20071226

Letter to a Cosmogonist

Thanks for the heads up on your work. You definitely are working at the fundamental level that I found most useful in writing “The Scientific Worldview” (TSW). I also used to wonder why there was something rather than nothing. The paradox remained for me until I realized that the answer was right in front of me. Each thing always consists of: 1) matter and 2) and space. But solid matter and empty space are idealizations (ideas); neither could have any possibility of existing. Neither solid matter nor completely empty space have been found. Though solid, fundamental particles without parts have been hypothesized, they always turn out to contain other particles. Similarly, no one has ever produced an absolute vacuum. Instead of being 0 Kelvin, intergalactic space is 2.7K, demonstrating that it is not empty, but contains matter in motion. All real things exist only as combinations of what we conceive of as matter and space.

According to the Fourth Assumption of Science, INSEPARABILITY, "Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion." In other words, if the matter inside a particular thing could stop moving, then that particular thing would cease to exist. This never happens. INSEPARABILITY thus implies microcosmic infinity, and when generalized in the Eighth Assumption of Science, also implies macrocosmic infinity. Like all ten assumptions of science (see below) the Fourth and Eighth Assumptions are consupponible, that is, if you can suppose one of them, you can suppose all the rest. The upshot is that, without INFINITY, the universe could not exist. Non-existence is impossible.

You entertain “three basic possibilities (generalities). 1) The original, natural state of the Universe could have contained some “natural” complexity, a definite structure of something (as small as a Cosmic Egg or as gigantic as one can imagine) or 2) the Universe had an original, beginning state of Absolutely Nothing, with nothing volume. 3) The Absolutely Nothing Universe could have been an infinite void with no form or structure.” To those I would add 4) the possibility that there never was an “original state” because, as mind-boggling as it seems, the universe, I assume, did not have an origin. Only the individual things within the universe could have a beginning and an end. The opposing assumption, finity, is the one held by almost everyone, but, when the logic is carried to the bitter end, it implies an equally mind-boggling belief that the universe exploded out of nothing. It is the grandest contradiction of the Fifth Assumption of Science, CONSERVATION, the belief that "matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed." This actually is a slightly modified version of the First Law of Thermodynamics, which has been confirmed in thousands of experiments. Infinity, thus, is the reason for the existence of the universe. It is one great “passing of the buck”: whenever asked where something came from, we scientists are always correct when we say “from somewhere else.” That question, however, does not apply to the universe itself (defined as “all that exists”); it only applies to individual portions of the universe.

As I consider cosmogony (the study of the beginning of the universe) to be of little value, I am afraid that I am almost useless for helping you with your quest. Maybe you should be the one checking my books [“The Ten Assumptions of Science” and TSW (which includes TTAOS as chapter 3)] for logical errors. Infinite Universe Theory needs all the help it can get.

The Ten Assumptions of Science

1. MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not.
2. CAUSALITY: All effects have an infinite number of material causes.
3. UNCERTAINTY: It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything.
4. INSEPARABILITY: Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion.
5. CONSERVATION: Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed.
6. COMPLEMENTARITY: All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things.
7. IRREVERSIBILITY: All processes are irreversible.
8. INFINITY: The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.
9. 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.
10. INTERCONNECTION: All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion.

4 comments:

Glenn Borchardt said...

From an email in response to my requesting a critique of "The Ten Assumptions of Science":

Since you asked me my opinion on your logical errors, I shall comment on your “10 assumptions of science”. Such wording implies that your “10 assumptions of science” are generally accepted in the science community, and so to eliminate confusion, I believe it would be best to find a new title, something like “10 assumptions that govern the Universe”. I may have misunderstood what you have in mind on a couple of your assumptions, but that is the price we pay for trying to describe concepts in only one sentence!

#1 This is obvious, but it sounds Marxist and may turn off the reader!

#2 Your statement is so general, so as a whole it is false. (a limited version may be true) There are not an infinite number of material causes (reasons) that a given leaf falls from a certain tree. If you replace the word infinite with finite, and replace material with non-supernatural, you now have a true statement.

#3 By making the statement so general, it makes the second part false (in a handful of cases). What will science, in the future, further learn about the real meaning of the concept of the number 3, or parallel lines.

#4 Your ‘matter cannot exist without motion” statement is true. However, what mechanism accounts for matter ceasing to exist a 0 degrees Kelvin? In other words, how does relative movement play a crucial role in the existence of mass? Piers Newberry pointed out to me an error in my theory, in that if a “static” deformation of the “fabric of space” is electric charge, and mass equates to the deformation’s tension energy, then we need an additional force as a counterbalance (tension would collapse the charge) so as to achieve an equilibrium condition. Spin would create an opposing force and account for spin and electric charge seeming to be quantized. “Elementary particles cannot exist without “self-rotation”.

#5 You should use the word momentum instead of motion since firing a gun creates motion, but the sum total amount of momentum is not changed.

#7 This statement is both true and false, depending on one’s viewpoint. For example, an oxygen molecule absorbs a photon and an electron is knocked to a higher orbital, then the electron returns to its original state by emitting a same wavelength photon. This is considered as a reversible process, however, since the oxygen molecule is no longer at the same position and the newly emitted photon has a new trajectory, the system has returned to an equivalent, but not its exact, original state.

# 10 What kind of object transmits matter. This statement is true only if a fabric of space exists, as my theory logically deduces.

Glenn Borchardt said...

My response:

Thanks for the reply. You probably need to read “The Ten Assumptions of Science” (2004) or Chapter 3 in “The Scientific Worldview” to figure out where I am coming from. Most scientists, like yourself, assume finity and use that to produce mathematical representations of what is really an infinite reality. Following David Bohm (“Causality and Chance in Modern Physics”), however, I use infinity as the fundamental assumption consupponible with the nine others. Your points are well taken because all ten of the assumptions are based on infinity. If one assumes finity, then all of them must be illogical. They are logical only if one assumes infinity. Because it is impossible to go to the ends of the universe to determine which is correct, both must forever remain assumptions. Nevertheless, one can use either one to perform an analysis of the universe. The suitability of either assumption is supported by observation and experiment on the external world and how well each of the assumptions supports a scientific worldview. The assumption of finity gave us a universe that exploded out of nothing. I simply don’t believe it. A 3-dimensional, infinite, eternal universe is almost as mind-boggling, but it makes more sense to me. Once you read TSW, you will see what I mean.

Glenn Borchardt said...

From the cosmogonist:

My theory shows that the most probable state of the Universe is both infinite and finite. This is not a contradiction. First, Modern Theory has serious problems with logic (wormholes in space, time travel, string theory), so my monograph is the retelling of my thought-processes used in “solving” the “reason for everything”. Because my starting point is Absolutely Nothing, this requires that I not define things like mass, inertia, electric charge, etc., since it would only create self-proving loops. (For example, a Physicist defines time as a river, so his equations naturally show time travel is theoretically possible, which “proves” time is “like a river”. Or a Physicist does not understand how only protons and neutrons could possibly make up an atomic nuclei, so he postulates a nuclear force, and his force equations solve for nuclear stability, which “proves” a nuclear force is responsible for nuclear stability.) However, Absolutely Nothing


The simplest state, a Universe of Absolutely Nothing, most probably was and is infinite, and should have remained Absolutely Nothing, which is our fundamental paradox. However, this means that the fabric of space, which accounts for everything (including the Laws of Physics), has to be the reason for its own existence. Our Fabric of Space Universe would be finite bubble floating in an infinite Nothingness. Most Scientists probably automatically assumes this self-creation to be impossible, but then would not ex also be impossible since ex is also the reason for its own existence, which is what makes ex so weird. Consequently, the primary aspects (responsible for the known Universe existing (separate from the "outside Nothingness")) create the fabric of space, and the fabric of space creates the primary aspects.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Comogonist:

"My theory shows that the most probable state of the Universe is both infinite and finite. This is not a contradiction."

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

"Modern Theory has serious problems with logic (wormholes in space, time travel, string theory)..."

You can say that again.

"so my monograph is the retelling of my thought-processes used in “solving” the “reason for everything”. Because my starting point is Absolutely Nothing, this requires that I not define things like mass, inertia, electric charge, etc., since it would only create self-proving loops. (For example, a Physicist defines time as a river, so his equations naturally show time travel is theoretically possible, which “proves” time is “like a river”. Or a Physicist does not understand how only protons and neutrons could possibly make up an atomic nuclei, so he postulates a nuclear force, and his force equations solve for nuclear stability, which “proves” a nuclear force is responsible for nuclear stability.)"

There is no evidence for there having been "Absolutely Nothing." Empty space has been found absolutely nowhere. This is akin to an "If pigs could fly" argument.


"The simplest state, a Universe of Absolutely Nothing, most probably was and is infinite, and should have remained Absolutely Nothing, which is our fundamental paradox."

All paradoxes are based on eroneous assumptions.

"However, this means that the fabric of space, which accounts for everything (including the Laws of Physics), has to be the reason for its own existence."

In other words, "space" always contains matter (that is why the noun "fabric" is used to describe it). Again, perfectly empty space is impossible, making the nonexistence of the universe also impossible. You have just come full circle in giving another argument in support of the infinite universe. Welcome aboard the infinite universe theory!

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html

Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html