Distinguishing abstractions from what exists

Blog 20160316 Distinguishing abstractions from what exists

George Coyne

To accurately state that a “thing” exists, there has to be mass and volume. Particular objects or specific particles of any size can always be defined in this way. If this is not possible then it is not valid to refer to a thing existing. That is why 20th century physics is mistaken in postulating “point particles” such as quarks and leptons which are considered to have rest mass but no volume.

Attempting to get measurements when applying this criteria to “matter” is not possible because there are no boundaries or mass that can be ascribed to matter. Therefore, as discussed in Blog 20160203 Matter and motion are abstractions, “matter” does not “exist”. I deliberately avoid using the word “it” when referring to matter because that would imply an existing “thing”. 

As early as the period of ancient Greece, philosophers such as Aristotle have recognized that space and time are abstractions, as distinguished from the material world which exists. These thinkers were aware that “empty space” is totally impossible. They realized that it is simply an abstraction useful in considering how objects within the universe are arranged. Aristotle and others of his era maintained that time is a measurement of motion or the cycles of change. Although Dr. Borchardt sees time as being the actual motion that is occurring, rather than its measurement, he and Aristotle both recognize time as an abstraction. 

So far the best abstraction that we have for explaining reality is the infinite universe theory described in Stephen Puetz's and Glenn Borchardt's “Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe”.

Applying mass and volume criteria to the phrase “infinite universe” reveals that this phrase also refers to an abstraction because by definition there are no boundaries and no specific mass associated with an “infinite universe”. When physicists and cosmologists arrive at this understanding it will be enormously helpful in the advancement of scientific theory. By recognizing that “infinite universe” is an abstraction that attempts to represent the totality of everything that exists, along with the concept of there being no ultimate macro or micro boundaries in that totality, reveals the limitations of attempting to represent reality through abstractions.

Although I am convinced that there is some form of infinity, it is impossible to prove whether the universe is finite or infinite, or whether there are other forms of matter not yet discovered in an infinite universe. 

It is futile to expect thought to be adequate in conceptualizing anything that is not finite because all concepts require boundaries and limits. Thus, even concepts of an infinite universe are still circumscribed by the limitations of thought. It is similar to the impossibility of trying to represent “non existence” with a concept. When one tries to think of “nothing”, one is inevitably thinking of something. Therefore in referring to “what is” in “Infinite Universe Theory”, it is important to put the emphasis on falsifying concepts such as the theory of a finite universe, while keeping in mind the limitations of words and concepts in discussing that which is not limited.

Realizing that “infinity” is an abstraction helps to make this more manageable. Whereas when one thinks of infinity as being a real thing, there is an insurmountable problem because it is impossible to actually conceive of infinity.

In a previous blog on consciousness I explained that when neurons, which form a network within the brain, are firing in communication with each other and the network, then consciousness occurs.
Thus consciousness is a type of motion occurring within the brain, and since motion is an abstraction
so is consciousness. 

1 comment:

Bligh said...

Granted that all human thought is an abstraction, but we know from logic that Ex Nihilio Nihil. Therefore, an infinite universe. We can't prove anything, but we can reason.