Freewill and Fatalism

William Westmiller asks:

“I agree with your criticism of solipsism (we control the universe) and fatalism (the universe controls us) as irrational extremes. However, determinism seems to preclude human free will. If all of our actions are determined by prior states (micro or macro), do we have any ability to make choices?”

[William, once you read TSW you will understand the difference between classical determinism and univironmental determinism. I will restate it here because it a common question that I get. TSW was predicated on the idea that there is no freewill—all interactions in the universe are determined by what went on before. This is because, as a scientist, I regard the entire universe and everything in it to be natural. Determinists (and the best scientists) believe that there are material causes for all effects. That means also that any interpretation that leads to a freewill conclusion must involve a theoretical mistake. Even those indeterminists who believe their choices have no causes expect their choices to have effects.

Classical determinism was based on classical mechanics, with its belief in finite universal causality. This form of determinism was best illustrated by Laplace’s Demon, a super intelligent being who could predict the future by knowing the position and velocity of every particle in the universe. Classical determinism, classical mechanics and Laplace’s Demon were destroyed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which I interpret as the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). This is consupponible with the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Infinity is what makes assumptions necessary and allows us to have “the feeling of freedom,” which indeterminists often mistake for an acausal freewill. The correct theoretical position, however, is not to follow this solipsistic tendency or its opposite, fatalism, but to adopt univironmental determinism (UD), the belief that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the matter in motion within and without. Univironmental determinism is not only the correct philosophy, but it is at once the universal mechanism of evolution.

So do we have the ability to make choices? Of course. Can choices be made independently of the univironment? Of course not. Should we give up, as fatalists do, saying that “it is all predetermined anyway.” Of course not. Each of us changes the world, whether we realize it or not. Even fatalists and couch potatoes take up space. We can have “the feeling of freedom” while changing the world for better or worse. What UD adds, now that you know the secret, is the theoretical framework pointing the way toward the material conditions that need to be changed within and without.]

Entrained Aether, Radiation, Light, and Time

Paul Schroeder writes:

“But cosmology must address the everyday curvature of relationships. For example your colliding of micro/macrocosms is a linear interaction. What about discussing penetration by gravity? What happens to your ether inside a mass? What about transference of rotation from mass to pushing gravity? How did we arrive at orbital motions?”

[Paul, those are extremely perceptive questions, which were addressed in our new book (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011), “Universal Cycle Theory,” due out before the end of the month.]

“Finally, going beyond your univironment, we need the origin of motion and the original existence of microcosms. Your conservatism does say matter and motion of matter can neither be created nor destroyed. True only if you allow for motion without mass and you include radiation in your definition of matter. Again my system covers these issues.” 

[As mentioned above, there can be no motion without matter. I don’t blame you for being confused about radiation. Einstein muddled this one real good by proposing the photon as a massless particle of motion. To this day, really smart folks believe that photons actually “exist” and that energy actually exists or occurs. It is part and parcel of what Einstein was all about. It was his most important philosophical error (Borchardt, 2011). Also see my blog on “What is Energy” http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-is-energy.html.]

“We also differ on matter creation. I see electrons as crossings of radiation beams as opposed to things being bombarded and pushed together.”

[What you propose is the creation of matter out of matterless motion. In UD each type of matter is formed out of other types of matter.  The equation, E=mc², describes it well, as long as one avoids the conventional interpretation (Borchardt, 2009).]

“You wrote: “I don’t quite understand ‘light is motion’ and ‘time is motion’. Motion is a singular concept which you equate with light and time, two dissimilar concepts.”

[Paul, references above provide the details. In brief, we must remember that the universe only presents us with two basic phenomena, matter and the motion of matter. There are an infinite number of concepts that fit either of these two categories. Thus sound is motion, running is motion, earthquakes are motions, etc. Light is the wave motion of the aether, just like sound is the wave motion of the air. Light is not a thing, but the motion of things. Time is the motion of everything. Universal time is the motion of each thing with respect to everything else. Specific time is the motion of a specific microcosm with respect to another specific microcosm (i.e., a clock). Time does not exist; it occurs. There is no “going backward in time,” because there is no such place, as implied also by the Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible).Time is not a dimension. Time is not a measurement (dinosaurs experienced time, but they did not measure it). Time is motion.]

“I also don’t follow the etherosphere concept.”

[There are two schools of thought about the aether.

