Critique of "The Scientific Worldview": Part 10a The Ten Assumptions of Science: Infinity

Bill opts for macrocosmic infinity but demurs on microcosmic infinity. We wonder if this might have something to do with his current development of Finite Particle Theory.

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: Eighth Assumption: Infinity (Part 1 of 2)

“The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions."

BW: Since several of your previous assumptions depend on this one, you might consider moving it up the list. In several cases, I've argued that infinity doesn't resolve the issue in favor of those assumptions, even if I agree with them.

[GB: Bill, I had thought of that, but placed it 8^th instead, precisely for the reason you mentioned in your last sentence. Science has progressed this far without embracing infinity. Many folks, such as yourself, accept finity–based versions of the first seven assumptions. And as I mentioned earlier, there is no “resolving the issue” with respect to fundamental assumptions. My claim that the entire constellation is consupponible is itself dependent on the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection.]

BW: We've already discussed some of this on your blog. While I agree there is good evidence and logic supporting an infinite macrocosm, I'm not persuaded that the microcosm is infinitely small.

TSW:  "It is, of course, impossible to know for sure which of these possibilities really exists; we can only assume one or the other."

BW: I've noted my distaste for the idea of one arbitrary "assumption" being as good as another. If the yardstick is omniscience, then we can never know anything "for sure". An hypothesis is subject to evidential and logical support, which is either unmitigated or mitigated by contrary evidence or logic. In effect, you've made a strong attempt to *justify* your assumptions, citing evidence and applying logical principles. That's good. It doesn't mean that your conclusions are *absolutely true*, but you're attempting to persuade the reader that they are something close to an "unmitigated truth".

[GB: Sorry Bill, but I never said that fundamental assumptions were arbitrary or that either of two opposing assumptions could be equally good. In my opinion, there is no valid evidence for any of the indeterministic opposites of the Ten Assumptions of Science. I realize, of course, that others may think they have evidence for indeterminism. That’s why the determinism-indeterminism debate is interminable. Because the universe is infinite, we can never be availed of your “unmitigated truth.” True, I have attempted to gather the evidence in favor of determinism, but I will never be able to do a complete job of it, since that is impossible. Thus, the best we can do is to abandon the debate, assume that "The Ten Assumptions of Science" are true, and get back to work.]

TSW:  "The more one saw of the macroscopic world, the more one was impressed by its immensity; the more one saw of the microscopic world, the more one was impressed by its inexhaustibility."

BW: I don't think they're equivalent.

[GB: Your opinion. My opinion is that they are and that it is only a matter of scale.]

BW: On the macrocosm side, there is evidence *every second* that there is nothing distinctive about the new telescopic evidence - arriving in our light cone - and the old evidence. There is nothing indicating a diminution in the frequency of stars and galaxies, much less an end-point.

The Big Bang theory has been falling apart ever since it was proposed. The discovered dimensions of the known cosmos were "impossible" without tagging on a crazy "Inflationary Epoch" of FTL [faster than light] separation. The acceleration of remote galaxies was "impossible" without throwing in the silly "Dark Energy" pulling power. The temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background was "impossibly" hot in comparison with the theoretic predictions.

To my mind, all of these discoveries establish that there are huge gravitational bodies in adjacent cosmos, far beyond our light cone. They are attracting the most remote galaxies and generating hot cosmic rays. Therefore, the evidence for infinity is significant and there is no contrary evidence. Aside from the preposterous, mystical origin of "something from nothing", the Big Bang theory is dying with a whimper.

[GB: Agree.]

BW: On the microcosm side, the evidence is different, coming in staged phases. Inquiry has moved from the "basic elements" of fire, water, etc. ... to the classes of metals, gasses, liquids, etc. ... to the atoms ... to subatomic particles. Each of those discoveries identified distinct incremental steps in the microcosm, rather than continuous homogeneity. 

[GB: Sorry, but microcosmic infinity definitely does not assume “continuous homogeneity.” That would be the same as the indeterminist’s belief in “solid matter,” which is necessary for Finite Particle Theory. Infinity assumes that all microcosms contain submicrocosms ad infinitum.]

TSW:  "[Bruno and Newton] retained the legacy of atomism, which, without a doubt, presumed microscopic finity.

BW: And they were right in advocating a new incremental step of causation for the observed classifications of material properties in like objects. The atomist theory was an unmitigated truth, with no contrary evidence, until the discovery of radiation and the next incremental steps toward identifying a new layer of coherent material components. They were wrong about "indivisibility", but not atomism.

[GB: Sorry, but indivisibility is the essence of atomism, as it is for Finite Particle Theory. The fact that no one has been able to find something with nothing inside it is not proof that the atomists were wrong in principle. Indeed, we may eventually find what we think to be such a particle (aether_-1?), but Steve and I are betting that it will contain other particles (aether_-2?) as well.[1] These, in turn, will contain aether_-3 particles, etc. ad infinitum. In our book we assume that there can be no smallest microcosm, just as there can be no largest microcosm in the infinite universe.]  

TSW:  "... microscopic infinity logically implies macroscopic infinity and vice versa."

BW: I don't think it logically follows. If anything, the concept "infinity" is an abstract ideal. If there is good evidence for a macro-infinity, it says nothing about micro-infinity: nature doesn't have to conform with human inclinations to assume one attribute necessarily applies in an opposite "direction". Remember that your "micro" and "macro" are relative terms: much bigger or much smaller than US humans. But, we aren't exceptional to nature ... at least not by virtue of our size.

