Long March from Homocentrism to the Infinite Universe Theory

Questions and comments from Bill Howell:

Hello Dr. Borchardt-

I’m enjoying TSW.  Your style of writing is very ‘readable’.  I’m up to Chapter 6 and really looking forward to reading about the expansion of Univironmental principles to evolutionary theory.  Just had to send some interim thoughts before getting further into it.

I have to disagree with you tho that your work is about completing the Copernican Revolution. Although I understand what you mean by this, Copernicus ‘only’ moved the center of the universe from the Earth to the Sun.  Yes, that was a critically important step and was a paradigm shift in mankind’s view of reality, but it was just one step.  Here we are 500 years later and most of mankind still thinks that humans are the crown of creation and view life and reality in ‘homocentric’ terms.   So, I don’t think your theory of Univironmentalism is simply a further expansion of the Copernican Revolution.  Rather, I think it’s a separate paradigm shift in its own right and represents another distinct step in the evolutionary process of mankind developing an accurate understanding of reality.  I hope it won’t take 500 years for your theory to sink into the consciousness of our species.

[Thanks for the kind words. You are completely correct about Copernicus.  Actually, the first to propose the Heliocentric Theory was the Greek Aristarchus (300 BC).  He lost out temporarily (only 1800 years) to Aristotle and the gang who continued to push the Geocentric Theory.  You are also correct in that we still live in a Homocentric Universe guided in science by systems philosophy, with its overemphasis on systems and neglect of environments.  The BBT, archetype of systems philosophy, is the last gasp of the myopia our species was born with.  I honor Aristarchus and Copernicus because they made some of the apparently very difficult first steps away from homocentrism. The invention of the BBT was a major regression in our march toward our ultimate understanding that the universe is truly infinite and that the evolution of each part of it is guided by Univironmental Determinism (UD), the universal mechanism of evolution.  Although the UD idea is simplicity itself, I must admit that it was quite a revelation to me when I first thought about it.  So I guess it must be for anyone else who grew up thinking traditionally.  That is why it is a great thrill to hear from readers like you who actually “get” the UD idea and begin to work out its implications.]     

I also enjoyed reading your expansion on the 10 Assumptions.  On page 54, you address one of the questions I asked in my last e-mail, specifically, the idea that matter is motion.  True, motion is not a ‘thing’, but it is a ubiquitous ‘phenomenon’ in the universe and so it does have a connection with matter in some sense.  I understand (and agree) with you that objectifying motion has created philosophical problems (just as objectifying time does), but I wasn’t referring to that.  I’m wondering if it could be the motion of standing waves (or a vortex-in-the-ether to use your example in The Physical Meaning of E=mc2 essay) that creates the force-fields responsible for molecular bonds.  Hope you can find the time (and/or inclination) to respond.

[Excellent question.  First, the word “connection” should only be used for describing microcosms.  There is no “connection” between matter and motion.  That motion is one of the two fundamental phenomena we use to describe the universe cannot be denied.  Even the word “association” may not be adequate.  Strangely, even the word “INSEPARABILITY,” which we use to describe our assumption about matter in motion doesn’t do justice to this very difficult conceptualization.  Second, ever since the E=mc2 paper I have been extremely careful with my use of the matter-motion terms momentum, force, energy, and space-time.  As I pointed out, none of those fundamental “things” actually exist; they are mere calculations.  What does exist is matter; what does occur is motion.

Molecular bonding is not well understood.  According to Newton, when two objects collide, the faster one accelerates the slower one (Second Law of Motion) or the collider bounces off the collidee (Third Law of Motion).  None of these laws explain bonding.  It explains why things might come together, but not why they should stay together.  That failure also was inherent in the Newtonian antecedent, atomism, wherein the indeterministic assumption of finity was used to hypothesize that all things consisted of varying numbers of tiny little balls.  These were considered to be “ultimate particles,” much like the “God Particle” modern physics is vainly searching for right now.  They were all the same size, having identical properties and being filled with solid matter.  Because they were perfectly solid, these atoms had no “parts,” even as they were considered to be “partless parts.”  If the universe was made up of the kind of atoms deduced via the assumption of finity, there would be no molecular bonding.  Nothing new could ever arise; there would be no evolution.  Bonding and evolution thus could occur only in a universe that is microcosmically as well as macrocosmically infinite. More about this later—in our next book.]

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].


No comments: