20150617

Matterless Motion Strikes Again!



Blog 20150617


Like Bill Westmiller, who will not give up his belief in free will and “Westmiller things,” Captain Bligh will not give up his belief in matterless motion. So, I have decided to answer some of the Captain’s most recent comments in this week’s Blog. Both Bill and Bligh claim to accept the "The Ten Assumptions of Science." Nonetheless, they have stubbornly held onto contradictory beliefs despite much discussion and much explanation on my part. I should be discouraged, but instead, I have become more enlightened. All this shows the extreme importance of assumptions and how tightly they are held by supporters of the status quo. Folks who have tread certain paths for decades are unlikely to abandon them overnight. Convincing either of them of the error of their ways has about as great a chance as convincing the pope to become an atheist.

Nevertheless, people do change their minds. That is what education is all about and why it is most successful among the young. Philosophy changes only when contradictions are obvious, the choice is clear, and participants have less to lose by following new directions. Even then, what is clear to you and I may not be clear to someone else—that all depends on one’s experience. In the exchange below, I was shocked to read that Bligh thought that motion without matter was “compellingly logical.” That logic is akin to the one that sees walking on water, virgin birth, and living after dying as “logical.”

Perhaps, one day Bligh will give up matterless motion. In the meantime, I suspect that his journey will be of interest to others going through the same transition:


Bligh has left a new comment on your post "Matter and Time":

“Fundamentally, time is motion. [GB: Agree. There are only two fundamental phenomena in the universe: matter and the motion of matter.]

The ancient Greeks called it change. I like energy best, but that is vague also. [GB: Energy is neither change nor motion. See below.]

The physical universe "changes" at an infinitesimal rate. [GB: No. Changes can be slow or rapid.]

The "state" of physical matter changes in an analogue fashion. [GB: False. That would be a violation of the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). What we think of as analog processes really are digital.]

Best thought of as a wave like form. [GB: No. Changes occur via collisions between microcosms as described by Newton’s Second Law of Motion (F=ma). Waves occur in media, which consists of particles.]

The infinitesimal state changes are what we recognize as time evolution. [GB: Sorry, but “time evolution” is redundant. Both time and evolution are terms for motion.]
 
Is that more clear?” [GB: Nope.]


Bligh has left a new comment on your post "Time is Motion":

“Glenn, as I said in my other post, it can be argued that matter is dependent on motion, but not the other way around. I think that is a compelling logic.”

[GB: Sorry, but that is not logical. It is a blatant violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). I can imagine being hit by a truck, but I cannot imagine being hit by the motion of that truck without the truck.]


Bligh has left a new comment on your post "The Soul of Regressive Physics":

“Is motion "real"? [GB: Yes. Motion really occurs. However, for millennia, indeterminists have had problems understanding the reality of motion. Some think of matter as real and motion as unreal or immaterial. Those who assume separability, such as Bill and yourself, think of motion as having an independent “existence,” considering it to be an object rather than what objects do. That’s how we get ghosts and spirits as well as the whole idea of “spirituality.”]
  
If there were no "change" would we exist? [GB: No, per the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).]
  
If energy is motion, it has to be considered a fundamental property of the universe. [GB: No. Energy is not motion. It is a calculation. That is why we state the First Law of Thermodynamics as the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Regressive physicists substituted “energy” for “matter and the motion of matter”
in reaction to materialism. Of course, energy calculations follow the First Law just fine. It gives trouble only when motion is transferred to unrecognized microcosms. For instance, without aether, regressive physicists are forced to imply that, during fission, the internal motion of an atom is converted into “energy,” misconstrued as a matterless object traveling through perfectly empty space.]
    
Taken as a whole, the universe is both matter and motion, not just matter in motion. [GB: False. As assumed above, there can be no motion without matter.]
 
