Free will, meaning, and the “self”

PSI Blog 20170517 Free will, meaning, and the “self”

From joogabah:

And I completely deny free will. But the determinants are on the level of meaning, not physical motion.

[GB: Sorry, but the universe does not have any meaning. If you want that, you will have to invent it yourself. All determinants are physical. That is what it means “to deter.” Not having free will means that any meaning you devise is the product of a long chain of events.]

Language gives us the ability to self program, instead of relying on static instinctual responses, and it is this uniquely human ability that I believe people confuse as "free will".

[GB: Sorry, but there is no such activity as “self programming.” Any phrases with the word “self” in them are attempts to claim free will where there is none. It is the vain attempt of systems philosophers to isolate the microcosm from the macrocosm. All actions are univironmental.]

Even tho everything is determined, it is also true that humans are self-programmable to an extraordinary degree.

[GB: Not possible at all. There is no “self programming” in the same way that Newton’s body cannot change itself. The only possible changes come from a collision from the outside—nothing “self” about that. Every activity is causal (F=ma). If you want the illusion of "changing yourself," you will have to change your environment.]

Instead of punishing people for bad behavior (unless that is the only possible check at a particular level of social development) it would be far more productive to discover and control the social and linguistic determinants that lead to undesirable behavior.

[GB: Agree.] 


Materialism vs immaterialism

PSI Blog 20170510 Materialism vs immaterialism

After I suggested that he read "The Scientific Worldview," joogabah wrote:

 Yes, I did read it. I'm trying to express religious ideas from a materialist paradigm without contradiction.

[GB: Sorry, joogabah, but that cannot be done. That is because materialism and immaterialism are opposing assumptions, as I explained in the discussion of the First Assumption of Science. Typically, an immaterialist will say: “There must be something beyond matter in motion.” That is why we define “things” as xyz portions of the universe. “Matter” is the abstraction for “all things,” so the immaterialist must be using a different definition for “something,” which is purely imaginary. That “something” cannot possibly exist, because existence can only be a property of an xyz portion of the universe.

Of course, we all need to study religious imaginings so that we will understand the 90% of the folks who live their lives by them. While most of those imaginings have no physical evidence to support them, they still have an evolutionary purpose: to instill and enforce loyalty.]

The reason is that I think religion is doing something essential in human societies that is not considered when one simply views it as "false".

[GB: Social groups without loyalty could not exist in a hostile world. Overpopulation by neighboring tribes forces those tribes to seek resources necessary for their survival despite the necessity to trespass or invade. In those cases, war is inevitable. That is why religion and war go hand in hand. However, loyalty can be engendered without religion. Many atheistic social groups do just fine without it.]

 Religion is a commentary on the human condition and it addresses our linguistically determined subjectivity, which is the only reality we actually experience.

[GB: Sorry, but subjectivity does not require language. Most animals have subjectivity whether they have language or not.]

To reduce reality to matter in motion is to ignore that part of it that exists as us.

[GB: Sorry, but we are all microcosms, portions of the universe consisting of matter in motion. Anything that “exists” is matter.]

We are a jumble of myriad linguistic constructs.

[GB:  False. We consist of matter. We use linguistic constructs; we are not made up of linguistic constructs.]

That is what animates us.

[GB: We are animated by the univironment, the infinite matter in motion inside and outside us. Language is unnecessary for us to be animated.]

That is our "soul".

[GB: There is no such thing. That belief comes straight out of religion.]

It is thousands of years old, and it has become the primary information system in our species, eclipsing DNA, because of its ability to bring about change orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution.

[GB:  False. Language is part of biological evolution. All evolution is at times slow and at times fast.]

It is that creative process and its seemingly limitless potential that we worship as our creator, because language precedes us even tho the species developed it - new individuals are literally created by it.

[GB:  Sorry, but “worship” is supplication to another microcosm (predator, priest, president, or other microcosm powerful enough to do us harm).  We are not created by language; we create language. That is something that an immaterialist like Deepak would dream up, with this idea that consciousness created the universe instead of the other way around.]

There needs to be a part of materialism that addresses this, and until there is, religion will have something that more closely resembles lived experience, because it addresses human subjectivity and rational, linguistic meaning.

[GB: Since the universe and ourselves consist only of matter in motion, we have no choice but to understand subjectivity and “rational, linguistic meaning” in those terms. All language requires a subject (matter) and a verb (motion).]

We are not our bodies.

[GB: Egads! What else could we be? When our bodies are gone, we are gone.]

Our bodies enable our existence.

[GB: True.]

When I say “Glenn”, I am addressing years of linguistic, rational development, not human tissue.

[GB: Sorry, but I do not pretend to be anything else, although that human tissue does seem to have recorded a bit of linguistic, rational stuff.]

Not matter, or the blind motion of matter, but consciously perceived meaning, whose determinants are not the collision of particles but conscious, rational deliberation.

[GB: Sorry, but matter is not always blind. Materialists are careful not to denigrate matter, because that is what we are, including the 80 billion neurons that help us to “consciously perceive meaning.” Consciousness is the motion performed by those neurons. Like all microcosms in the infinite universe, they cannot operate without the “collision of particles” that you seem to despise.]


Negative mass?

PSI Blog 20170503 Negative mass?

Thanks to George Coyne who writes:


You might find this experiment of interest.  Wikipedia states: Prof. Peter Engels and a team of colleagues at Washington State University observed negative mass on the 10th April 2017 when they created new negative mass by reducing the temperature of rubidium atoms to near absolute zero, generating a Bose-Einstein condensate. By using a laser-trap, the team were able to reverse the spin of some of the rubidium atoms in this state, and observed that once released from the trap, the atoms expanded and displayed properties of negative mass, in particular accelerating towards a pushing force instead of away from it.

From the BBC on April 19, 2017: Physicists observe 'negative mass'

[GB: This interpretation that “negative mass” has been produced is a wonderful illustration of regressive physics. It is true that the definition of mass is “the resistance to acceleration.” As you can see from the figure below, any impacts by supermicrocosms from the macrocosm will increase the mass of a microcosm. In other words, the momenta of the submicrocosms within the microcosm will increase. This is nothing more than Newton's Second Law of Motion acting across the microcosmic boundary. In other words, a “push” across that boundary will increase the motion of the insides of that microcosm before it accelerates the microcosm as a whole. As was explained in the neomechanics section of “The Scientific Worldview,” the microcosm will tend to expand as those submicrocosms within the microcosm impact the microcosmic boundary on all sides. The regressive physicists involved in this study have disingenuously misinterpreted this push-back as “negative mass.” It cannot possibly involve a decrease in mass, because any push-back by the submicrocosms within the microcosm only makes it even more difficult to accelerate the microcosm. Again, mass is the resistance to acceleration. Without acknowledging the submicrocosms producing this effect, regressive physicists are forced to invent yet another absurd ad hoc that makes no sense: “negative mass.”]

Neomechanical interactions illustrating that absorption of motion involves mechanical collisions described by Newton's Second Law of Motion (from Borchardt (2007), Fig. 5-3).[1]

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].


CERN does another crazy

PSI Blog 20170426 CERN does another crazy

Thanks to Fred who found this one hidden on the Internet for a couple years:

My response to Fred was:

Egads! Egads! This is the craziest one yet! From the "director general of CERN" no less! I think he should get back to cleaning up the Higgs mess before doing anymore loopy stuff. BTW: Are you sure that this wasn't an April fool joke (the 20151001 date is probably fake too)?

Fred wrote back with this:

“Could be a joke, but, we still have a lot of work to do. Someone posted this genuine response on Facebook:  ‘I've always thought that music vibrations may be used in the future to prop up wormholes long enough for us to travel through them to another universe.’”



Quantum Mechanics: A watched pot (particle) never boils?

