair might disappear after he left the room and Chopra’s consciousness might be required for the universe to exist after all. Of course, all those imaginings, like Tyson’s matrix, are nonsense.
As we mature, we should be able to determine the difference between sense and nonsense. We do this by finally deciding which of the two dialectical opposites in philosophy is likely to be correct and thereafter assuming that we have made the correct decision. Making that decision closes many doors (e.g., matrices and simulations) and opens many others (e.g., how the universe really works).
Blog 20160928 The Ten Assumptions of Science are Free!
To all faithful readers:
We have decided to release “The Ten Assumptions of Science” (TTAOS) to the public for free download. This will enable folks all over the world to obtain the book as a pdf at no cost. Print copies will still be available at iUniverse and at Amazon.
TTAOS remains the sole philosophical foundation of progressive attempts to overthrow relativity and the Big Bang Theory. This tiny book (125 pages) provides excellent supplementary reading for courses in scientific philosophy, philosophy of science, and philosophy in general.
Here is the link:
Posted by Glenn Borchardt at 8:06 AM
Blog 20160824 NASA gets religion
[GB: Thanks to Jerry Coyne for his excellent blog post on NASA’s million dollar sponsorship of religion]:
“What’s up with the NASA grant to study theology?”
[GB: All this shows the close association between science and religion among cosmogonists and, in this case, Christians. The grant is about what the effect of discovering extraterrestrial life might be on religion. Duh? Every new discovery by the Hubble telescope is a ding on religion. Each one gets us closer to realizing that the universe is infinite. For god’s sake, NASA has observed over a trillion trillion stars (1024). So much for the creation of a special place for us on our way to some imagined eternal nirvana.
Will the announcement cause a “War of the Worlds” reaction, with rioting in the streets? Don’t count on it. There have been inklings of the conditions for extraterrestrial life before: fossils that almost look like worms, water once on Mars, and water beneath the surface of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. All this has amounted to nothing more than a big snooze. At best, cutting-edge religions will make up new stories to handle the new contradictions.
No, what this really amounts to is a free gift to Christianity made with your tax dollars. As Jerry mentions, the Freedom from Religion Foundation is challenging NASA’s faux pas as a church-state separation issue prohibited by the constitution. Sociology and religion should be studied by scientists, not those having a clear conflict of interest. A good topic for a proposal would be "The influence of religion on cosmology, physics, and NASA." Let’s hope NASA wakes up and rescinds its overt incursion into religion.]