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.
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20071226
20071024
Big Bang Theory, Creationism, Deloria, and Capra
"The Scientific Worldview" is what you get when you use infinity as one of your consuponible fundamental assumptions. It implies that the universe is infinite in extent and eternal, without a beginning and without an end--the opposite of today's absurd assumption that the universe exploded out of nothing. The Big Bang Theory is a creationist theory despite what the conventional wisdom claims. Thus I am with Vine Deloria and Fritjof Capra in observing that many of the assumptions used by today's scientists have much in common with religion. The BBT is part and parcel of the religious milieu within which it evolved. But as I showed in "The Ten Assumptions of Science" (2004) (also as chapter 3 in TSW), many of the the religious assumptions that Deloria and Capra favor are the opposites of deterministic scientific assumptions that make more logical sense. We really don't need "spiritual values" to have respect for the earth--we just need to take good care of it. It is, after all, our home.
Ref:
Capra, Fritjof, 1975, The tao of physics: An exploration of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism: New York, Bantam Books, 332 p.
Deloria, Jr., Vine, 1988, Custer died for your sins: An Indian manifesto: Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 278 p.
Ref:
Capra, Fritjof, 1975, The tao of physics: An exploration of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism: New York, Bantam Books, 332 p.
Deloria, Jr., Vine, 1988, Custer died for your sins: An Indian manifesto: Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 278 p.
20070922
On Free Will
The denial of free will, of course, was my starting point. My 2nd assumption, CAUSALITY, proclaims that "All effects have an infinite number of material causes." I had no need for uncaused effects, seeing such claims as non-scientific (a different book, rewritten many times). As for the "feeling of freedom," I have it in spades like most everyone. Nevertheless, as part of nature, I don't claim to make any decisions that do not follow from previous actions. My view is that the ABC's of philosophy begin with the denial of free will, but that the indeterministic argument still exists because the opponents have their own agenda, which also is the opposite of mine. I don't spend much time on it because the debate is ancient and well-traveled by almost every philosopher who ever lived. CAUSALITY is an assumption, and like the other nine assumptions, cannot be proven until all the causes for all effects have been determined--an impossibility in an infinite universe. My contribution in The Scientific Worldview was to carry it through to the bitter/glorious end: the observation that everything in the universe is "natural." The argument, in an infinite universe, must be circular and never completely provable. One either likes it, or one does not.
In scientific philosophy we "like" theories that provide predictions that can be tested via experiment or further observation. For us, "truth" is how well our ideas fare in the external world. No idea ever fares perfectly well because each test involves an infinite number of variables. They are not all equally important, however, so accounting for as few as three or four variables often allows us to make adequate predictions. As stated in the 3rd assumption of science, UNCERTAINTY, "It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything."
20070821
Why me?
From a reader and his brother:
"Your book is epic. We're still wondering how YOU came up with it or did some advanced alien actually write it!"
Thanks for the kind words. Actually, no aliens were harmed during the making of The Scientific Worldview (TSW). Some were contemplated, but readily dismissed for lack of physical evidence. Being on the same page, however, you and your brother probably have come across many of the same inputs that I experienced. The trick was to keeping moving, not getting bogged down in an all-consuming career that would allow little time for drawing stuff together. Another factor was my lack of indoctrination in conventional philosophy, combined with my disappointment with the inability of the Missouri Synod to handle the contradictions posed by science. Fundamentalism tends to force one to make either/or choices--a thread that clearly is evident in The Ten Assumptions of Science (TTAOS) and TSW. I suppose that I could be accused of being a "scientific fundamentalist" by those who would rather mix and match so as not to be upset by the contradictions posed by present views. I would rather be known as the most radical scientific philosopher instead.