It turns out that motion (energy) oscillation is fundamental according to quantum theory as I understand it. [GB: That helps explain why you think that matterless motion is logical. Quantum mechanics (QM), which eschews infinity,
is really not all that mechanical. In neomechanics, we consider oscillation to be a property of wave motion in media consisting of particles. Wave motion is group behavior, not the property of any single particle as it supposedly is in QM. I predict that the wonderful results of QM will survive once aether denial and the assumption of finity disappear from physics.]    
 
Taking "matter" to be fundamental is begging the question isn't it? Explain matter! [GB: Per infinity, we “define” matter as that which contains other matter. Material things always have xyz dimensions and location with respect to other things. With infinity, “begging the question” is the name of the game. Just as we cannot see an end to the universe, we cannot see an end to the particle subdivision. The question begging goes on—get used to it.]
  
Ok, it is that produced by oscillation energy. It is a state, actually, two states, matter and anti-matter.” [GB: Sorry, but nothing is produced by “oscillation energy,” which, again, is a calculation. “Oscillation energy,” like “dark energy” and all types of “energy,” do not exist or occur. Also, be reminded that “anti-matter” is an oxymoron. Matter has xyz dimensions and whatever is mistakenly called “anti-matter” would have xyz dimensions and be matter too.]


Bligh has left a new comment on your post "The Soul of Regressive Physics":

“Glenn, I see where you recognize mass as energy, motion, or perhaps oscillation.”

[GB: Bligh, wherever did you get that idea? Please let me know where I wrote that and I will beg forgiveness and provide a correction immediately. Mass is the resistance of a microcosm to acceleration. Energy does not exist, so therefore it is not mass. It is a calculation. Mass is not motion. Mass is not oscillation.

Let me guess. Perhaps you did not understand my explanation of the E=mc2 equation. In short, that equation describes the transfer of submicrocosmic motion inside the atom to supermicrocosms in the environment (see p. 141 in "The Scientific Worldview" on the emission of motion). When submicrocosms slow down, they have less momentum and are thus less able to provide inertia to the microcosm as a whole.]


Bligh:

“Please explain what motion is if not "energy". No free lunches. Explain motion without some sort of concept that energy sits in for.”

[GB: Again, the universe consists of matter in motion. We measure motion by calculating the velocity of a microcosm, which we get by measuring the distance travelled over time: v = d/t. Energy is: KE=½mv2 or E=mc2. These energy equations already contain terms for motion. The “m” is the term for matter. Like momentum, P=mv, and force, F=ma, energy is a matter-motion term. These are calculations that describe matter in motion and the motion of matter, but in a strict sense, they are neither. In neomechanics, we observe that matter always has xyz dimensions (which energy does not) and that it always has motion (which energy does not).


Matter-motion terms are extremely useful in physics, but they must be used with caution. They are calculations, not things. No one can give us a bit of momentum, force, or energy. None of these exist or occur. All that exists is the xyz matter and all that occurs is the motion of that xyz matter. Modern physics has fallen into a trap amenable to the indeterministic philosophical point of view by fetishizing or objectifying matter-motion terms. Thus, regressive physicists often talk of the “four fundamental forces” as if they actually existed. At most, they simply are calculations involving four different kinds of matter in motion.

Bligh, I hope all this detail helps. Maybe you can break the record (3 months) for finally grasping these concepts and realizing that energy does not exist. BTW: There will be a quiz!]






11 comments:

Westmiller said...

GB: "Like Bill Westmiller, who will not give up his belief in free will and “Westmiller things,” Captain Bligh will not give up his belief in matterless motion."

I don't know "Captain Bligh", though I do agree with your responses to his comments. Unlike him, I do not believe in "matterless motion".

My reservations about your stance on free will are mainly semantic. Since I'm a determinist, I don't believe human choice is free of causation, only that mental choices can be made independent of external influences or authoritarian teachings. You regularly use my meaning of free will:
"Philosophy changes only when contradictions are obvious, the choice is clear..."

The same with "Westmiller Things", which are not all physical objects. This is consistent with the dictionary definition of "things" as including objects, qualities, events, occurences, or situations:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing

GB: "Those who assume separability, such as Bill and yourself, think of motion as having an independent “existence,” considering it to be an object rather than what objects do."

