Dr. Borchardt:
One important aspect of the Infinite Universe Theory which may be overlooked, is its ability to stress a positive outlook in our daily lives. You hinted at this in TSW, but it occurred to me that people often tend to view the world by way of Murphy's "Law," which loosely states that "if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and at the worst possible moment." Firstly, this "law" could never actually be possible in a finite universe. It is so often quoted, that people don't realize that they are confirming an infinite universe at the same time. Only infinity could produce the circumstances that would bring together the events that would produce such calamity in such a way. But, secondly, nobody ever seems to consider that there is a complement to this "law." It could be stated, "if anything can go correctly, it will go correctly, and at the best possible moment." If this were not true, no progress or success would ever occur. And this, too, could not be possible except within an infinite universe. (We could call it "Borchardt's law".) It is the IUT that posits a positive and optimistic outlook. There is always an opportunity awaiting us, no matter how bleak our situation may seem.
It was in the original Star Trek series when I first heard the phrase, "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." The IUT and TSW confirm this to me every single day.
Frederic Frees
Frederic:
As usual, an interesting observation. I am flattered to have a law named after me. You are correct that there is just as much chance for things to go right as to go wrong. “Right” and “wrong,” of course, are subjective terms—what is right for the rabbit is wrong for the fox who was unable to catch his lunch. That Murphy gets so much play and that no one seems to have invented its opposite until now (maybe it should be “Frees’s Law”), reflects the pessimistic state of the culture at present. It goes with the dark colors, sloppy clothes, and “woe is me” attitude of grunge, county western, blues, and rap. Apparently, the “American Dream” is just that, a dream that is seldom realized by most folks.
I am not sure whether the infinite universe has much to do with how we feel about it. Once the rabbit is caught he becomes pessimistic and the fox becomes optimistic. Actually, IUT and TSW, like all of science, should be neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Like the universe, it just is. The glass really is half full. On the other hand, because I have been so lucky and have had such an easy life, I always have been an eternal optimist. I tend to force myself to be happy at all times. Probably that is why TSW and IUT seem optimistic to you. Another reason would be the pessimism engendered by a theory that fails to work for you (BBT). For many of us anything would be an improvement over that one. Readers like you, who really “get” what TSW is all about, may feel elated because TSW answers so many of the questions that we are taught to accept as unanswerable.
You are right that yet another opportunity always awaits us in an infinite universe. As the global slow-down in the rate of economic growth dominates the headlines during the next four decades we will be hearing a lot about “budget limitations” and “finite resources.” It will be about how we must make do with less and how some must suffer because there isn’t enough to go around on this finite planet. Don’t believe any of it. There is always enough, it is just a matter of distribution. The ones that scream the loudest about finity already have theirs. As an extremely clever species we will decide what kind of world we want to live in. Will it include a lot of $100-million bonuses? No, but it might include a healthy lunch for everyone.
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.
20091113
The Coming Revolution in Cosmology
We supposedly live in a universe that exploded out of nothing. As an earth scientist, I have had real problems with that. Thirty years ago I actually believed in the Big Bang Theory too. Not anymore. You see, as an independent consultant I have had too much time on my hands. So much time that I was able to check those claims out from the perspective of an onlooker not exactly afraid to get his hands dirty. I love math, but I love rocks and soils more, stuff that is real rather than ideal.
My look into the Big Bang Theory (BBT) began with an examination of its underlying assumptions a la Collingwood and Kuhn. It turns out that the most important assumption currently held by establishment cosmologists and physicists is finity. Its opposite is INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Of course, it is impossible to prove without a doubt which of these assumptions is correct. One can only assume them. Choosing between them is a big scientific and philosophical deal: with finity the universe explodes out of nothing (or a “singularity, which amounts to the same thing) and with INFINITY the universe is eternal and everywhere.
But as a species, we have pretty much grown up with finity. Our finite world starts out with a blanket over our heads. The earth becomes flat. Then it becomes a planet with its sun revolving around it. Then it becomes just another small planet revolving around a minor star. Then it becomes a hundred billion galaxies each with a hundred billion stars supposedly expanding into 4-dimensional “spacetime.” Even with these obviously hugh numbers we have managed to keep things within reach—mathematically, if not realistically.
