Critique of "The Scientific Worldview": Part 9a The Ten Assumptions of Science: Irreversibility

Bill catches an incomplete analogy. Is time more "relative" than motion?

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview[1]" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

TSW: Seventh Assumption: irreversibility (Part 9a)

 "All processes are irreversible."

BW: Agreed, generally ... even absolutely.

TSW:  "... the concept of time encourages the attempt to relate the motions of one thing to the motions of other things."

BW: I discussed it previously, but I think time is even more "relative" than motion. In the universal sense, it's a *change* in the relative position of objects: there would be no time in a static universe. In the qualitative sense, that change is measured in relation to objective spin: some rotational or periodic motion, usually a clock.

[GB: “Time is even more ‘relative’ than motion” makes no sense. Time is either motion or it is not. Your second sentence contradicts the first. At least we agree that there would be no time in a static universe (that is because it could not exist, per the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).]    

TSW:  "Strictly speaking, time per se does not occur; only particular events occur."

BW: If events are merely collisions of particles in motion, neither time nor its measurement requires events, only a change in relative position.

[GB: Agree. I see what you mean. Time can involve collisions (events) or it can involve inertial motion, which does not. I will have to replace the word “events” with the word “motions” in the next edition. On the other hand, the measurement of time requires events (collisions) as Heisenberg found out.

There can be no motion without time, as I had to point out in a comment involving a fad called “catastrophe theory” in the ‘70s: “Obviously, the very nature of variation or change in any material always involves time, even if it is measured in microseconds. A catastrophe results from extremely rapid changes, not from "changes" occurring in zero time as implied by the theory.” ^[1]]

TSW:  "As with the existence of matter, time occurs independently of us regardless of what we are able to say about it."

BW: Universally, yes. But time itself is not quantified by nature, so we fabricate a conventional "clock time" for human convenience. However, our perceptual "sense of time" (independent of clocks) is modified by our own motion, biological and environmental. So, our sense that "time flies" when we're engaged, or "time stops" when we're sleeping, is true *for us*. I think it's important to distinguish between universal, conventional, and perceptive time in any discussion.

[GB: That is why I use the slogan “time is motion.” One size fits all. It so obviously begs the question: What is in motion? In the infinite universe, there are an infinite number of microcosms in motion with respect to all other microcosms. You can call that “universal time” if you wish. Conventional time can be whatever others agree to as well (Earth’s rotation, anyone?). Perceptive time is subjective, of course. If I am looking south, I may see much evidence for time in the south, but none in the north. Immaterialists, who commonly think that the universe revolves around them, tend to overemphasize time as a perception. That overemphasis is part of the general philosophical struggle between materialists and immaterialists.]

TSW:  "Time is thus an echo of causality."

BW: Not a good analogy. We consider motion *prior to* an event as a necessary condition of distinguishing cause from effect, but there need not be an event for there to be time (by my definition).

[GB: You are right. The analogy is correct, but incomplete. It should also include inertial motion. The next edition will have this instead: “Time is thus an echo of causality and inertia.”]  

TSW:  "Planck was right in pointing out that the antithesis between irreversibility and reversibility that he thought irresolvable ..."

BW: He didn't seem to have any problem resolving the two states:

"In fact, the motions of single atoms are always reversible, and thus far one may say, as before, that the irreversible processes appear reduced to a reversible process, but the phenomenon as a whole is nevertheless irreversible, because upon reversal the disorder of the numerous individual elementary processes would be eliminated." - Reversibility and Irreversibility.”

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/85002839/8-Lectures-on-Theoretical-Physics-Max-Planck

I suspect you would disagree with his assertion of reversibility in atomic motion. Planck described a reversible process as one in which an initial state is "restored", without modifying anything else. I think any spin or rotary motion can objectively occur, independent of any interaction with or relation to the universe ... but that doesn't make the process "reversible", only "recurrent". That kind of cyclical recurrence is useful for *quantizing* the degree of change in the motion of other objects, but it doesn't make either of them "reversible", except in a mathematical sense.

[GB: You are right. I totally disagree with Planck. Glad to see that you are catching on. Planck’s microcosmic mistake here is typical of “systems philosophy,” which overemphasizes the system and ignores the environment. But I also disagree with you that rotation can occur “independent of any interaction with or relation to the universe.” What we teach at PSI is that every motion is univironmental: the motions of every single microcosm and its respective submicrocosms occur in relation to all the supermicrocosms in the macrocosm. This means that each motion is unprecedented, and thus irreversible. In particular, no microcosm can rotate without producing a new relationship with its macrocosm. Rotation affects the macrocosm because the boundary between microcosm and macrocosm is never distinct. This follows from the Tenth Assumption of Science, Interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion).]  