I don't believe that. Motion is a characteristic of matter, so it is a qualitative "thing", but not a physical object.

My only objection to your axiom is the second clause: that matter requires motion. Since motion is always relative, it's a comparison of the changing positions of two independent physical objects. If their relative positions are not changing, both objects still exist. They may be moving relative to some other objects, but they don't cease to exist because WE are not measuring their positions. That's "hocus-pocus".

Glenn Borchardt said...

Comment 20150619 Westmiller
Bill, you wrote: “Since I'm a determinist, I don't believe human choice is free of causation, only that mental choices can be made independent of external influences or authoritarian teachings.” Sorry, but that is not true. No one ever acts in isolation from what exists and from the effects of what occurred in the past. That is why indeterminists are from indeterministic backgrounds. That is why people tend to have the same religion and the same politics as those who surrounded them in their past. The univironment does not allow anyone to be “independent of external influences or authoritarian teachings.” Those who “think for themselves” invariably learned that from others also.

You wrote, “The same with "Westmiller Things", which are not all physical objects. This is consistent with the dictionary definition of "things" as including objects, qualities, events, occurrences, or situations:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing”

That is utter indeterministic BS, and shows how much the Einstein’s objectification of motion has penetrated the culture. Things are xyz portions of the universe. Events are not things, they are what things do. It is silly to consider events to be things. If so, bring some of them to me so I can examine them.

Also, it is not possible for two microcosms to be absolutely at rest relative to each other. This is because each contains submicrocosms in motion with respect to each other. In other words, all things vibrate, thus demonstrating that no two of them could be at absolute rest at any time. Whether we exist or could measure anything is irrelevant.



Westmiller said...

GB: "Those who 'think for themselves' invariably learned that from others also."

Perhaps, but once they learn how to do that, they do it.

GB: "That is utter indeterministic BS ..."

It's just semantics. Physical objects are a subset of "things" in common English.

GB: "... each contains submicrocosms in motion with respect to each other."

That may be true, but it is not necessarily true that "all things vibrate".

What your axiom says is that nothing can exist unless there is another thing (object) which is moving relative to the first. But, physical objects don't "know" about any other things in motion - unless/until they collide. They don't "care" about whether or not the other object exists. The relative motion of the second object has no influence on the existence of the first. In philosophical terms, you're "reifying" relative motion as a required characteristic of all physical objects ... something you condemn.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Comment 20150619

Bill, you wrote:

>Those who “think for themselves” invariably learned that from others also.

Perhaps, but once they learn how to do that, they do it.

[GB: Sorry, but that probably won’t amount to much “thinking.” That is why folks who are isolated from others and from current events are unlikely to be creative. The thinking that goes on inside such individuals merely rakes over previously stored data. They risk sounding like broken records. It might have limited success for deduction, but it cannot possibly work for induction.]

It's just semantics. Physical objects are a subset of "things" in common English.

[GB: That is because ordinary folks, including regressive physicists, tend to objectify (or reify motion). In neomechanics, we are careful to define things only as physical objects. If what we are discussing does not have xyz dimensions, we do not call it a thing.]

>... each contains submicrocosms in motion with respect to each other.

That may be true, but it is not necessarily true that "all things vibrate".

[GB: False, all things contain other things in motion that we call submicrocosms. Your tendency toward the indeterministic assumption of absolutism is showing. You might imagine some things that you believe do not vibrate, but there is no evidence for that. Attempts to achieve zero motion and the zero temperature that would indicate that always fail. The upshot: Absolute zero cannot be achieved, as pointed out in "The Scientific Worldview."]

What your axiom says is that nothing can exist unless there is another thing (object) which is moving relative to the first.

[GB: That is true. Univironmental determinism assumes that all things in the universe must contain other things inside them and outside them.]

But, physical objects don't "know" about any other things in motion--unless/until they collide. They don't "care" about whether or not the other object exists.

[GB: You are correct that most microcosms do not care about what is inside or outside them (except for sentient beings, of course). In any case, that is irrelevant for this discussion.]

The relative motion of the second object has no influence on the existence of the first.

[GB: That is true for most “second objects,” but it is not true for all of them. If univironmental determinism teaches anything, it is that each microcosm exists at the behest of the supermicrocosms outside it. The perfect isolation you are proposing can exist nowhere in the universe. All microcosms are like balloons that would explode were it not for the atmosphere that surrounds them. That is why gravitation is fundamental and universal. Without gravitation, no microcosm would hold together long enough for you to proclaim its independence from the macrocosm.]

In philosophical terms, you're "reifying" relative motion as a required characteristic of all physical objects ... something you condemn.

[GB: No, motion is required for any physical object to exist. You may call it a “characteristic,” but the fact that microcosms require motion does not make characteristics objects. For instance, the color blue is a characteristic of blue birds, but it is not an object. The objects involved are feathers, which have xyz dimensions, which reflect light motion of that wavelength, but there is no object called “blue” that could be separated from a blue bird. Again, motion is what microcosms do. Matter exists; motion occurs. Existence is the property of xyz portions of the universe. Motion does not exist, only objects exist. Reification or objectification is the tendency to consider motion as an object. Folks have a tendency to do that in everyday use just as you do when you include events and processes in your definition of “Westmiller things.” That kind of thinking has penetrated physics to its detriment. We need to completely avoid it.]

Bligh said...

Impasse.
GB-all things are matter. Matter is the most fundamental thing.
BC-all things are motion. Motion is the most fundamental things.
BW-all is semanics.
FN-all is interpretation.
Socrates-I know nothing

Bligh said...

[GB: No, motion is required for any physical object to exist.....]
I agree with GB.
BC

Glenn Borchardt said...

Bligh:

That just shows the power of opposing assumptions, as I pointed out in TTAOS. Progress in science is possible only when we use deterministic assumptions. The regression in physics demonstrates what happens when indeterministic assumptions are used.

Bligh said...

Are not all theories in-deterministic assumptions?
BC

Westmiller said...

GB: "That is true for most 'second objects,' but it is not true for all of them..."

I think you've conceded my point: unless/until they collide, the relative motion of one has no influence on the existence of the other.

BG: "... the fact that microcosms require motion does not make characteristics objects..."

Correct. Characteristics are "what objects do", but no single object MOVES, since that's merely a relationship between TWO objects. Therefore, it can't be an inherent quality of one.

Glenn Borchardt said...

No. Theories can be falsified; fundamental assumptions cannot be falsified. That is what makes them fundamental. True, some theories are indeterministic and others are deterministic. Indeterministic theories lead to a free-will conclusion, while deterministic theories do not. Bligh, I think that you should reread TTAOS.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Comment 20150619

Bill, you wrote:

GB: "... the fact that microcosms require motion does not make characteristics objects..."

Correct. Characteristics are "what objects do", but no single object MOVES, since that's merely a relationship between TWO objects. Therefore, it can't be an inherent quality of one.

[GB: Bill, your finity is showing again. I guess you are in good indeterministic company as that was a telling critique of Newton's First Law of Motion. A body moving through perfectly empty space would be identical to one that was not moving at all. Motion would not be a fundamental property of such a beast. The Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) would not apply to it. That was classical mechanics. Today, we need to adopt neomechanics. Perhaps you need to reread "The Scientific Worldview," at least that part about the necessity for each object (i.e., “microcosm”) to have a macrocosm.

Unfortunately, you are doing what indeterminists have done for centuries, hypothesizing perfect isolation. Despite their belief in absolutism and disconnection, perfect isolation never has been observed. In Infinite Universe Theory, no microcosms are ever isolated and thus each is always in motion with respect to the infinity of supermicrocosms in their environments. You seem to be harkening back to the old positivists and operationalists, who judged motion based on whether or not they could measure it. Sorry, but the infinite universe does not care at all about what anyone can measure. Its various parts just keep moving with respect to the rest of its parts.]



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