The Ten Assumptions of Science: First Steps in the Overthrow of the Big Bang Theory (Part 1)
Description:
In this video conference (audio + slides) I present many of the details contained in my book, “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” (TTAOS) which is the philosophical foundation of “The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein” (TSW). In the next few decades we are about to experience the scientific revolution that Kuhn warned us about. By adopting its replacement, Infinite Universe Theory, we will be completing the program that Copernicus only began. A paradigm shift of this magnitude requires an examination of the fundamental assumptions that led to the absurdities of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) and the paradoxes of relativity. Many of you have contributed to the cause by pointing out the mathematical errors, incorrect assumptions, and data that clearly falsifies the BBT and its dependent theories of Special and General Relativity—to no avail. In this course I will show how the persistence of those theories is dependent on fundamental assumptions held by most folks, including many dissident physicists. Collingwood taught us that, if we are dissatisfied with any particular theory, we need to examine the presuppositions on which it is based. Once recognized, presuppositions become assumptions. Fundamental assumptions have two characteristics:
1. They are never completely provable
2. They always have opposites.
Nevertheless, they can be assumed, as if they were true. Which of two fundamental assumptions should be assumed is a matter of much debate, the very essence of the perpetual philosophical struggle. Of course, I have chosen the scientific side, which I portray as determinism (There are material causes for all effects) instead of indeterminism (some effects may not have material causes [e.g., “free will,” etc.]). To get the most out of this course you may want to read TTAOS, which also is Chapter 3 in TSW. A shortened form appears as “Ten Assumptions of Science and the Demise of ‘Cosmogony’” at http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/TSWATDOC.pdf.
This a 2.5-Hour Videocast on the first four assumptions: MATERIALISM, CAUSALITY, UNCERTAINTY, and INSEPARABILITY. Please click on the underlined title above or enter:
http://rec1.dimdim.com/view/dimdim/85d40d36-e70d-102c-8e71-003048642bd7
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.
20091031
20091021
Spacetime and Making Black Holes in your Kitchen Sink
Dr. Borchardt:
TSW dismisses the notion of "curved" spacetime.
I was relieved, since prior to reading that, I felt pretty stupid not understanding it.
But, now there is a report from the Discovery Channel that proclaims scientists have
fabricated an electromagnetic black hole in the laboratory.
It goes on to say that this model "mimics the curvature of space-time, creating a fabricated event horizon that swallows electromagnetic radiation at microwave wavelengths."
Needless to say, if I was confused before, I'm twice as confused now.
What is really going on here?
Thanks.
Frederic
Frederic:
Numerous outrageous claims are made every week in support of the Big Bang Theory. That is one of the reasons it is so hard to dislodge. All “ordinary science” is interpreted from the theoretical point of view of the dominant paradigm. Whether it is “multiverses,” “parallel universes,” 4 or 13-dimensions, it is all part of the same foolish speculation based on idealism rather than realism. The media, especially the Discovery Channel, seem to eat this kind of stuff for lunch.
First of all, “spacetime” does not exist. “Space” exists and “time” occurs. Spacetime is a matter-motion term, which, like momentum, force, and energy, combines terms for matter and terms for motion in mathematical idealization. Spacetime, then, is an idea, conception, or calculation and therefore is not part of the real world. The idea that pure empty space actually could be “curved” is one of Einstein’s most deadly sins. The 4th dimension used in the spacetime concept is a necessary part of the BBT. Otherwise, our location at the center of the expansion hypothesized by the BBT would have proven to be impossibly fortuitous to many.
What is termed a “black hole” appears to be typical of the nuclei of galaxies. That one could achieve the necessary temperatures and pressures in the laboratory to produce a micro-black hole appears highly suspect to me. The absorption of radiation is nothing new—that is what every plant does in sustaining its life. The idea that a black hole only absorbs and never emits the motion called radiation has been recanted by Hawking himself.
You might want to review the blog I wrote on 9/4/09 concerning the discovery of a 12.8 billion-year old galactic black hole that clearly contradicts the BBT. Our own galaxy is at least 10 billion years old, and yet, this one supposedly formed 0.9 billion years after the Big Bang supposedly occurred 13.7 billion years ago. The reporter never questioned this (what? a reporter with a Ph.D.?). The media are largely uncritical of the interpretations of “learned men of science” as long as they follow the conventional view. The interpretations can be outright ridiculous, but they won’t be questioned if they have the appropriate buzz words and adhere to the principles of the paradigm. Get ready for a lot more fun and games before we finally put the BBT to bed.
TSW dismisses the notion of "curved" spacetime.
I was relieved, since prior to reading that, I felt pretty stupid not understanding it.