Next: Irreversibility (Part 9b)

cotsw 016

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 1978, Catastrophe theory: Application to the Permian mass extinction: Comments and reply: Geology, v. 6, p. 453-454.

Is the Infinite Universe Regenerative?

Letter from a colleague working on Infinite Universe Theory:

Dear Glenn,

I hope you remember me from the NPA conference of July 2011 in Maryland.  Thanks for sending the notice about your new Facebook page.

Your work and your websites are spot-on in recognizing the need to veer away from both religious and academic/political problems in the quest for a more comprehensive and honest cosmology.  Nearly every previous attempt at Big History, which endeavors to integrate the sciences into 'one story', accepts the supposed authority of the big bang theory without question.

I've been working on a synthesis that builds as strong a case as I can find for proposing an alternative to the big bang.  It's certainly similar to the work you've done in recognizing that the universe environment is infinite.  It is not necessary to violate what is known about comprehensive thermodynamics and fluid dynamics in order to create the next cosmology.  An elaborate recycling scenario emerges, based on many states of matter, and respecting environments, boundary conditions, and structures of many kinds.

Some things of interest:

- Have you come across recent information about Large Quasar Group Environments (2012-13) which are the largest structures found in human history (reaching up to about 4 billion light years across)?  Huge-LQG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This surely puts a hurt on time frames proposed by the big bang (as if the generation times of supercluster complexes were not enough to do this already).

[Rob:

Glad to hear from you again and that you are well on your way with Infinite Universe Theory. Thanks for the heads up on the Huge Large Quasar Group. At 4 billion light years, that certainly outdoes the galaxy superclusters, which are only about 0.5 billion light years wide. Looks like we will have to include that as the largest known structure in the revision of our “Big History” book ("Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe" [UCT])[1]. The 4 billion light year wide void we mentioned in that book and on the Facebook cover page for PSI appears to be a similar contradiction of the Big Bang Theory. That is an awful lot of territory for the imagined explosion to miss.

With regard to your theory, you wrote: “an elaborate recycling scenario emerges.” That seems to fit nicely with our The Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things.). At one time, I used to believe in the recycling theory. Now, I am not so sure. The infinite hierarchy that Steve discovered and included in UCT implies that may not be viable. The hierarchy is compatible with our Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Thus, the universe does not recycle back to a particular form, but has infinitely small particles and infinitely large agglomerations. Our 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), assumes that, if there indeed is a recycled form, it will not be exactly the same as previous ones.

Although the universe is infinite and eternal, each portion of it has a beginning via convergence and an ending via divergence (per complementarity). That is, each microcosm is finite and temporal. The vortices described in our book have lifetimes from milliseconds to trillions of years, but theoretically, they all have lifetimes. The proton, for instance, is so long-lived that its half-life must be greater than “1.29×10³⁴ years via positron decay” (Wikipedia). Because proton decay has not been observed, its recycling is not obvious. In our recent books and papers, we speculate that baryonic matter (such as electrons and positrons) forms from aether_-1 particles.[2][3][4]

Recycling at that level in the hierarchy would mean a return from baryonic matter to aether_-1 as happens during electron-positron “annihilation,” which I mentioned at the end of the E=mc² paper. I have no doubt this occurs for protons too, but apparently it does not occur on a time scale we have so far observed.

Another problem with the regeneration idea involves the ages of cosmological bodies in the observable universe. Many are very young. For instance, it will take “37,000 trillion years for the Milky Way to mature.”[5] Theoretically, red dwarf stars should evolve into white dwarf stars, but astronomers expect the process to take more than a trillion years. If the age calculations are any way near correct, we see no trillion-year old microcosms in the observable universe. If infinite regeneration was occurring in the observable portion, we would expect to see microcosms of all ages, from the newly born to those at the end of their multi-trillion-year lives. If nearly infinitely old microcosms had been observed, then the infinite universe would be obvious. The Big Bang Theory would have arrived stillborn. We see no evidence of this, so even if the Big Bang Theory is not the answer, we much search for the reason.