PSI Blog 20170419 Quantum Mechanics: A watched pot (particle) never boils?

I am afraid your tax dollars have been misspent by the Army Research Office, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under its QuASAR program and the National Science Foundation.

George Coyne just sent this heads up on the nefarious adventures of those who claim to be quantum mechanists:

George writes:

“Here is an excerpt from my Notfinity Process book on this topic:  QMT labels this the quantum Zeno Effect (a.k.a. Turing’s Paradox) and attempts to explain it by proposing that time is merely a dimension, which things can move through or remain motionless on a timeline. QMT physicists maintain that through constantly observing a particle it will never decay, which means the observation has prevented it from doing anything and thus what they refer to as “time” ceases. Many studies claim to show that measuring particles with increased frequency affects the decay rate and can potentially stop it completely, which physicists maintain is synonymous with the stopping of ‘time.’”

[GB: Well, all I can say is that if you expect to be paid as a “modern physicist,” you better get with the regressive program. One of the more popular aspects of QMT (quantum mechanical theory) is the indeterministic idea that the experimenter’s consciousness might have an influence on the result. Of course, no one can perform an experiment on any microcosm (xyz portion of the universe) without interacting with it in some way. Time is motion, so whenever one reduces temperature (the vibratory motion of baryonic matter), any motions that occur under normal conditions will be slowed. That is what we do to prevent the decay of food when we freeze it—makes no difference if you are watching your freezer at the same time. And it sure has nothing to do with whether you think time is a dimension or not.

If these experiments have any merit at all, it is that what happens to the microcosm is influenced by the macrocosm. Perhaps a little story is apropos at this point. Back in the day, we used to consider the half-lives of radioactive isotopes to be completely independent of their surroundings. For the most part, this is a good first approximation, but I doubt that it could be true in all cases. If the literature does not have some exceptions, it is time that one of you take a look at the subject in more detail. Remember that, according to univironmental determinism, all motions of the microcosm are the result of interactions with the macrocosm.

Also remember that QMT began with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the observation that both the position and the velocity of a particle cannot be determined at the same time. In other words, any measure of either must involve interacting with the particle, and thus changing its position and/or velocity at the same time. However, this has nothing to do with watched pots or particles. The upshot is that you have to have a pretty big head to think that you can influence the universe much simply by watching it.]


How can Space be Material?

PSI Blog 20170412 How can Space be Material?

Like many others, Bill is still having trouble understanding the difference between matter and space. He takes offense at this quote from a PSI Blog 20170322 (Infinite Divisibility of Matter and Space):

“GB: ... The “block universe” you and others write about is impossible because matter cannot take on the characteristics of either end member of the matter-space continuum ...”

BW: This formulation strikes me as self-contradictory. There can't be a "continuum" without end points. You can't talk about what's between the "end members" if there is no distinction between matter and space.

[GB: I have to admit that I also used to have difficulty with this problem for many years after I graduated from college when I was still an idealist. Fortunately, continua are common features in the natural world. For instance, in earth science there is a continuum between plagioclase and albite. The ideal end member plagioclase contains calcium and the ideal end member albite contains sodium. I used to believe that pure plagioclase and pure albite actually existed. In nature, however, we find only mixtures of the two. No one has ever found plagioclase without some sodium or albite without some calcium. Those ideal end members are simply ideas, concepts we use to understand the continuum, which has minerals ranging from those high in calcium to those high in sodium. What we call “matter” and “space” form a similar continuum.

With regard to the ideal (though nonexistent) “empty space” end member, Professor Einstein, former aether denier, had this to say in an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden:

"Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever."]

BW: The way I read your argument, you're saying that there is NO space between physical objects: all space is occupied by some smaller physical object (Aether-1, Aether-2... Aether-457, etc). To my mind, that logic claims that there are never collisions of any two objects, since they're all in contact with other objects. That makes no sense to me.

[GB: Then you must have trouble just getting around or hitting a baseball, for that matter. The air molecules in the doorway and between the bat and ball simply are shoved aside. In other words, what appears to be “empty space” in those situations simply contains microcosms that are not massive enough to prevent the collisions of more massive microcosms. There is no reason to believe that this situation is any different at any other scale. Absolutists have trouble with this because they cannot imagine that the world consists of anything other than black and white, solid and empty, something and nothing. The reality, however, is that the perfect world of the idealist cannot exist. Nature is messy, grey, never either solid or empty, never either something or nothing.]   

“GB: ... That would result in an empty universe. In actuality, every
subdivision anywhere along the continuum always ends up with both properties: solid matter and empty space.”

BW: Except space has no properties: it is the absence of matter.

[GB: Let me repeat this from the great man: “To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.” So your position ultimately was not even defended by the greatest perpetrator of aether denial himself. He never became known for this recantation of aether denial because indeterminists did not find it useful. The widespread aether denial in physics and cosmogony has gotten severely out of hand as seen in our previous Blogs:

BW: Something cannot interact with nothing, nor can nothingness be "divisible" in any sense of the word. It seems to me that you are one of the "absolutists" you condemn, in contending that there is an "infinite divisibility" of matter. How do you "divide" matter if not by the existence of space: not matter?

[GB: Reread the above paragraph. Can you see that you are idealizing “matter” and “space” as clear-cut opposites? Can you see that you are using these ideals as if they are absolute realities? Do you realize that no one has ever discovered pure matter or pure space? That is because what we think of as matter always has space and what we think of as space always has matter. In every case, what we consider “matter” simply is stronger, denser, or more massive than what we consider “space.” Pure ideal matter and pure ideal space, like pure ideal plagioclase and pure ideal albite do not and cannot exist.

It is fine to use idealisms to understand the intervening reality, but it is important to never consider those idealities as realities themselves. That mistake was already made by Plato, who thought that the perfect sphere that he imagined was the reality and that actually occurring spheres were mere imperfect imitations. I spend so much time on this because it is this type of thinking that has given us relativity and the Big Bang. Aether denial and the assumed finity on which it is based are the essence of the regressive physics and cosmogony that currently afflicts us.]


Black Holes Disappear into Nothing?

PSI Blog 20170404 Black Holes Disappear into Nothing?

From George Coyne:


As you know orthodox physicists claim this happens to a star in black holes: “According to General Relativity, it collapses all the way down to nothing. Not just "very small", but smaller and smaller until it's exactly zero in size. Density becomes infinite.”


That is absurd and preposterous. How can supporters of GRT believe this nonsense? Why do they not understand that just as you cannot go from nothing to something, it is impossible for something to become nothing?

[GB: George:   

Congratulations on turning up another of the wild contradictions in cosmogony. The primary deficiency of the cosmogonists and regressive physicists is that they do not have sufficient principles. In progressive physics we adhere to the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). The whole of the Big Bang Theory, like most religions, is a violation of conservation. The opposite, indeterministic assumption, is creation, the proposition that something could be created out of nothing. If you can believe that, then it is entirely logical to believe that something could disappear into nothing. I am not sure and I am not really interested in how all this stems from GRT. Einstein’s idea that the universe is 4-dimensional is without merit, like the rest of relativity (except for the E=mc2 equation, which was used by Einstein, but not discovered by him).

As we explained in our UCT book,[1] the misnamed “Black Holes” are simply the super dense nuclei of rotating or formerly rotating galaxies. Vortices like these accrete matter as they rotate and excrete matter when they stop rotating. In other words, galactic nuclei are where stars go to die (via a little gravitational push). When the rotation of a galactic nucleus slows, it can excrete matter that eventually forms new stars per your second heads up:

The second link falsifies the first link. The regressive idea that a black hole could become infinitely dense assumes that the rotation necessary for the densification of the nucleus of a vortex could continue forever. This is not the case, because, like all microcosms, black holes have a macrocosm. Resistance provided by the macrocosm eventually slows vortex rotation. This principle is outlined in the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). In other words, microcosms in the Infinite Universe form via convergence and eventually dissipate via divergence. Cosmogonists would do well to get a set of fundamental assumptions so they could avoid such wild calculations that only get published because they support the current paradigm.]   