But, now there is a report from the Discovery Channel that proclaims scientists have
fabricated an electromagnetic black hole in the laboratory.
It goes on to say that this model "mimics the curvature of space-time, creating a fabricated event horizon that swallows electromagnetic radiation at microwave wavelengths."
Needless to say, if I was confused before, I'm twice as confused now.
What is really going on here?
Thanks.
Frederic
Frederic:
Numerous outrageous claims are made every week in support of the Big Bang Theory. That is one of the reasons it is so hard to dislodge. All “ordinary science” is interpreted from the theoretical point of view of the dominant paradigm. Whether it is “multiverses,” “parallel universes,” 4 or 13-dimensions, it is all part of the same foolish speculation based on idealism rather than realism. The media, especially the Discovery Channel, seem to eat this kind of stuff for lunch.
First of all, “spacetime” does not exist. “Space” exists and “time” occurs. Spacetime is a matter-motion term, which, like momentum, force, and energy, combines terms for matter and terms for motion in mathematical idealization. Spacetime, then, is an idea, conception, or calculation and therefore is not part of the real world. The idea that pure empty space actually could be “curved” is one of Einstein’s most deadly sins. The 4th dimension used in the spacetime concept is a necessary part of the BBT. Otherwise, our location at the center of the expansion hypothesized by the BBT would have proven to be impossibly fortuitous to many.
What is termed a “black hole” appears to be typical of the nuclei of galaxies. That one could achieve the necessary temperatures and pressures in the laboratory to produce a micro-black hole appears highly suspect to me. The absorption of radiation is nothing new—that is what every plant does in sustaining its life. The idea that a black hole only absorbs and never emits the motion called radiation has been recanted by Hawking himself.
You might want to review the blog I wrote on 9/4/09 concerning the discovery of a 12.8 billion-year old galactic black hole that clearly contradicts the BBT. Our own galaxy is at least 10 billion years old, and yet, this one supposedly formed 0.9 billion years after the Big Bang supposedly occurred 13.7 billion years ago. The reporter never questioned this (what? a reporter with a Ph.D.?). The media are largely uncritical of the interpretations of “learned men of science” as long as they follow the conventional view. The interpretations can be outright ridiculous, but they won’t be questioned if they have the appropriate buzz words and adhere to the principles of the paradigm. Get ready for a lot more fun and games before we finally put the BBT to bed.
20091003
Relationship Between Causality and Uncertainty
Dr. Borchardt:
I clearly understand that the relationship between causation and uncertainty cannot be overstated. What I am having difficulty with is the notion that causation is objective and uncertainty is subjective. It may just be a problem of their terminology. It makes sense to me when I read it, but I can't seem to repeat it with any kind of clarity. Could you elaborate on this important connection, beyond that which you describe in TSW?
Thanks,
Frederic Frees
Frederic
Thanks for your perceptive question. This may help to clarify the situation:
CAUSALITY (All effects have an infinite number of material causes.)
UNCERTAINTY (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything.)
Additionally, we have the following opposing assumptions to consider:
INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.)
Finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.)
Classical mechanics, classical mechanism, and classical determinism assumed finity, that there were a finite number of causes for any effect. Their mathematical equations, though often complex, necessarily were of finite length. With a finite number of causes, Laplace’s Demon could postdict the past and predict the future with perfect accuracy and precision. The variations found in all real observations and experiments could, in principle, be reduced to zero by including a few more variables. Causality could be considered to be “objective” and uncertainty, in theory, did not exist. Nevertheless, in the real world, being infinite, there always were variables that could not be discovered. With the development of statistics and probability theory, these could be treated as a “singular cause,” supporting the practical need for finite equations. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle stated that one could not know both the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time. This is because, to know one of these, an experimenter would have to interact with the particle, inevitably changing its position and/or velocity. In the attempt to gain perfect prediction, Laplace’s Demon would have to do likewise, continually messing with the particle, but never getting enough information to predict the particle’s next velocity and/or position. That was the death of Laplace’s Demon—the probability theory developed by quantum mechanics wasn’t good enough to predict the future with perfect accuracy and precision.