On the other hand, we need to accept that, like any other portion of the infinite universe, any microcosm we can observe also had a beginning and will have an end—just not in the way envisioned by the Big Bangers. The observable universe, like all microcosms, is born of the macrocosm. It had a beginning (but not by an explosion) and will have an end. One way of viewing this is shown on the cover of UCT, in which we show the observable universe as a tiny portion of the next vortex, which we dubbed the “Local Mega-Vortex.”

From UCT, the “regenerative” aspect of the universe is pretty much WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). Microcosms come into being and go out of being; like all microcosms, we are born and we die. However, each of us is so unique that we can never be regenerated in the exact form that we once were. And so it is for every other microcosm. No reproduction or “regeneration” ever repeats itself exactly. Per relativism, every microcosm is unique. I used to think that galaxies might be the one microcosm that was regenerated endlessly. Their various submicrocosms would come together for a while, and then diverge to form nearly identical galaxies elsewhere. However, since writing UCT with Steve, I have been disposed of that idea. His most perceptive question was: If there is no smallest microcosm, how can there be a largest microcosm? Each microcosm in the hierarchically infinite universe is always part of a still larger and older microcosm—as demonstrated by galaxy clusters, superclusters, and the Huge Large Quasar Group you mentioned. Picking on any one of these or any other favorite microcosm for regenerating the universe cannot possibly work. Such an attempt at perfect regeneration would be to assume finity instead of infinity. It is no better than the oxymoronic notions of multiverses and parallel universes.]

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].

---

[1] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com  ), 626 p.

[2]  Ibid.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 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, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J. , 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf  ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.

[5] Puetz and Borchardt, 2011, p. 172.

Nature of Infinity

A letter from reader Dean Steeves:

Glenn:

First off, I would like to purchase a copy of your book “The Scientific Worldview” Please let me know how I can do so.

[GB: Best is to go to the PSI website ( www.scientificphilosophy.com ), where you can scroll down to see the various options at prices between $6 (iUniverse ebook) and $33.26 (hardcover). For the paperback or Kindle version just click on:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0595392458?tag=httpscientifi-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0595392458&adid=0HYBD36BXFGAWYDWEM5Z&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificphilosophy.com%2F ]

Second off, one of your statements I read on your blog site if I grasped it correctly is that you believe the universe is INFINITE.

Question:

When you say infinite do you mean infinite in linear size i.e. DIMENSIONALLY UNLIMITED or do you mean infinite in the sense of ETERNAL i.e. NEVER ENDING time (motion) wise or do you mean BOTH or NEITHER?

Thank you,

Dean

[GB: My conception of infinity comes from the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Although various thinkers have assumed microcosmic infinity (e.g., Aristotle) or macrocosmic infinity (e.g., Newton) on occasion, this is the only form of infinity that is logically consistent, being independent of scale. An infinite universe, of course, has no beginning and will have no end, although each part of it always has a beginning and will have an end.]

DS: Are not you really referring to TRANSFORMATION HERE since energy (matter and motion) including what you call part can never be created nor destroyed.

[GB: What I mean by “parts” here are xyz portions of the universe, which have locality with respect to other portions of the universe. In "The Scientific Worldview"[1] (TSW) I call them “microcosms,” with the implication that each of them has an environment I call a “macrocosm.” You are right, according to the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation, that matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Thus each microcosm consists of submicrocosms that join as a result of convergence. No matter or the motion of matter is harmed in the process. BTW: I consider energy to be a calculation rather than a thing or a motion. It simply is a description of matter in motion. Thus, energy neither exists nor occurs. What exists is the matter and what occurs is the motion of that matter. I think you get that, since you used matter and motion as well. Many folks seem to think that energy is matterless motion, per Einstein.       

 All things, except the infinite universe itself, come into being via convergence and go out of being via divergence per complementarity, the Sixth Assumption of Science. Even if one did believe all that nonsense about a pre-existing “singularity” being triggered into an explosion by a “quantum fluctuation,” the Big Bang Theory would be an especially strange cosmogony. In the real world, we create things by bringing their various parts together, not by blowing them apart.]

DS:  I do not believe it ever happened. To me it’s not what you see is what you get, it’s what you see HAS ALWAYS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE and ALWAYS REMAINS THE SAME relative to how it works. Some people call it God, I just call it ENERGY (matter and motion).