But now for the revolution…
It is my belief that the revolution started by Copernicus is not yet complete. It won’t be until we adopt the only logical alternative: Infinite Universe Theory (IUT). Why will this occur and when will it be? In spite of its impeccable logic and the numerous scientific and philosophical problems that it solves, the IUT will not be accepted any time soon. Hardly a day goes by that the New York Times, Science, Nature, or some such establishment media outlet doesn’t report yet another “proof” of the efficacy of the BBT. All is seen through the eyes of finity and the BBT even though hundreds of scientists have gathered much data that discredits it. As the reigning paradigm, the BBT holds immense power and popular support. Budding cosmologists and physicists who have doubts about the reality of four dimensions, curved space, or the explosion of the universe out of nothing are weeded out. In cosmology and physics government grants are seldom, if ever, awarded to scientists who do not believe in the BBT. That is the nature of a scientific paradigm. It cannot be changed from within, because those who would question it are without. There are thousands of them. They are colleagues, mostly gray of hair, who are retired physicists now free to speak out. They are engineers accustomed to working with the real, 3-D world, not the imagined, 4-D world of the “modern physicist.” They are natural scientists untouched by the financial restrictions of the paradigm. They are folks just like you, who are curious about their surroundings.
Because of its philosophical flaws, the BBT is certain to be replaced by the IUT. What is not certain is the timing of this revolution. The assumptions underlying the IUT are the opposite of those underlying religion, which is the philosophy of probably 80% of the world’s population. Nevertheless, religious authority is under heavy attack as globalization speeds up. The current religious-economic wars are symptomatic of the inevitable destruction of long-held conservative worldviews. Having developed in semi-isolation, these philosophies cannot survive a world dominated by the logic of the internet and a wide-open mixing of cultures spawned by those wars. Philosophically, we cannot escape INFINITY. Even if you believed in a god that created the universe from nothing, you must wonder who created that god and what took it so long? Even Hawking has asked the next question: what existed before the BBT? There is no realistic answer, just more of the same: crunches, “multiverses,” “parallel universes,” etc. The mathematical dreams of 4 and 13 dimensions will not contain a universe that has existed everywhere and for all time.
A true revolution involves turning things upside down. As I said, the switch from finity to INFINITY is a really big deal. It won’t happen soon. Major philosophical changes cannot occur without major economic changes. The rate of global population increase began to slow in 1989. By 2050, population growth and economic growth will slow to a trickle. The current depression is sure to put tremendous stresses on conservative social and economic systems. Our adaption to the many changes required will include questioning of all those in authority, the BBT included.
My look into the Big Bang Theory (BBT) began with an examination of its underlying assumptions a la Collingwood and Kuhn. It turns out that the most important assumption currently held by establishment cosmologists and physicists is finity. Its opposite is INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Of course, it is impossible to prove without a doubt which of these assumptions is correct. One can only assume them. Choosing between them is a big scientific and philosophical deal: with finity the universe explodes out of nothing (or a “singularity, which amounts to the same thing) and with INFINITY the universe is eternal and everywhere.
But as a species, we have pretty much grown up with finity. Our finite world starts out with a blanket over our heads. The earth becomes flat. Then it becomes a planet with its sun revolving around it. Then it becomes just another small planet revolving around a minor star. Then it becomes a hundred billion galaxies each with a hundred billion stars supposedly expanding into 4-dimensional “spacetime.” Even with these obviously hugh numbers we have managed to keep things within reach—mathematically, if not realistically.
But now for the revolution…
It is my belief that the revolution started by Copernicus is not yet complete. It won’t be until we adopt the only logical alternative: Infinite Universe Theory (IUT). Why will this occur and when will it be? In spite of its impeccable logic and the numerous scientific and philosophical problems that it solves, the IUT will not be accepted any time soon. Hardly a day goes by that the New York Times, Science, Nature, or some such establishment media outlet doesn’t report yet another “proof” of the efficacy of the BBT. All is seen through the eyes of finity and the BBT even though hundreds of scientists have gathered much data that discredits it. As the reigning paradigm, the BBT holds immense power and popular support. Budding cosmologists and physicists who have doubts about the reality of four dimensions, curved space, or the explosion of the universe out of nothing are weeded out. In cosmology and physics government grants are seldom, if ever, awarded to scientists who do not believe in the BBT. That is the nature of a scientific paradigm. It cannot be changed from within, because those who would question it are without. There are thousands of them. They are colleagues, mostly gray of hair, who are retired physicists now free to speak out. They are engineers accustomed to working with the real, 3-D world, not the imagined, 4-D world of the “modern physicist.” They are natural scientists untouched by the financial restrictions of the paradigm. They are folks just like you, who are curious about their surroundings.