[1] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, CO, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].


The Scourge of Absolutism

PSI Blog 20170329 The Scourge of Absolutism

Response to comments from William Westmiller:

GB: ... Bill doesn't like the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things).

As I intended to make clear in my lengthy dissertation on your book, I entirely agree with this statement. In fact, I agree with 95% of your Ten Assumptions. That's hardly "cherry picking".

[GB: Sorry, but that is hardly true. Relativism is the opposite of absolutism, which is required for Finite Particle Theory (FPT). Similarly, infinity is the opposite of finity, which obviously also is required for FPT. Interconnection is the opposite of disconnection, which is required for FPT as well. Your agreement with “The Ten Assumptions of Science” is at most 70%.]

GB: As an absolutist, you assume that all matter has the same characteristics.

Not true. Although I propose a fundamental particle of mass, there are a multitude of compositions of those particles which all have distinct characteristics. A proton is different than an atom, is different than a protein, is different than your body. I have no problem with the proposition that your body can move through an atmosphere of nitrogen.

[GB: Sorry, but, strictly speaking, there can be no “fundamental particle of mass.” Mass is not a particle. Mass is defined as the resistance to acceleration. It is a property of microcosms. In addition, no particle can be considered “fundamental” if it has a “multitude of compositions.” The word “composition” implies the bringing together of other things. Each one of your “compositions” must contain still other particles, which in turn must be the fundamental particle that you seek but shall never find. ]

GB:[A continuum exists] between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space.

That's simply saying that all compositions of matter have different densities. I agree. But, you can't have something called "density" unless there is a distinction between physical objects and their absence. Your body can walk through air, but it can't walk through another person's body. That applies all along the "continuum": a neutron can't occupy the same space as another neutron. There can be no "collision" of neutrons unless there is space between them that is "not neutron".

[GB: Density is only relative. It is true that a particular microcosm cannot occupy the same space as another microcosm of the same type. It is true that the collisions between microcosms cannot occur unless the space between them does not contain the same type of microcosm. That does not mean, however, that the space between them must be devoid of any other microcosms of some other type (e.g., We presume that all baryonic matter is penetrated by and contains aether particles.]

GB: ... there is no such thing as matter per se - there are only individual, unique examples of matter.

That's equivalent to saying there are no humans, only individual, unique examples of humans. You can't have an "example" of something if there is no something. Granted, that "something" is an abstraction, not a physical object: humans are entities with specific characteristics in common. An example of a human IS a human: one unit of the larger set of entities sharing common attributes.

[GB: Right. Fruit and matter are abstractions. There is no such thing as a fruit or matter per se, only specific unique examples of these abstractions. The lesson learned here is that each microcosm is a unique example of matter, but that matter per se cannot exist.]

GB: ... The things we now call atoms appear to contain mostly empty space. Even so, some absolutists assume that we just have not gone far enough and that the nirvana of perfect solidity is theoretically possible.

I'll plead Nolo Contendere, but not guilty. As I said, even if a Unimid particle is not a "perfectly solid", it provides an explanation for every physical effect of every thing. Yes, atoms were assumed to be fundamental, but even if they aren't, they provided an excellent explanation for the unique identities of nearly all physical objects. The atomic theory was certainly not useless; John Dalton wasn't pursuing "nirvana", just a rational explanation for what exists in reality:

[GB: Of course, you are free to hypothesize any particle you wish for explaining anything you want. Just do not claim that your pet particle is the ultimate particle and that it does not contain submicrocosms that contain still other subsubmicrocosms, ad infinitum.]

GB: ... The absolutist’s belief in the ideals of perfectly empty space ... are the sacred texts of traditional religion.

I think you have that wrong. The absolutist belief is that something can come from nothing. Of course, I totally agree with your objection to Einstein's proposition that "perfectly empty space" has form, "contains" immaterial energy, or "creates" gravity. That's nonsense. The Big Bang Theory is nonsense: it's a religious proposition of the creation of something from nothing (or at least from the abstract conception of some "supernatural thing" that "creates").

[GB: I do not know where you got the idea that absolutism is not religious. In Infinite Universe Theory nonexistence (perfectly empty space) is impossible, whereas it is critical to most religious explanations. You are correct that the idea that something could come from nothing is religious and that the idea is the foundation of Big Bang Theory, in contradiction of the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). What you fail to understand is the connection between the idealization of empty space and the idealization of solid matter. Absolutists assume that both idealizations are realities, when, in actuality, both are impossibilities. In the current situation those mistakes foster creationism, aether denial, and wasted effort involving FPT.] 


Infinite Divisibility of Matter and Space

PSI Blog 20170322 Infinite Divisibility of Matter and Space

Readers will remember that the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) is one of the guiding lights of all our work at PSI. Ever since Aristotle introduced it, microcosmic infinity has given thinkers as much trouble as Newton’s macrocosmic kind. Here is my response to our old friend Bill Westmiller who, like Captain Bligh of matterless motion fame, likes to cherry pick among “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” The Captain doesn’t like the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion)—not “sophisticated” enough for him. In addition to infinity, Bill doesn’t like the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things).

His comments illustrate some of the hurdles we have to overcome to develop progressive physics and Infinite Universe Theory:

BW: Of course, I have no problem distinguishing matter from the motion of matter. Our disagreement persists on the issue of "perfect" matter, which we've discussed extensively in the past.

>... Like all idealizations, solid matter and empty space do not and cannot exist. ...

BW: We agree that all known *compositions* of matter consist of physical components in motion. It took a long time to discover that a "perfectly solid" rod of iron is composed of atoms in motion. It took longer to discover that the atoms themselves are not "perfectly solid" objects, but are compositions of smaller physical particles in motion. 

My proposition is that there are even smaller particles of mass that compose those sub-atomic particles. So, it's no surprise to me that you would be skeptical about those particles (Unimids) being "perfectly solid" objects. Even if they are not, I think the Unimid Theory explains a host of problems common in quantum particle theory.

However, our dispute is primarily philosophical. My position is that no matter can be in motion unless there is space where that matter does not exist. If all space is occupied by matter, no motion can occur.

[GB: False! All the space in this room is occupied by matter, and yet, I have no trouble moving about. As an absolutist, you assume that all matter has the same characteristics. That is definitely not true, per relativism. This is in tune with our definition of matter as an abstraction for all things. As with all abstractions, matter per se does not exist—only specific examples of matter exist. As such, each microcosm has different characteristics. Those with the greatest mass (resistance to acceleration) tend to displace those with lesser mass, as I do when I thrust aside the air that blocks my passage through my open doorway.]

BW: There can be no such event as a "collision" or "interaction" among particles, since they would all be in constant contact. The universe would be one infinite solid block of matter, with no motion whatever.

[GB: Again, there are various kinds of matter, with each of them having characteristics approaching solid matter and characteristics approaching empty space. This is from my new book in preparation:

“MATTER-SPACE CONTINUUM. A range or series of microcosms that are slightly different from each other and that exist between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space.[i] Like all idealizations, solid matter and empty space do not and cannot exist.

The matter end member:

As mentioned, matter is an abstraction; there is no such thing as matter per se—there are only individual, unique examples of matter.[ii] The idea that solid matter must exist deep down at some level is still just that, an idea, or ideal, which never occurs in nature. The Greek atomists imagined that atoms were true elementary particles filled with solid matter. The things we now call atoms appear to contain mostly empty space. Even so, some absolutists assume that we just have not gone far enough and that the nirvana of perfect solidity is theoretically possible.[iii] At one time, the space between you and I may have been considered empty. Now we know that is not the case, for space is just the stuff that yields to the motion of other stuff. These ideals exist only in our brains—they help us understand the properties of various kinds of matter, but they can have no real existence. We use them to understand the intervening reality. It is good enough for finding a doorway instead of a wall, even though the doorway contains matter in the form of air and the wall contains space. In IUT, what we consider solid matter is simply a portion of the universe that offers more resistance to acceleration than other portions we consider empty space.

The space end member:

The absolutist’s belief in the ideals of perfectly empty space, nothing, and nonexistence comes right out of the cosmogonical handbook whose precursors are the sacred texts of traditional religion.To insist, like the young Einstein and his positivist friends, that space is perfectly empty or immaterial makes one a rank idealist. To insist, as indeterminists are wont to do, that idealities could be or must be realities merely provides another roadblock to the ultimate acceptance of IUT.”

The “block universe” you and others write about is impossible because matter cannot take on the characteristics of either end member of the matter-space continuum. Absolutists of that type tend to think of infinite divisibility as divisibility of the ideal solid matter end of the continuum. Absolutists of another type might tend to think of infinite divisibility as divisibility of the ideal empty space end of the continuum. That would result in an empty universe. In actuality, every subdivision anywhere along the continuum always ends up with both properties: solid matter and empty space.]

[ii] Coyne, George, 2017, Notfinity process (in press): Denver, CO, Outskirts Press.
[iii] AbuBakr, Mohammed, 2007, The End of Pseudo-Science: Essays Refuting False Scientific Theories Taught in Schools, Colleges, and Universities, iUniverse, 86 p.


Distinguishing Matter from Motion

PSI Blog 20170315 Distinguishing Matter from Motion
Captain Bligh writes:
“How do you explain light from the Sun if photons do not exist? They are a dynamic action in the aether, as is matter. Matter moves does it not? Matter is also a dynamic. It changes constantly since it is a wave motion.”
[GB: Sagnac long ago showed that light was a wave and not a particle. Light from the Sun occurs as waves in the aether in the same way that sound occurs as waves in the atmosphere. Surely, you don’t think we need “soundons” to explain sound?  You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between matter and the motion of matter. Try repeating the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) several times. Better yet, reread the entire chapter on it, as the book is now in pdf and free to all:  
This from p. 60 is particularly apropos to your problem:

 Let me restate. The dialectical nature of the world stems from its character as matter in motion. Its unity consists in the INSEPARABILITY of this matter and its motion. Although matter and motion are not physically separable, it is impossible for the mind to conceive of matter and motion as a singular phenomenon. Although we may invent terms for conceiving of matter-motion as a unity, they inevitably fail, taking on the connotations of either matter or motion, not both at once. Clear thinking requires us to be cognizant of INSEPARABILITY.
Consequently, we must guard against four types of errors of logic that violate the assumption of INSEPARABILITY:
1. That matter could exist without motion.
2. That motion could occur without matter.
3. That matter is motion.
4. That motion is matter.
Only by avoiding these indeterministic errors can we achieve a description of the universe that includes both subject and predicate, and is therefore both meaningful and scientific.”

The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview. Free pdf available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275045159_The_ten_assumptions_of_science_Toward_a_new_scientific_worldview [accessed Mar 10, 2017].
You write: “They [photons] are a dynamic action in the aether, as is matter.” False. Photons (even if they were not imaginary) are supposed to be particles, they are not motions. As such, they take up xyz space—motions do not. Matter is an abstraction for “all things in existence.” All things have xyz dimensions, including aether particles.  You write: “It [matter] changes constantly since it is a wave motion.”  False. As seen above, matter is not motion, least of all wave motion. That would be error #3 above. You are correct in stating that matter changes constantly and that it is always in motion, but don’t forget: matter is not motion. Perhaps you got the “matter is wave motion” idea by reading too much regressive physics. Much of quantum mechanics is based on aether denial, in which the waves produced by the ship appear to have been mistaken for the ship itself. (See: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/11/wave-particle-duality-is-really-just.html )

BTW: I have not come across anyone other than religious folks and regressive physicists who have so much trouble understanding this subject. See: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-soul-of-regressive-physics.html
Are you pulling (motion) my leg (matter)? Seems simple to me: There are things that we call matter; when they move, we call that motion—it is the difference between legs and running. Legs exist; running occurs. Legs have xyz dimensions; running does not. Actually, this may not be your problem so much as it may be my problem. I have great difficulty in understanding how folks could have completely opposed assumptions when the correct ones are so logical and so obvious. I try to lay out the logic, repeating salient points where necessary adding real-life examples, etc., but this seldom does any good.
Our friend Bill Westmiller is another example. He is a Finite Particle Theorist (FPT). I have pointed out that the perfectly solid matter needed for the theory is impossible. That is because perfectly solid matter is one ideal end member of the matter-space continuum:
MATTER-SPACE CONTINUUM. A range or series of microcosms that are slightly different from each other and that exist between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space.[1] Like all idealizations, solid matter and empty space do not and cannot exist.

Again, none of this does any good. In Bill’s case I can understand that after working many years on FPT and believing in the necessity of solid matter, one is unlikely to switch views quickly. That would negate everything. It would be like Hawking or the Pope finally confessing that everything they ever said was a complete hoax. I can see the reputational and fiducial reasons for hanging onto beliefs past their expiration dates. So, my good Captain, please try to help me understand what you get out of continuing to have difficulties distinguishing matter and motion. Do you need that confusion in order to maintain belief in wave-particle duality? Does the confusion help you to achieve financial gain or reputation? Will it help in getting published by the mainstream?
I must admit that I once believed in photons too, mostly, I suppose because everyone else did. And that was after I wrote “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” It was not until I looked into the situation with greater detail than the average high school physics teacher that I found the the remedy: I needed to apply the 4th assumption in the strictest sense. Also, what brings you and Bill to the dissident table need not be all of the hundreds of contradictions in regressive physics and cosmogony—just a few will start the journey. In science, we often start a project by looking for contradictions. The project is not finished until the resolution. Now, you have to ask yourself: Why don’t I think that wave-particle duality is a contradiction?


Time Crystals and Complementarity

PSI Blog 20170308 Time Crystals and Complementarity

Thanks to Ed for this heads up.

Readers familiar with the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be interested in a recent break-through dubbed “time crystals.”   

FIONA MACDONALD at Science Alert puts it this way:

Constant motion without energy.

That last bit has been corrected:

Update 31 January 2017: We had previously compared the constant oscillation of the time crystals as being in perpetual motion at ground state, which isn't accurate. We've now corrected this explanation.”

Actually, I was hoping to get some crystallized time so I can get my new book “Infinite Universe Theory” done some time this century. Oh well, at least we don't have to suffer yet another transgression of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). While energy neither exists nor occurs, it still is a useful calculation. I am also glad that this really is not about motion without energy. I don’t quite know what to make of the claim that this is “one of the first examples of non-equilibrium matter.” What would really be surprising would be to discover an example of “equilibrium matter." With all microcosms in the universe moving with respect to all other microcosms, nothing is truly in equilibrium. All matter is “non-equilibrium matter,” just as all reactions are irreversible.

Any confusion about this study stems from the vagaries of systems philosophy. If one totally ignores the macrocosm (environment) of the particular microcosm being studied, there are bound to be some surprising results. Be reminded that the macrocosm contains a veritable zoo of supermicrocosmic particles. Any time an experiment verges on discovering a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, rest assured that some factor in the macrocosm has been ignored when it should not have been.

Per the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed) no microcosm can exhibit an increase in motion without having received it from somewhere else.