20070716
Evolution of Religion
According to univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution, all things in the universe have evolved from other things. Religion also must be a product of evolution. In "The God Delusion" Dawkins says that religion is a secondary or vestigial adaptation that exists despite its inherent illogic and great energy draw on the species. I don't think so. The prevalence and dominance of religion in all societies speaks to its great importance that must be fundamental to early human evolution. Besides having an answer for our existence, its primary purpose is to instill and enforce loyalty. This is why logic is secondary in the minds of theists. Absurdities within a religion are accepted as a matter of course through religious "education." If everyone around you believes the same stuff (the creation of something from nothing, matterless motion, three gods in one, wine is blood, etc.), it becomes real to you and certainly not absurd or illogical. The religions of other tribes, however, may be so different as to be considered absurd. One takes a big chance leaving the safety of one's tribe in an attempt to join some other tribe that may not be accepting of outsiders having absurd, untrustworthy ideas. The loyalty obviously is necessary for defense against other groups that may forcefully attempt to take scarce resources for themselves. Thus, warfare, religion, and nationalism go hand-in-hand. During the Cold War the US, for example, found it necessary to add reference to god in the pledge of allegiance on June 14, 1954, to adopt "IN GOD WE TRUST" as the national motto in 1956 and to include it on all currency in 1957, despite the prohibitions of the founding fathers. This was not so much because believers would forget, but as a warning to those who did not so believe. The disloyalty of unbelief is regarded with suspicion and invitations to "love it or leave it." The loyalty of belief results in confirmation by the highest officials, medals for valor, and the proper burial of the fallen. The current religious wars are products of the economic globalization that has broken the isolation under which various religions were produced. The new contacts between religions expose the contradictions between the various absurdities, but the still stronger loyalties of each nationality supply the solders and materiel necessary for war. But, as explained in "The Scientific Worldview," such economic competition "by other means" eventually produces cooperation and peace via annihilation or merger. The diminution of warfare, religion, and nationalism destroys the need for tribal loyalty, substituting global loyalty in its stead.
20070629
Creationists, Neo-Darwinists, and the 'Evolutionary Dichotomy'
The slug fest between creationists and neo-Darwinists is a wonder to behold, complete with name calling and ignorance aplenty (http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Treatment-Evolution-Begins-Definition/forum/FxZ58KVEERYS5E/TxZ3SMZJCF16UR/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_rt_tft_tp/002-1053518-3647210?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdAnchor=0595392458). It seems that some creationists might accede to “micro-evolution,” but not to “macro-evolution,” while neo-Darwinists seem unsure on where to draw the line. Of course, there is absolutely no dichotomy to be had in evolution. Evolution involves the motion of all things with respect to all other things. As I explained in "The Scientific Worldview," the universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism (UD), the proposition that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. Nevertheless, I can sympathize a bit with the creationists. The presently accepted mechanism of evolution is "neo-Darwinism" (natural selection plus genetics). So in conventional thinking there indeed is a dichotomy: between the biological world and the rest of the universe. Once we remove this distinction by replacing neo-Darwinism with UD, the dichotomy disappears. This already has been done to some extent in the study of biopoesis (the origin of life from inorganic chemicals), which is a well-established theory whose efficacy is seldom debated by any scientist who has studied it in any detail. Countless scientists have stretched neo-Darwinism even further outside its bailiwick with the vague feeling that evolution is universally applicable. Neo-Darwinism, however, is only a special case of UD, and not an especially good one at that. As I showed in the book, it is gloriously incomplete—the biological microcosm consists of much more than just genes. We need to scrap neo-Darwinism as obsolete. UD removes the last vestige of the dichotomy hoped for by the rear-guard in the creationist camp. Only then can evolution assume its rightful place as the guiding paradigm of all science.
The Fundamental Political Question
Many folks seem to assume that we might get to freely choose between capitalism and socialism. This is unlikely. Instead, there is only one enduring political question that needs to be answered at any point in history: Should we do it together or do it apart? The "it" here is any human action whatsoever. The only way to answer the question is to experiment with the real world. There can be no pure individualism or pure capitalism, just as there can be no pure collectivism or pure socialism. As social beings, we operate with the reality defined by the environment that is presented to us at any moment. As the world changes, democracy allows us to evaluate and experiment with the solutions proposed by the left and the right. Solutions that fail the test are discarded; those that succeed are kept for a while. Dictatorships of the left or right invariably fail the test on a grand scale. On the other hand, growing populations invariably require solutions increasingly answered as: "let's do it together." Thus, even the most capitalistic of nations must adopt all manner of "socialistic" reforms to accommodate the increased social interaction produced by the Industrial Revolution. The corresponding Global Demographic Transition, centered on the year 1989, marks the half-way point in our maturation as a social species. Our social interconnections only can accelerate as a result. From a scientific point of view, this is neither "good" nor "bad." It just is. We simply will have to learn to get the most from it.
20070627
What is the Scientific Worldview?
PSI Blog 20070627
What is the Scientific Worldview?