Because of its philosophical flaws, the BBT is certain to be replaced by the IUT. What is not certain is the timing of this revolution. The assumptions underlying the IUT are the opposite of those underlying religion, which is the philosophy of probably 80% of the world’s population. Nevertheless, religious authority is under heavy attack as globalization speeds up. The current religious-economic wars are symptomatic of the inevitable destruction of long-held conservative worldviews. Having developed in semi-isolation, these philosophies cannot survive a world dominated by the logic of the internet and a wide-open mixing of cultures spawned by those wars. Philosophically, we cannot escape INFINITY. Even if you believed in a god that created the universe from nothing, you must wonder who created that god and what took it so long? Even Hawking has asked the next question: what existed before the BBT? There is no realistic answer, just more of the same: crunches, “multiverses,” “parallel universes,” etc. The mathematical dreams of 4 and 13 dimensions will not contain a universe that has existed everywhere and for all time.
A true revolution involves turning things upside down. As I said, the switch from finity to INFINITY is a really big deal. It won’t happen soon. Major philosophical changes cannot occur without major economic changes. The rate of global population increase began to slow in 1989. By 2050, population growth and economic growth will slow to a trickle. The current depression is sure to put tremendous stresses on conservative social and economic systems. Our adaption to the many changes required will include questioning of all those in authority, the BBT included.
20091104
Download The Physical Meaning of E=mc2
Finally, the E=mc2 paper is available for download. It will be published in the 2009 Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance. Of special importance is the section on "The 'Conversion' of Matter into Motion," the main point being that what appears to be the case at one level is not at all the case at a deeper level.
Here is the final abstract:
Many popular accounts maintain that E=mc2 describes the conversion of matter into “pure energy,” often construed as a kind of matterless motion. Today, “dark energy” and “dark matter” are spoken of as if they were two different “things.” Some even hypothesize that the universe was filled with pure energy before it became filled with matter. This estrangement between matter and motion (separability) is common in popular culture and underlies the 20th century regression from realism to idealism in modern physics. There will be no fundamental change in modern physics until we adhere to the opposing assumption, INSEPARABILITY (Just as there can be no motion without matter, so there can be no matter without motion). Without it, it is impossible to explain the physical meaning of the equation. Like all equations involving aspects of reality, E=mc2 simply refers to the transformation of one kind of matter in motion into another kind of matter in motion and/or the transformation of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter. The experimental success of the equation led to the increasing objectification of energy. However, being a matter-motion term like momentum and force, energy neither exists, nor does it move. It is simply an idea, a concept, a mathematical description of the motion of matter. Matter does not “contain” energy, for matter only can “contain” other things in motion. Energy is simply a mathematical term necessary for describing and relating the various forms of the motion of matter. A speculative illustration involving electron-positron annihilation demonstrates how matter (electrons and positrons) appears to be converted into motion (EM radiation) without violating INSEPARABILITY. In essence, E=mc2 describes the conversion of internal matter in motion to external matter in motion, and vice versa.
Click on the title above or use this URL: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf
Here is the final abstract:
Many popular accounts maintain that E=mc2 describes the conversion of matter into “pure energy,” often construed as a kind of matterless motion. Today, “dark energy” and “dark matter” are spoken of as if they were two different “things.” Some even hypothesize that the universe was filled with pure energy before it became filled with matter. This estrangement between matter and motion (separability) is common in popular culture and underlies the 20th century regression from realism to idealism in modern physics. There will be no fundamental change in modern physics until we adhere to the opposing assumption, INSEPARABILITY (Just as there can be no motion without matter, so there can be no matter without motion). Without it, it is impossible to explain the physical meaning of the equation. Like all equations involving aspects of reality, E=mc2 simply refers to the transformation of one kind of matter in motion into another kind of matter in motion and/or the transformation of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter. The experimental success of the equation led to the increasing objectification of energy. However, being a matter-motion term like momentum and force, energy neither exists, nor does it move. It is simply an idea, a concept, a mathematical description of the motion of matter. Matter does not “contain” energy, for matter only can “contain” other things in motion. Energy is simply a mathematical term necessary for describing and relating the various forms of the motion of matter. A speculative illustration involving electron-positron annihilation demonstrates how matter (electrons and positrons) appears to be converted into motion (EM radiation) without violating INSEPARABILITY. In essence, E=mc2 describes the conversion of internal matter in motion to external matter in motion, and vice versa.
Click on the title above or use this URL: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf