The Scientific Worldview: A Short Course, Part 1

I have been invited to give this video conference on Saturday.  This will be Part 1 of an overview of "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein."  Previous video conferences covered "The Ten Assumptions of Science" and are available as a video of the slides and an audio recording at NPA (click here).  You can wait for the recording also, but on Saturday I will be on camera and the audience gets to ask questions (with or without camera).

To participate, you only need a computer, and internet hookup, and sound.

Click here to RSVP.

The Scientific Worldview

Date: Saturday, July 30, 2011
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
New York: 2011-07-30 10:00 AM
Rio: 2011-07-30 11:00 AM
Rome: 2011-07-30 04:00 PM
Delhi: 2011-07-30 07:30 PM
Sydney: 1969-12-31 07:00 PM

Length: 2 hours

Guest Speaker:

	Dr. Glenn Borchardt Author, Philosopher, Scientist Interests: Infinity, Infinite Universe Theory, Philosophy of Science, Univironmental Determinism, the Scientific Worldview Nationality: USA Books: 2 Abstracts: 8 Read details...

The Scientific Worldview provides nothing less than the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution. Borchardt first acknowledges the perpetual philosophical struggle that underlies our understanding of the universe and our place in it. The choice we must make is not between faith and reason, but between determinism and indeterminism. He warns us that scientific philosophy must begin with determinism and end with determinism: the belief (or faith) that all effects have material causes. His elaboration on this theme provides a clear philosophical foundation, The Ten Assumptions of Science, intriguing in itself for its innovation in proposing a complement to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Worldviews differ simply because they are founded on ultimately unprovable dialectically opposed assumptions. Just as one cannot determine the causes of all effects, one cannot travel to the end of the universe to prove whether it is infinite or finite. His belief in microcosmic and macrocosmic infinity is woven throughout the assumptions and throughout the book. The central concept of the resulting philosophical system is univironmental determinism, a new, universal, mechanism of evolution founded on the simple proposition that whatever happens to a thing is a result of the infinite variety of matter in motion within (the microcosm) and without (the macrocosm). Borchardt points out that the first mechanism of evolution, natural selection, was classically, overtly, and embarrassingly macrocosmic. Like Newton and the atomists before him, Darwin had totally neglected the insides of his evolutionary model. It was left to systems philosophers in the 20th century to include genetics to formulate what is otherwise known as neo-Darwinism, the current mechanism of evolution. Borchardt faults this mechanism as being overly specialized and relatively useless for understanding the evolution of the non-biological world. Univironmental determinism thus goes beyond Newton (classical mechanism), who overemphasized the macrocosm, and Einstein (systems philosophy), who overemphasized the microcosm. These two earlier scientific world views must be abandoned in favor of a worldview that unites both approaches under univironmental theory. Borchardt outlines numerous examples of univironmental analysis, resulting in some surprising, yet theoretically satisfying speculations: Gravity is a push, not a pull; light is motion; time is motion; there is an ether; Big Bang cosmology must be rejected as microcosmic; humanity will not cause its own extinction; the global demographic transition in 1989 marks the midpoint in humanity's juvenile development.

---

More details:

This course on “The Scientific Worldview”  (TSW) assumes familiarity with “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” which were presented during previous video conferences (available on the NPA website).  The assumptions also appear as Chapter 3 in TSW.  Attendees are encouraged to follow along in the text in preparation for each conference.  I recommend taking the short quiz on p. 345 before and after reading the book.  Hopefully, your improved understanding of univironmental determinism will be obvious when you score both tests after finishing the book.  The first video conference will start with:

Part I

Chapter 1        Introduction

We begin with the introduction to scientific philosophy, how it differs from the philosophy of science, and why we need determinism now more than ever.  

Chapter 2        The Renaissance of  Determinism

A short review of the determinism-indeterminism philosophical struggle from Democritus to Sartre, emphasizing its spiralic nature due to humanity’s ever-increasing contact with the real world. 

Chapter 3        The Ten Assumptions of Science

A really short review showing their interconnections and the part played by infinity.

Chapter 4        Theory of the Univironment

Replacing systems philosophy and classical mechanism with a balanced consideration of the object (microcosm) and its environment (macrocosm).  

    

Chapter 5        Neomechanics: The Reduction    

How Newton’s laws work in an infinite universe with the advent of infinite universal causality.  I will discuss acceleration and deceleration of microcosms, absorption of matter and motion, and the emission of matter and motion.   

The Cause of Inertia

From Rick:

In reading Collingwood's discussion of Newton's "free motions", I started wondering at the whole concept of inertia. "Modern science" has the mathematical description of what we call "gravity", but not so much the cause or the actual process. Even though they can map out elaborate mathematics of gravitational effects on motion, they never even hint at a causal mechanism. It would be heresy to do so, because it would involve the forbidden "aether".


"Modern Science" teaches the math for inertia, but never the physical causes involved in the actual process of inertia. I'm amazed at the tautological style in which we are taught science ideas like "gravity" and "inertia". Teachers never stop to say, "by the way, we have no freaking idea why or how this happens". The Catholic nuns in grade-school had the same teaching style when it came to Jesus. "He loves you, but if you don't love him back, you're going to be tortured forever". But I digress.


I'm thinking that inertia is nothing but the same "shadowing" process that causes gravity. What I visualize is based on questioning Newton's laws; Why should a particle remain in motion until it bumps into another particle? When two particles collide, why don't they just move away from each other, and then stop dead? Why is there a continuing motion away from each other?


Rick:


Thanks for the questions. You really know how to get at the heart of the matter.


First Question: “What I visualize is based on questioning Newton's laws; Why should a particle remain in motion until it bumps into another particle?”


Aside from UD, the single most important scientific law was Newton’s First Law of Motion (Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon). An inertial body like this requires no further motion (or “energy”) to stay at rest or in motion. The First Law is the essence of mechanism. Some folks have tried to give a teleological flavor to this motion, as if the object had "free will" or a mind of its own—as if it “wanted” to travel in the required straight line. Or that it had a so-far undiscovered tiny engine that propels it throughout the universe. Others ask: “Where did the motion of the object come from in the first place?” This question always was and is a problem for believers in finity. Who or what gave the object that first push? Of course, with infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), we assume that there was no first push. We assume that each object receives its motion from other objects ad infinitum.


Of course, as the “Law of the Universe,” the First Law of Motion was only an idealistic skeleton of what it could be. Newton’s object had nothing inside it (unless “empty space” or “solid matter” could be considered something) and didn’t necessarily require something outside it. With neomechanics, we transform Newton’s idealized object into a microcosm, a portion of the universe that contains an infinite number of submicrocosms within and an infinite number of supermicrocosms without. The momentum equation remains the same (P=mv, where P=momentum; m=mass; v=velocity), but it no longer predicts perpetual motion because the required “empty space” does not exist. The macrocosm outside each microcosm always contains supermicrocosms capable of slowing it down (or speeding it up). Inertial planetary rotations and orbits generally slow down due to friction caused by the macrocosm--the days and years get longer. Earth’s day was only 6.5 hours 4.5 billion years ago.


Likewise, our own travels require engines because there is always something in the macrocosm that resists the otherwise “perpetual motion” we instill in our vehicles. This is why one cannot get a patent for a “perpetual motion machine.” Despite some unfortunate theoretical problems at the beginning of the 20th century, the folks in the patent office no longer seem to believe in empty space. Nonetheless, the office is often plagued by those imbued with systems philosophy who propose microcosms (machines) without macrocosms.


Second Question: “When two particles collide, why don't they just move away from each other, and then stop dead? Why is there a continuing motion away from each other?”


Remember that Newton said “that objects at rest or in motion continue to stay that way unless they contact something.” The First Law is not a causal law, but a description of what happens in the absence of a cause. The Second Law of Motion (The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed) posits a cause (F=ma, where F=force; m=mass; a=acceleration). In other words, all causes involve a change in motion. Newton has observed that there can be no change in motion unless two bodies interact. Particles cannot “drop dead” without interacting with other particles. Newton doesn’t always say what the second body is (e.g., gravity), but he encourages us to look for it anyway. By the way, that is what is so irritating about modern physics, as you surmised. Einstein’s fields are immaterial. They contain no second body or particles; they are just mathematical descriptions void of actual physical objects. This is why we consider the modern version of physics to be a major regression in physics. We take a progressive step out of the morass by positing a macrocosm that contains material particles (aether) responsible for the often wonderful mathematics that describes their contributions.


By the way, the “shadowing effect” that you mention would never increase inertia. It could only decrease it. Anything that blocks otherwise perpetual motion comes under the Second Law. That’s why gravitation is described as a cause: F=mg (where F=force of gravity; m=mass; g=acceleration due to gravity).

Elderly Galaxies Plague Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20110715 Elderly Galaxies Plague Big Bang Theory

Everyone should be aware of Hubble’s photos of the Ultra Deep Field (UDF), which by BBT calculations is only 400 million years old.  It doesn’t seem to bother them a bit that the fully-formed galaxies they are seeing must have been at least 10 billion years old when the light from them started its 13 billion-year journey toward the Hubble telescope.  These objects are now at least 23 billion years old, if they even still exist.  The unobserved portion in the outer reaches of the NASA diagram is pure conjecture.  The youthful objects predicted by the Big Bang Theory will never be seen because the Big Bang never occurred.

This is the UDF NASA page:
 
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/hubble_UDF.html

NASA's BBT diagram (seriously):

 There are over 10,000 galaxies in this tiny patch of the sky (1/10 the size of the moon):

Close-up of a small portion of the above:

Can the Big Bang Theory Survive Chopra's Endorsement?

Univironmental determinists should get a kick out of this one:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/guru-deepak-chopra-endorses-big-bang-says-there-was-no-time-before-creation/


Well, at least he got one thing right: Without matter there is no motion (i.e., time).