In the first, which was tested by Michelson-Morley (1897) [MMX] in a campus basement in Ohio, was that aether is everywhere the same, penetrating everything, and is unaffected by gravity. Earth would travel through such an aether, being unaffected by it. Nevertheless, there would be a relative difference between Earth’s motion and the motion of the aether, whether the aether was fixed or in motion. Earth goes around the Sun at a velocity of 30 km/s, so that is the expected relative difference after averaging what would be a headwind and what would be a tailwind. Note that in a recent paper, Steven Bryant (2008) used a wave-length approach to recalculate the MMX data, getting 30 km/s for what has always been considered a null result. If Bryant’s work is confirmed, it would be a falsification of SRT, as well as the second school of thought:

In the second, implied by Figure 8-2 in TSW (p. 202) (see also: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-ether-negatively-charged.html), aether is “entrained around Earth.” Although aether exists throughout the universe, some of it travels with Earth, just like our atmosphere. This means that, like our atmosphere, there would be no relative difference between the motion of the “aetherosphere” and Earth. Data supporting this view began to accumulate after investigators did MMX-type experiments at high altitudes. With entrainment, we expect measurements of the relative difference in velocity to be a function of altitude. A velocity of 30 km/s would be obtained only when the effects of the entrainment are no longer significant. With entrainment, attempting to measure the relative difference in velocity at sea level would be like trying to measure the velocity of the jet stream in your basement. Figure 8-2 suggests that the 30 km/s value really could not be obtained at altitudes lower than the stratosphere. The figure also suggests that changes in the density of the aetherosphere are not only a simple function of gravitation, as they are with the atmosphere. The aetherosphere curve has a lower slope than the atmosphere curve, even though they both meet at the same point (a function of the square root of altitude vs. a direct function of altitude). Does this mean that the aether is charged in addition to having mass?]

“I do hope your book becomes the standard of future thought and possibly creates interest in my model. Philosophy sometimes seems so circular that can inhibit progress. Is that sort of an application of your predestination idea?”

[Paul, remember that progress in philosophy, like progress in everything else, actually is spiralic, not circular. The determinism-indeterminism philosophic struggle proceeds in fits and starts: three steps forward and two steps back. If there is any “predestination,” it involves the fact that humanity cannot avoid including more and more of the macrocosm in its considerations of the universe. Living in the two-sphere universe or Einstein’s solitary Milky Way universe or the Big Bang universe is quite different from what is destined to be considered an infinite universe.]

References

Borchardt, G. (2009). "The physical meaning of E=mc² (http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf)" Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance 6(1).

Borchardt, G. (2011). Einstein's most important philosophical error. Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf). G. Volk. College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD. 8: 64-68.

Bryant, S. (2008). "Revisiting the Michelson and Morley experiment to reveal an Earth orbital velocity of 30 kilometers per second Galilean Electrodynamics 19(3): 51-56  (http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.CICS.MMX.Analysis.06302006.pdf ).

Michelson, A. A. and E. W. Morley (1887). "On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether." American Journal of Science 39: 333-345.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe (in press). Denver, OutskirtsPress.com.

Aether, Least Action, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Paul Schroeder, author of "The Universe is Otherwise" (Schroeder, 2006) writes in an email:

“…the infinite blob of aether cannot be assigned any functions.”

[Paul, I would never call the aether “an infinite blob.” The aether must consist of trillions of tiny particles in constant motion. It cannot be a single motionless entity normally connoted by the term “blob.” It cannot be fixed or a “cell-like” structure as some have proposed. Aether, like all microcosms, must contain submicrocosms as per infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and 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).]

“The concept of ‘least action’, which I did not previously know about, and the second law of thermodynamics, which I ignored as nonsensical for open space, are both directional – toward slowing and cooling. As such they conflict with the eternal and thus with the infinite.”

[Paul, these two laws are merely recapitulations of the law of the universe: Newton’s First Law of Motion: An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless it collides with something. As I explained in my "Resolution of SLT-order paradox" paper (Borchardt, 2009) and in the discussion of complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) in TTAOS and TSW, your statement that “they conflict with the eternal and thus with the infinite” is not true. Only systems theorists, who typically under-emphasize the macrocosm, could make that interpretation. As univironmental determinists, we believe that the microcosm and macrocosm are equally important. This is tied to your next question:]

“Where do motion and heat come from originally? My system is the answer. Paep gravity beams (Schroeder, 2006) have always existed, providing the original motion and subsequently the heat upon interacting. My paeps continually recycle providing eternity and allowing infinity to resolve into everyday specifics."

[Paul, remember that the two basic phenomena presented by the universe involve the existence of matter and the occurrence of its motion. As explained repeatedly in my previous blog, no particular microcosm or motion can be regarded as more fundamental or more elementary than any other. There are no “god particles,” “concrete objects,” paeps, or aether particles that “have always existed.” Every microcosm has a beginning and an end. Every microcosm forms from submicrocosms, which form from subsubmicrocosms ad infinitum. To suggest otherwise is to proclaim a fixity never observed and assumed not to exist when we use inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Because matter must always be in motion, it continually interacts with the macrocosm and is thereby changed. In an infinite universe it is pointless to ask where motion came from originally. The inertial motion of Newton’s object came from the motion of some other object, ad infinitum. Only those who don’t really believe in infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) would eternally ask the eternal questions: Where did matter come from? Where did motion come from? In an infinite universe the answer is always the same: From somewhere else. Infinity is the "grandest passing of the buck." It is time that we got used to it.]

References

Borchardt, G. (2008). "Resolution of SLT-order paradox" from http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_3.pdf.

Schroeder, P. (2006). The universe is otherwise (http://www.booksurge.com/The-Universe-Is-Otherwise-External-Gravitation/A/1419632310.htm), BookSurge Publishing, 198 pp.

How to Follow “The Scientific Worldview”

It has come to my attention that simply signing up as a “Follower” does not get you automatic notices of blog entries or comments. If you want to get these, you can now sign up for email alerts, RSS feeds of posts, and/or RSS feeds of comments. I try to put out a post every Wednesday, whenever I am in the office.

New to the blog are:

A world map showing the locations of visitors to the site (currently about 20/day).

A list of the top ten most popular postings.  

An alphabetical list of all posts.

Thanks to everyone who submits questions or comments. That makes it easier to come up with topics of interest to univironmental determinists and/or critics of TSW.

Why the God Particle Does Not Exist

From Bill Westmiller:  

“On a cursory read of the Amazon reviews and a few articles on your website,  I'll give you at least 95% conformity. The sole exception is 8.1, since my theory postulates an irreducible 'microscopic' particle that is common to all matter.”

Bill:

You are not alone. Most physicists hypothesize an irreducible (elementary particle) or "god particle." Microcosmic finity was the primary supposition underlying Greek atomism and its offspring, classical mechanics and classical determinism. That is why the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), is undoubtedly what puts my work ahead of the mainstream. You might want to do a thorough reading of Chapter 8 (pp. 88-97) in "The Ten Assumptions of Science" (TTAOS) (pp. 89-97 in "The Scientific Worldview"). Microcosmic infinity, in particular, is a thread that runs throughout all ten assumptions of science. It is what makes them “consupponible,” that is, if you can assume one of them, you must be able to assume all of them without contradiction. For instance, the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes), would not be possible without it. All things (microcosms) must be bathed in an infinite sea of particles (supermicrocosms) so that no two reactions can be exactly alike. Similarly, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion) obviously requires it. Frankly, I don’t see how you can agree with anything in TTAOS without also agreeing with infinity.

Despite their claims to be “relativists,” modern physicists have not disentangled themselves from this one presupposition that most distinguishes classical mechanics—finity. They are ambivalent about the macrocosmic variety, as shown by the currently popular oxymoronic “parallel universe” and “multiverse” theories. Nevertheless, like yourself, most are firm believers in microcosmic finity. You are in good company, because the billion-dollar bet at CERN is all set to discover the Higgs boson, a hypothesized elementary particle otherwise dubbed the “god particle.” Only one problem: it cannot possibly exist.

There are many reasons for this. One is its association with the photon, the oxymoronic massless particle hypothesized by Einstein. Another is the fact that all microcosms must contain submicrocosms ad infinitum. An elementary particle can have no parts. If it did, then these would have to be considered even more elementary. Even if an elementary particle, filled with solid matter, actually existed, it would pose the most critical problem of all. In tune with the idealism that engendered it, all of these particles would have to be identical. To be non-identical, any two “elementary” particles could not be “partless.” At least one of them would have more “solid matter” than the other. For that to be the case, that solid matter would have to be subdividable, i.e., made up of submicrocosms. This, of course, negates the “elementary” claim.

Now let us suppose that these elementary particles really are identical, as claimed by those who hypothesize them. This would contradict the Ninth Assumption of Science, 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), producing a logical conundrum for believers in TTAOS. This is not so bad for those who prefer the indeterministic opposites anyway, but it presents yet another logical problem. Identical elementary particles, hypothesized to be the constituents of all things, have no reason to associate with each other. They could not be charged or have opposed polarity, because that would mean that at least half of them were not identical and therefore not elementary. Identical particles would bang around the universe forever, never having reasons for joining with other particles to form anything. As hard as it is for us to believe that all things must contain other things and must have other things outside them, it is even harder to believe that the universe could be constructed of elementary particles.

Recently, the CERN folks have admitted that the Higgs boson may be a “mirage” (Evans, 2011): “The centre's research director Sergio Bertolucci told the conference, at the Indian city's Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, that if the Higgs did not exist ‘its absence will point the way to new physics.’” You betcha.

Reference:

Evans, R. (2011). "Higgs boson may be a mirage, scientists hint."   Retrieved August 22, 2011, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-science-higgs-idUSTRE77L5KS20110822 or http://reut.rs/rkw3ca