Here is the latest from Jerry Coyne’s blog:
Michio Kaku embarrasses himself, says that the laws of physics and the behavior of subatomic particles reflect “the mind of God.”Note: I don’t know how much more outlandish regressive physics needs to get for Jerry to give up cosmogony as well.
Blog 20161102 Cause of paradigmatic persistence
Well, that last Blog really turned out wonderfully! It seems that my definition of a philosopher made no sense to Philip. Here is the gist of what he thinks philosophy is: “It is understanding that gives meaning shape and form to the cosmos. But this meaning shape and form only exists in the mind of that understanding.” Deepak Chopra, the world’s foremost solipsist, would have to agree.
Now you can see why I wrote "The Ten Assumptions of Science." Fundamentally, one is a believer in either materialism or immaterialism. Folks like Philip, Deepak, and Albert (“immaterial fields”) Einstein help to make that clear because they are so extreme. Nothing I wrote made sense to Philip because it did not fit his view of the world from the indeterministic end of the philosophical spectrum. Like other immaterialists, he will not be changing his mind soon.
Of course, as educators and promoters of Infinite Universe Theory, it is our job to change minds. How does that happen? We know how it does not happen. Do you think it would succeed with a “student” who already knows everything? Would it work with Hawking or Tyson or the last Ph.D. to come out of the cosmogony machine? The answer is NO!
Our difficulties in teaching folks to accept Infinite Universe Theory have a parallel in the teaching of evolution. In this regard, Jerry Coyne, emeritus professor of evolution, just posted an interesting story. It seems that students in southern states can learn the facts of evolution, but when asked about whether they believe it, the answer usually is NO. This response occurs because of what I call the “Cloister Principle.” Religions commonly use cloisters to isolate devotees from the external world. The fundamental and peripheral assumptions within a cloister are carefully maintained through conversation among adherents and study of sacred books. Disloyalty is unwelcome and often severely punished.
A scientific paradigm works in the same way. That is why we often say that “cosmogonists need to get out of the office more.” Sadly, that does not mean much in the face of the censorship that tends to accompany and preserve a particular belief. Even so, cloisters are never completely successful—the external world has a way of breaking the isolation. Society progresses as a result of contradiction. To maintain their Christian faith, Bible Belt students must not leave the Belt and must not study scientific subjects. That, of course, is unlikely to happen, especially with the ubiquity of the Internet and the bias employers have toward those with college degrees in science. Trying to teach evolution to religious children may be discouraging, but I know from personal experience that those purposely overlooked contradictions tend to accumulate. Contradictions and paradoxes exist because they are founded on erroneous assumptions. Learning about how the universe operates is all about removing those contradictions. On the other hand, one can try to live with them:
Blog 20161026 Who is a philosopher?
Just received an interesting question from Philip Atkinson, who seems to already know the answer to the question he asks:
“Please forgive the impertinence of my question, but as there is no useful accepted definition of philosophy, how do you know you are a philosopher?”
Actually, we are all philosophers, just as “we are all scientists” as the good book ("The Scientific Worldview") says with its first sentence. The rest is just detail. My definition of philosophy is: The study and understanding of how the universe works. Thus, even infants begin their studies and understandings probably even before they are born. Of course, most folks are too busy subsisting: gathering food, shelter, and clothing just to stay alive. Their philosophies are unlikely to cover much more than their immediate surroundings and day-to-day concerns. More fortunate types like you and I have free time that avails us the opportunity to contemplate the universe in more detail.
Upon doing so, I think of philosophy as the “conclusions” part of life. When we write a scientific work, we are always asked: What do you conclude from all that you have discovered? After 40 or so years of living, one should have some conclusions. Younger folks may want to know what they are.
Unfortunately or not, as humanity reaches out to explore ever-increasing portions of the universe, the philosophic job also becomes ever-more complex. We have at our disposal the millions of volumes prepared by previous philosophers and scientists. We have the benefit of their speculations and prognostications. We have the benefit of the history of what worked and what did not work. As data accumulate, our pronouncements about how the universe works invariably are challenged—they eventually need revision. Nonetheless, certain laws of nature appear to be immutable. For instance, the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), will never fail us, despite what the cosmogonists proclaim. That is why I started my work with a firm foundation: "The Ten Assumptions of Science." Without such a consupponible beginning, anyone who attempts grand conclusions and what it all means for humanity will most certainly be wrong.
Today’s philosophers have to be scientists as well. They have to be able to answer the big questions in physics such as: What is the universal mechanism of evolution? Is light a particle or a wave? Are there more than three dimensions? Is the universe infinite or finite? Is the universe expanding? Does dark energy exist? Is the equation E=mc2 valid? Does aether exist? And the big questions in sociology: Is there free will? What is the meaning of life? Will humanity become extinct by its own hand? Why are there wars? What is the evolutionary purpose of religion? Is there life after death? Is there a god? What is the P-C gap and what does it have to do with global population growth? Are there contradictions in your work? And on and on… Answer one question incorrectly, and you have to go back to the books.
Another primary concern for philosophers is knowing their place within the determinism-indeterminism philosophical struggle. I hinted at my place by using the word “consupponible,” which, according to Collingwood, means that if you hold several fundamental assumptions, they should not contradict each other. That puts me on the deterministic end of the struggle. Contradictions are an abomination for scientists. That is why I oppose much of today’s physics and cosmology, which is fraught with contradictions and flat-out paradoxes more in tune with religion than science. Today, the frontier in philosophy includes the resolution and removal of the indeterministic speculations that have become rampant since 1905.
 Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [ http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13320.21761 ]; Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony', Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, p. 3-6 [ http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/TTAOSATDOC.pdf ].
 Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An essay on metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p.
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:
A magnificent achievement, but too dense for the general reader and too tendentious for the scientist.
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].