The
popularity of atheistic books, such as Dawkin's "The God Delusion" and Hitchen's "God is Not Great,"
appear to be a reaction to the religious conflict that still afflicts much of
the globe. Reasonable people have difficulty comprehending the absurdities
promulgated by belief systems not their own. The contradictions between
religions are becoming more obvious as communication becomes increasingly
global. Students in Kansas, for instance, can lookup "evolution" and
"the scientific worldview" without their relatives finding out. The
ideas behind these words challenge beliefs that have instilled and enforced
political loyalty for millennia.
"The
scientific worldview" is bandied about with very little specificity
concerning exactly what it is. Until recently, there were only a few books with
that title and none focusing on what it really was. Before "The Scientific Worldview,"
there were two other worldviews that were scientific rather than religious:
classical mechanism and systems philosophy. The first overemphasized the
outsides of things; the second overemphasizes the insides of things. As modern
scientists, we have developed the habit of drawing spheres around the portions
of the universe that we want to study
and ignoring whatever is outside them.
The
Scientific Worldview argues for a combination of these two previous views. This
combination amounts to a new universal mechanism of evolution: “univironmental
determinism,” the proposition that whatever happens to a portion of the
universe is a result of the infinite variety of matter in motion within and
without. The upshot is that evolution is occurring to all portions of the
universe during every microsecond. What prevented the scientific worldview from
being expressed as clearly before, is my beginning assumption of microcosmic
and macrocosmic infinity.
Infinity
never could be completely amenable to the mathematics of Newton or Einstein or
to the common belief that the universe had a beginning, just like everything else.
The proponents of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) are cock-sure that the universe had
an origin. They have forced us to confront the ultimate question: Has
the universe exploded out of nothing or has it existed everywhere for all time?
The answer to this question will never be known with complete certainty.
Nonetheless, the rejection of the BBT and the acceptance of the universe as
infinite and eternal remains the last step in overcoming the myopia of our
pre-Copernican heritage. It is my fondest wish that "The Scientific Worldview"
will play a significant part in that ultimate transition.
My review of
Dawkins book, with a bit on why religion evolved and why it continues to be popular:
“The God Delusion” Stalking Horse for "The Scientific
Worldview"
This book,
written mostly for agnostics, easily achieved bestseller status stemming from
Dawkins's great initial success with "The Selfish Gene" and his
subsequent anointment as the leading intellectual in Great Britain. It is one
of the many popular books on atheism now appearing as stalking horses for the
coming intellectual revolution outlined more fully in "The Scientific Worldview".
He reiterates, in a generally personable way, all the arguments for and against
god. He goes on to calculate that there is a 99% chance that there is no god,
but like most systems philosophers, doesn't blink in the face of claims that
the universe exploded out of nothing.
Unfortunately,
Dawkins misses the boat entirely in claiming that religion is a secondary,
coincidental, vestigial by-product of evolution. In my opinion, its ubiquity
and close association with political organization and warfare makes religion
one of the most important products of evolution. Besides having an albeit bogus
answer for our existence, its primary purpose is to instill and enforce
loyalty. This is why logic is secondary in the minds of theists. Absurdities
within a religion are accepted as a matter of course through religious "education"
of the most gullible members of society.
The
religions of other tribes are considered even more absurd. One takes a big
chance leaving the safety of the home tribe in an attempt to join some other
tribe that may not be accepting of outsiders and their strange beliefs. To
belong to no tribe at all verges on suicide. Often, it seems that the more
absurd the belief, the stronger the loyalty. Loyalty obviously is necessary for
defense against other groups that may forcefully attempt to take scarce resources
for themselves. Thus, warfare, religion, and nationalism go hand-in-hand.
Globalization
at first intensifies the contacts that initially produce economic competition
and war, with cooperation and peace eventually being the long-awaited result.
Like most of us, Dawkins hopes for and predicts a more enlightened world as
well. May the force be with him. For the next step in your education see: The Scientific Worldview: Beyond
Newton and Einstein
For the
latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:
Borchardt,
Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive
Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
And
Borchardt,
Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive
Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].
20070626
Welcome to “The Scientific Worldview”
PSI Blog 20070626 Welcome to "The Scientific Worldview" This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein (Understanding the Universal Mechanism of Evolution)." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution. It is the book that Thomas Kuhn warned us about. You can order it here: (http://www.thescientificworldview.com/).
The purpose of this blog is to:
|
Glenn Borchardt, Director
Progressive Science Institute
Berkeley, CA 94705