[GB: We seem to agree that the Big Bang never happened. WYSIWYG is often useful, but here, the “remains the same” part is clearly not WYSIWYG. According to the universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental determinism, every microcosm in the universe is continually in motion, changing via exchanging matter and the motion of matter with its macrocosm.]

DS: Agreed in principle with the awareness that the bringing together is in fact a RECONCILIATION of what appears to be opposing forces such as for example centrifugal and centripetal. IMO creation is the PROCESS of overcoming the appearance of resistance? In other words, energy (matter and motion) exists in a perpetual state of DUALITY that in appearance can seem/feel like opposition; however, once the duality is RECONCILED then SUBSTANCE emerges. PRESTO, we have our FINITE UNIVERSE.  This to me is the process called creation.

[GB: Actually, there really are no “forces,” opposing or otherwise (i.e., even regressive physicists admit that centrifugal and centripetal motions are “pseudo” forces). Force, F=ma, is a calculation describing the collisions between microcosms. What brings them together is simply their inertial motions as described by Newton’s First Law. The “creation” of baryonic matter from aether_-1 particles occurs when those normally high-speed particles are forced out of their normally linear motion into vortex motion via collisions with the macrocosm. As in the atomic model, the aether particles may continue to travel in circles at high velocities just as electrons do around the nucleus. Also, like the atom, the resulting aether vortex (e.g., electron) travels at much lower velocities. This process is similar to the “roundup” that cowboys use to slow the herd for the night. As with aether, it is as if we were unable to see the cattle when they were moving linearly at high speed, and then, we were suddenly able to see them when their circular motion forced them into a vortex with little, if any lateral motion. This “creation of matter from aether” theory was further developed in my E=mc² paper[2] and our Neomechanical Gravitation Theory paper.[3]

So you can see that the formation of baryonic matter is in tune with your statement about conservation of matter and motion as well as our assumption of infinity. On the other hand, we do not propose an “opposition” between matter and motion. Check out our Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). The essence is that motion is what matter does. Motion is not “part” of the universe; it is what various parts do. Matter has xyz dimensions and motion does not. Nonetheless, the objectification of motion has been ever popular. It was one of the reasons that Einstein’s indeterminism was so readily accepted.[4]

After reading "The Scientific Worldview," you may wish to read "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe"[5] to get further details and their implications. Among the most important is our conclusion that the infinite universe has no largest structure, just as it has no smallest structure. Infinity implies that solid matter and empty space are only ideas. Reality always exists between these two idealizations. Nonexistence is impossible. Whenever one asks: Where did this or that thing come from? The answer in the infinite universe always is: From somewhere else. The infinite universe always has a good deal of passing of the buck, necessarily circular reasoning, and the requirement that the correct assumptions are necessary for understanding it.]

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].

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html

 ): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 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, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J. , 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf  ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf

), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.

[5] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com

 ), 626 p.

Critique of "The Scientific Worldview": Part 8c The Ten Assumptions of Science: Complementarity

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (divergence) and its complement (convergence), fictitious forces, Prigogine's microcosmic mistakes, and the Nobel Prize.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview[1]" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

TSW: Sixth Assumption: Complementarity (Part 8c)

TSW:  "Prigogine ... stressed that complex structures can exist only through continuous interaction with their surroundings. Without this interaction, structures tend to 'dissipate.'"

BW: Prigogine just got bit by the dialectic bug, with no supporting evidence. Entropy is a consequence of "continuous interaction" among moving particles. Prigogine just turns that on its head, without reference to some other, unique, "antithesis" form of interaction that produces order. Like other philosophers of science, he "anthropomorphizes" nature to conform with what he perceives as happening in humans. Sure, humans have to interact with their environment, or they die, and "dissipate". But, most material objects "dissipate" *as a consequence* of their interaction with their environment, not the inverse. I agree with your conclusion regarding his "silly producers of order".

[GB: Nonetheless, Prigogine still got the Nobel for his microcosmic pile of self-organization. You are partially correct. The submicrocosms within a microcosm that already is in existence will tend to diverge from that microcosm per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That is, half of the things in the infinite universe are undergoing divergence (i.e., death), while the other half of the things in the infinite universe are undergoing convergence (i.e., birth). To produce that microcosm in the first place, it must have formed through the convergence of supermicrocosms from the macrocosm (i.e., birth). Dissipation or death is temporarily forestalled via continuous convergence from the macrocosm (e.g., breathing in oxygen). BTW: Here are Prigogine’s "silly producers of order": “fluctuations, distance from equilibrium, and nonlinearity” (TSW, p. 77). None explicitly involve convergence from the macrocosm, which is what produces the order he was looking for.]

TSW:  "An environmentally focused viewpoint would permit the development of a complementary principle, a law about ideal nonisolation."

BW: You can't establish a principle or formulate a law without real, concrete evidence of an interaction that produces it. I don't see that here.

[GB: Support for complementarity exists everywhere. Everything you can observe is a product of convergence. How do you think things form in the first place? That is why the Infinite Universe Theory works so well. Everything is a combination of things from elsewhere. Seems obvious to me. I didn’t think I would have to give examples. Need some help with nebula and the birds and the bees?]

TSW:  "... describes the reality existing between ideal isolation and ideal nonisolation."

BW: You said earlier that there can be no such thing as "ideal isolation". I agree. So, I'm a little surprised to see you proposing the existence of an opposite "ideal nonisolation" ... and then suggesting something in between those exists in nature. I know, it fits the Hegelian "thesis > antithesis > synthesis" paradigm, but nature doesn't need to negotiate with anyone, nor understand what it is doing.

[GB: You do have a serious problem with ideals. I had hoped that, by including the word “ideal” for both concepts, that sort of problem could be eliminated. Like ideal empty space and ideal solid matter, the reality is always in between. We use idealizations like these all the time in doing science. It helps us understand the reality. The trick is to not get caught up in thinking that any of the ideals actually exist (like some folks I know).

Let me explain a bit more on what I mean by “ideal nonisolation.” That is just another way of saying “convergence” or “collision.” Nothing comes into being without it. For instance, try to build something without convergence—can’t be done. That is the complement to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So sorry that you don’t like dialectics, but the last time I looked, there were only two opposing possibilities with regard to motion in nature: divergence or convergence.]

TSW:  "The obvious answer is that it has moved toward other matter in the universe."

BW: Except, that's not an answer to entropy, which has no problem with particles bouncing apart and going wherever they please. Somewhere, they will bump into another particle and bounce off in a different direction. It will still be entropic action.

[GB: Hold on there. That only works for your ideal solid particle, which does not exist. You cannot be sure that real particles will not form an entirely new entity, as they so often do. Each “bounce” involves one or more of the neomechanical interactions (TSW, Chapter 5). Each bounce is unique per the Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible) and each real particle is unique per 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).]

TSW:  "In an infinite universe, an increase in entropy in one place results in a simultaneous and equivalent decrease in entropy in another."

BW: There's no harm in surmising that some particles, an infinity away, will someday bounce off local particles. Some particles depart, some arrive, but they all bounce. Absent some observable convergent force, you can't have disentropy ... just alien particles doing the same thing as local particles.

[GB: More idealism… Again, there is no “convergent force." Entropy/disentropy or negentropy merely has to do with the relationship between microcosms. Entropy (or disorder) increases as the distance between two microcosms increases; negentropy (or order) increases as the distance between two microcosms decreases.]

TSW:  "The possibility of nearly ideal isolation derives from the possibility of divergence; the possibility of nearly ideal nonisolation derives from the possibility of convergence."

BW: This is a rather disoriented. Divergence only occurs until the objects in isolation reach equilibrium. If they are NOT isolated, entropy just keeps bouncing them toward maximum separation, without constraint. So, entropic divergence doesn't require isolation: nature couldn't care less. IF there is such a thing as a "convergent force", it should work in every case, not merely in isolation or non-isolation. There's no evidence or logic to justify a correlation in the form: isolation = divergence or nonisolation = convergence ... infinite or otherwise.

[GB: Think of it this way: To be isolated at point B means to be separated from the place you once were at (e.g., point A). To get to point B, you would have to diverge from point A. The reverse is true for convergence. Again, there is no such thing as a “convergent force,” just as there is no such thing as a force. Force is a calculation (F=ma) describing the collision (convergence) between two microcosms. The idea that there are mysterious “forces” about should have been left on the Star Wars cutting table.]

TSW:  "The only requirement is for there to be an environment for the parts of a system to move into or to transfer motion to. An infinite universe in which matter and the motion of matter is not everywhere the same is sufficient."

BW: Then, a finite universe, [in which matter and the motion of matter is not everywhere the same] is ALSO sufficient. There's nothing in the nature of an infinite universe that changes the characteristics of entropy.

[GB: That is mostly correct, as demonstrated by the great success of the Second Law of Thermodynamics during this period when scientists still assume finity. The main problem is that it only describes half of the problem. It says nothing about why the things undergoing dissipation, divergence, or death came into existence in the first place. That is the job of complementarity, which clearly states that the complement to the Second Law of Thermodynamics involves convergence from the macrocosm. Pretty simple: the Second Law of Thermodynamics describes things coming apart; complementarity describes things coming together.]

TSW:  "We will continue to study ...

BW: ... until you find a "convergent force" or rational explanation for "negentropy". You haven't found it yet.

[GB: BS. See above.]

TSW:  "The acceptance of complementarity for the Second Law of Thermodynamics requires an acceptance of the other assumptions of science."

BW: I don't think there's any logical coherence, nor "Consupponibility", with the other principles. All you've done is elevate the dialectic learning process to the status of a Law of Nature. It doesn't work.

Does that mean that I reject the idea that "All bodies are subject to divergence [from] and convergence [with] other bodies."? Not at all. Both processes obviously exist in nature. What's missing is the identification of some natural physical process that produces convergence. I think the "existential bonding" of my theory is the answer, but it isn't the topic for discussion.

[GB: You would have to show me the ways in which complementarity is not consupponible with the other nine assumptions of science. For instance, how can there possibly be a contradiction between these two assumptions:

The Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) and the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions)?

You beg for some imaginary “converging force.” Why don’t you also beg for some imaginary “diverging force”? Surely you must remember that force was defined by Newton’s Second Law of Motion (F=ma), as a description of a collision in which the velocities of the collidee and collider were changed. Without a collision, there is no force. On the other hand, the First Law is simply an observation about the inertia of bodies, which continue forever in a straight line unless [until] they hit something or are hit by something. This observation works the same for both diverging and converging microcosms. Indeterminists, who assume the universe is finite, need to hypothesize a Prime Mover or mysterious force to get Newton’s inertial body moving in the first place. In the infinite universe, of course, that hypothesis is unnecessary—there is always still another body to do that job. That is the beauty of Infinite Universe Theory.

If you don’t think that bodies can move toward each other as well as away from each other via their own inertia, as described by Newton’s Laws of Motion, then you need a lot more help than I am able to give.]

Next: Irreversibility

cotsw 015

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html ): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

Critique of "The Scientific Worldview": Part 8b The Ten Assumptions of Science: Complementarity

Why the expanding universe needs the assumption of finity and can you have wave motion without a medium?

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview[1]" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

TSW: Sixth Assumption: Complementarity (Part 8b)

[GB: Note that Bill’s essay below is founded on the regressive assumption that the universe is expanding. But as I pointed out in my blog, the cosmic redshift in no way indicates that the universe is expanding. Only an idealist (like Bill) could believe that light could travel 13.8 billion light years without losing energy. Like other indeterminists, Bill assumes that perfectly empty space is possible (he is an aether denier) and that Einstein’s hypothesized light wave-particles therefore suffer no ill effects on that trip. I will leave it to Bill and other regressive physicists to explain how the Doppler Effect (or empty space expansion), which they claim to be “fairly evident” evidence for expansion, could occur without a medium. I include Bill’s essay below for those of you who still believe as he does.]

BW: Macrocosmic infinity *might* explain why composition (convergence/order) occurs as often as decomposition (divergence/disorder), but the evidence says otherwise. If our cosmos is expanding (fairly evident) ... even expanding at an accelerated rate ... then it has "somewhere else to go": it isn't isolated (nor confined by the existence of non-visible portions of the universe) and all matter in motion still has "a less dense space to fill" before it achieves maximum separation or a state of balance (equilibrium). On the evidence, entropy still rules. We could speculate that this is a temporary "imbalance" in one portion (our cosmos) of the universe, but there's no evidence supporting that proposition. So, the mere assumption of infinity doesn't solve the observed problem Whyte noted:

"... the tendency toward disorder has not been powerful enough to arrest the formation of the great inorganic hierarchy and the myriad organic ones."

Even if we ignore the evidence for "local cosmic entropy" (within our light cone), even if we posit an infinite universe that has always been in equilibrium, even if we suppose an eternal universe that has had forever to reach some kind of "steady state", we still have NOT identified the material causes for a disentropic effect.

For example, what in my simplistic definition of entropy needs to change, in order to eliminate the "bounce"? For a starter, the presumption is that the "objects" are homogenous atoms or molecules of gas. If they aren't, then some might combine in chemical reactions, producing a momentary disentropy. The same effect occurs if the objects are a mixture of opposite-charged particles. So, we're left with only a few forces that might counteract the "bounce" of entropy: gravity, the strong, and the weak atomic forces.

In Unimid Theory, the cause is an "existential bond" between fundamental particles, which causes them to compose themselves into fractal structures that exhibit emergent properties. They are only "entropic" under specific conditions, which I won't describe here.

TSW:  "In reality, all systems are open systems; truly isolated or truly closed systems cannot exist."

BW: I agree, though I would have expected you to vociferously object to the distinction of Closed Systems, which presume motion without matter. Usually, it's phrased as an exchange of energy, which we know is actually matter in motion.

[GB: Let me repeat the definitions of the two idealizations:

An isolated system exchanges no matter or motion with its surroundings.

A closed system exchanges only motion with its surroundings.

In neomechanics there are no isolated systems. Although there are no closed systems either, we use the idealization portrayed in the figure below:

Fig. 5-4. Type D interaction: Emission of motion. A submicrocosm collides with and transfers motion to a low velocity supermicrocosm (TSW, p. 142).

This is by no means an illustration of motion without matter, as suggested by Bill and other aether deniers. When motion leaves an ideal closed system, it is transferred to the macrocosm via a collision with supermicrocosms contained therein. This nicely illustrates my paper on “The physical meaning of E=mc²,” which forthwith dispelled Einstein’s notion that matter could be converted into energy.[2] All we are doing here is transferring the motion of one thing to another thing. Of course, without aether, there would be no “another thing” to transfer motion to. That is why energy, construed as matterless motion, became so popular in handling this particular Einsteinian contradiction. During the fission that occurs in an atom bomb, for instance, this transfer of motion is quite a shock to the surrounding aether, as indicated by the energy calculation. Glad to see that Bill is getting somewhat closer to discarding the idea that energy might exist or occur. Maybe someday he will be able to think entirely in terms of matter in motion as Steve and I did in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe."[3] ]

TSW:  "Complementarity assumes that, in an infinite universe, all real systems exist between the extremes of ideal isolation and ideal nonisolation."

BW: Correct, but even in an Open System, the effects of extraneous environmental forces can be minimized to inconsequentiality for familiar particles and objects ... even if the universe is infinite and eternal.

[GB: True. That is what makes science possible: controlled experimentation. We try to control as much of the macrocosm as we are able, changing only one macrocosmic factor at a time. This works even though there may be an infinite number of influencing microcosms.]   

TSW:  "In itself, [Schrödinger's] idea of an ordering process that functions as the dialectical opposite of the disordering process is excellent. The term negentropy is likewise excellent."

BW: Schrödinger was characterizing it as a "bridge" between matter and life; a poor substitute for the evolution of life in nature. It was actually Léon Brillouin who coined the term "negentropy", but I prefer disentropy. I think "negentropy" hints at a unique "life force", rather than a natural effect. I won't repeat my distaste for the term "dialectics" in nature (though I just did). Whyte's natural "morphic force" derived from the "geometry of space" is even less attractive.

TSW:  "... Einstein explained gravitation ..."

BW: He didn't "explain" gravity any more than Newton did. All he did was to construct a fanciful analogy to "fabrics" which was mistaken in a dozen different ways.

[GB: I agree, although he could have used turtles in his explanation or even curved empty space and it would still have been an explanation.]

cotsw 014

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html ): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc², in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf ), Storrs, CN, Space Time Analyses, Ltd., Arlington, MA, p. 27-31.

[3] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com ), 626 p.

Critique of "The Scientific Worldview": Part 8a The Ten Assumptions of Science: Complementarity

The true meaning of entropy and negentropy in a mechanistic world. The Second Law of Thermodynamics recapitulates Newton's First Law of Motion.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview[1]" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

TSW: Sixth Assumption: Complementarity (Part 8a)

"All bodies are subject to divergence [from] and convergence from [with] other bodies."

[GB: Sorry Bill, but I don’t agree with your bracketed changes. I am thinking that the divergence and convergence is “from” other bodies (e.g., as in the approach of an asteroid).]

BW: Abbreviated in the vernacular to "s..t happens". ;o) ... which is a crass way to introduce my complaint about scientific jargon. Too often, it's a jumble of borrowed concepts slapped together in analogies, with no explanation of *why* it must be so. For example:

“Entropy: A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, due to lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.”

Whereas, a good explanation describes the process:

Entropy: The proposition that objects in motion tend to collide and bounce away from each other.

[GB: You are getting close—much better than the mess you quoted, but still no cigar. The bouncing part is irrelevant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is really just a restatement of Newton’s First Law of Motion (A body stays in motion in a right line unless it collides with something). The obscuration you note as well as the “bouncing” part you included in your own definition is simply the result of the determinism-indeterminism struggle. As is typical in regressive physics, the mess you quoted misuses the energy concept in an effort to destroy mechanics (the assumption that the universe is described correctly by two phenomena: matter and the motion of matter). The so-called “isolated” system is a microcosm that contains the body in motion for a time. Because no system or microcosm is without exits, they all eventually allow that body to continue on its way via divergence.

Here is Fig. 3-3 from TSW, p. 79:

Fig. 3-3. The classical demonstration of entropy change described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. An increase in entropy is produced when the gas in chamber A is allowed to pass through the valve into the vacuum of chamber B.]

BW: Obviously, the tendency is more pronounced in isolated systems, where the bounces spread out until they achieve the maximum common separation, resulting in equilibrium.

[GB: Close, but no cigar. What you describe is an idealization that actually would not allow the Second Law of Thermodynamics to perform. The equilibrium you speak of is only ideal because there are no isolated systems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics works precisely because there always is a macrocosm into which the submicrocosms of the microcosm (or their motions) can be transferred. In other words, the valve in Fig. 3-3 is always leaky.]

BW: As you point out, the terms "order" and "disorder" are subjective. An isolated system in equilibrium is "well ordered", not disordered: the matter in motion is "perfectly" balanced. The A-B containers are both "well ordered" systems in themselves, until they are consolidated by opening the valve, creating a "disordered" unity, for a little while.

[GB: I like your use of the quotes and the phrase “for a little while.” Remember also, that the “for a little while” also applies to the “isolated” system at “equilibrium.”]

BW: That doesn't solve the quandary of why objects in motion would *not* be inclined to always bounce *away* from each other and why they tend toward maximum common separation. I don't think your treatment really answers that problem.

[GB: Remember that each microcosm forms a “container,” that is, the submicrocosms within follow Newton’s First Law, but they do not have complete freedom to escape the container. The “maximum common separation” that you mention is just what would be expected, given the limited amount of freedom afforded in light of Newton’s laws.]

BW: To the particulars:

TSW:  "Only by assuming complementarity can we resolve the contradiction between conservation, which assumes that the universe is eternal, and the indeterministic interpretation of the SLT, which implies that it is not."

BW: I think you mean "infinite", rather than "eternal". If the universe is finite, then the objects in motion in our cosmos always have a "better place to bounce" (the void) and will never maximize their separation: entropy rules. On the other hand, if it is infinite, then the universe is - and always has been - in a state of optimized equilibrium: maximum separation has been achieved (subjectively "well ordered", conventionally "disordered").

[GB: Actually, “infinite” and “eternal” can be used interchangeably when we assume inseparability. I used “eternal” here specifically because conservation only indirectly implies that the universe is infinite. The indeterministic assumption of noncomplementarity, however, assumes that the universe is finite, a system with nothing outside of it. That is why regressive physicists claim that the universe will die a “heat death” in which all matter is turned into “energy,” construed as matterless motion. That fits with the usual claim that matter can be converted into energy, which is also incorrect.[2]

Sorry Bill, but your idealism is showing through again. The infinite universe cannot have a “state of optimized equilibrium: maximum separation.” There are many reasons for that. For one, there is never enough time for that, what with each portion of the universe continually changing. About all one can say is that any particular microcosm or submicrocosm will travel in whatever direction allowed by the immediate surroundings within its macrocosm. For another, it appears as though you are thinking of identical idealized bodies that could achieve optimum equilibrium via maximum separation. This cannot happen because no two microcosms are alike, per 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). Your conjecture might fit with Hoyle’s “Steady State Universe,” but would never fit with Infinite Universe Theory. There is nothing steady or in “optimized equilibrium” in the infinite universe.]

cotsw 013

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html ): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 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, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.