The easiest way to handle all this was to assume INFINITY, but physicists (other than David Bohm), being especially conservative, continued to assume finity. Great debates occurred about whether or not the Uncertainty Principle meant that there was an objective uncertainty about the world. Some even claimed that it was causality that was subjective and uncertainty that was objective. The Copenhagen Interpretation claims that uncertainty is objective, a sort of singular cause in tune with the one mentioned above. Bohm’s “infinite universal causality,” as I have termed it, assumed that no effect ever had a finite number of causes. In an infinitely subdividable universe, this is the way it has to be. Causality, though infinite, has to be objective, because the causes have been operating for an eternity before us “subjects” appeared on the scene. The subjectivity becomes obvious when we are forced to chop the ends off of these infinitely long causal equations. It is what we mean when we say that “science is limited.” It is incorporated in the humility expressed by the assumption of UNCERTAINTY. The opposing assumption, certainty, falsely claims that the “singular cause” of probability has no more causes within it. This inevitably fails when yet another material cause is discovered, decreasing the plus or minus of the measurement, but never decreasing it to zero. From time to time yet another theory, such as Chaos Theory, discovers causes within phenomena normally considered completely random.
When we say that uncertainty is subjective, we do not mean that the calculation of uncertainty or probability is not objective. We simply mean that those numbers express what we do not know. We can remove some of this ignorance, but we never can remove all of it, and that is what makes uncertainty “subjective.” True indeterminists generally assume finity and have a tendency to assume that certainty is possible as well. For them, certainty is objective, not subjective. They would be the first to deny that assumptions are necessary. Their world is finite, with everything fitting into neat little finite boxes. They seem to feel great comfort in the certainty of whatever dogma they have been taught.
References:
Bohm, David, 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
I clearly understand that the relationship between causation and uncertainty cannot be overstated. What I am having difficulty with is the notion that causation is objective and uncertainty is subjective. It may just be a problem of their terminology. It makes sense to me when I read it, but I can't seem to repeat it with any kind of clarity. Could you elaborate on this important connection, beyond that which you describe in TSW?
Thanks,
Frederic Frees
Frederic
Thanks for your perceptive question. This may help to clarify the situation:
CAUSALITY (All effects have an infinite number of material causes.)
UNCERTAINTY (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything.)
Additionally, we have the following opposing assumptions to consider:
INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.)
Finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions.)
Classical mechanics, classical mechanism, and classical determinism assumed finity, that there were a finite number of causes for any effect. Their mathematical equations, though often complex, necessarily were of finite length. With a finite number of causes, Laplace’s Demon could postdict the past and predict the future with perfect accuracy and precision. The variations found in all real observations and experiments could, in principle, be reduced to zero by including a few more variables. Causality could be considered to be “objective” and uncertainty, in theory, did not exist. Nevertheless, in the real world, being infinite, there always were variables that could not be discovered. With the development of statistics and probability theory, these could be treated as a “singular cause,” supporting the practical need for finite equations. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle stated that one could not know both the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time. This is because, to know one of these, an experimenter would have to interact with the particle, inevitably changing its position and/or velocity. In the attempt to gain perfect prediction, Laplace’s Demon would have to do likewise, continually messing with the particle, but never getting enough information to predict the particle’s next velocity and/or position. That was the death of Laplace’s Demon—the probability theory developed by quantum mechanics wasn’t good enough to predict the future with perfect accuracy and precision.
The easiest way to handle all this was to assume INFINITY, but physicists (other than David Bohm), being especially conservative, continued to assume finity. Great debates occurred about whether or not the Uncertainty Principle meant that there was an objective uncertainty about the world. Some even claimed that it was causality that was subjective and uncertainty that was objective. The Copenhagen Interpretation claims that uncertainty is objective, a sort of singular cause in tune with the one mentioned above. Bohm’s “infinite universal causality,” as I have termed it, assumed that no effect ever had a finite number of causes. In an infinitely subdividable universe, this is the way it has to be. Causality, though infinite, has to be objective, because the causes have been operating for an eternity before us “subjects” appeared on the scene. The subjectivity becomes obvious when we are forced to chop the ends off of these infinitely long causal equations. It is what we mean when we say that “science is limited.” It is incorporated in the humility expressed by the assumption of UNCERTAINTY. The opposing assumption, certainty, falsely claims that the “singular cause” of probability has no more causes within it. This inevitably fails when yet another material cause is discovered, decreasing the plus or minus of the measurement, but never decreasing it to zero. From time to time yet another theory, such as Chaos Theory, discovers causes within phenomena normally considered completely random.
When we say that uncertainty is subjective, we do not mean that the calculation of uncertainty or probability is not objective. We simply mean that those numbers express what we do not know. We can remove some of this ignorance, but we never can remove all of it, and that is what makes uncertainty “subjective.” True indeterminists generally assume finity and have a tendency to assume that certainty is possible as well. For them, certainty is objective, not subjective. They would be the first to deny that assumptions are necessary. Their world is finite, with everything fitting into neat little finite boxes. They seem to feel great comfort in the certainty of whatever dogma they have been taught.
References:
Bohm, David, 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p.
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.