[GB: Sorry Bill, but logic does not allow for special pleading. The infinite universe refuses to cooperate, continually presenting us with evidence for both micro and macro infinity. No matter what our “human inclinations,” nature has not given us even a hint as to a stopping point. Like others have, you might make one up, but that stopping point would only be temporary. The question I have for you is: Why would you want to do that? Why not just assume infinity and get on with our work?]

TSW:  "This follows from many of the previous discussions, particularly the one on 'spacetime' involving the opposed concepts of ideal 'solid matter' and ideal 'empty space.'"

BW: Simply because there is a conceptual idea does *not* mean that it must exist, nor that it *cannot* exist, in nature. The idea is either true or false, based on evidence and logic. For example, on the macrocosmic side, nobody contends that our universe is "solid matter", even if they imagine a peripheral "empty space". On the microcosmic side, nobody contends that there are no gravitational forces (= energy = matter in motion) "between" atoms, nor even among subatomic particles. The universe does not have to conform with the Thesis > Antithesis of dialectics.

[GB: Huh?]

TSW:  "The resulting assumption of infinity ... is the only form compatible with causality and uncertainty."

BW: I've pointed out several instances in prior assumptions where infinity was irrelevant.

[GB: You have, and in each case, you were wrong. Perhaps you should reread Bohm^[2] again. How in the world could one assume uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything) without also assuming infinity? I don’t get it. You must have some other definition of uncertainty.]

BW: Causality says there is at least one cause for every effect. It doesn't require a specific number of causes ... much less an infinite set. The speed of light is a well established fact, meaning that objects beyond our light cone *cannot* cause any local effects. Until science demonstrates or discovers FTL, causality cannot be infinite.

[GB: Ok. Now I am starting to get what you are thinking of. Because you do not assume microcosmic infinity, you must look to the macrocosm for your “infinite number of causes”—sort of like the new-age people who believe that everything in the universe affects everything else. Not seeing the possibility of an infinite number of colliders within reach, you have to go back to assuming finite causality. That is another reason microcosmic infinity is necessary. It helps explain the fact that no two effects are alike. The variations responsible for plus or minus values are local as well as distal. They are endless.]

BW: Uncertainty has nothing to do with any kind of infinity, at least not in Heisenberg's proposition. Some forms of observation entail modification of the objects being "viewed". That's critical on the subatomic level, but irrelevant for any large object emitting or reflecting light. Nor does the Uncertainly Principle affirm or refute the existence of an infinite microcosmic progression of discrete steps. It simply says there's a problem with observing them.

[GB: Disagree, but you are certainly on board with the regressive interpretation promoted by the Copenhagen school. Heisenberg’s problem would have been solved by adopting infinity, as we do by assuming uncertainty. This could not be done because physicists, like yourself, were still married to finity, which was the essence of classical mechanics and the math necessary to understand it. Heisenberg was hoist on the petard of the infinity of causes you seem to think irrelevant.]

Next: Part 2 of 2 for Infinity

cotsw 019

---

[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] Bohm, David, 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p.

Neomechanics of Mass/Energy Transformations

PSI Blog 20140114

Bob de Hilster writes: 

I have attached a document that includes the reason mass increases with an increase of energy.

[GB: See the Wikipedia document below.]

Mainstream believes that E = mc² is true even if it has no basis in nature.

[GB: Sorry, Bob but that equation is true and has plenty of confirmatory evidence to back it up. I understand your frustration with it. You can only understand its “basis in nature” by analyzing the situation in terms of matter and the motion of matter as I did in:

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.]

If you add energy to an object, the mass must increase.

[GB: You cannot “add energy” to an object (microcosm). The best you can do is to allow the transfer of external motion to become internal motion within the microcosm. The internal motion accelerates the submicrocosms within the microcosm, producing an increase in momentum for the submicrocosms. The submicrocosms then impact the microcosmic boundary, counteracting the force of whatever supermicrocosm is being used to measure mass. Remember that mass is the resistance of an object to acceleration. You may be mistaking mass for matter. While the total matter and motion in the universe is constant (The Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed)), the mass of each microcosm is constantly changing. This is because all submicrocosms within microcosms are amenable to impacts from supermicrocosms and are, in turn, amenable to contributing some of their submicrocosmic motion across the microcosmic boundary to supermicrocosms in the macrocosm. That sentence will not seem contorted once you understand neomechanics. It is the essence of neomechanics that makes mass/energy transformations simple once you break them down to interactions involving matter in motion. What makes the lesson difficult is the required change in philosophy in which one needs to relinquish the energy concept and adopt the aether concept.]

 

Or maybe if you add energy, mass stays the same and energy is still there.

[GB: You have learned your regressive physics well. It is common to treat energy as though it were an object. That was Einstein’s most important mistake. Please reread:

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.]

From Wiki[1]:

1. Add compression or expansion to a spring, its mass increases.

2. Add heat to an object its mass increases.

3. Add spin to a ball and its mass increases.

So, if I take a spring and use one Newton of force to accelerate the spring, it will have a given velocity.

[GB: True.]

If I take that spring and compress it, and accelerate it using one Newton of force, it will have a lower velocity.

 [GB: False. Acceleration always increases the velocity of a microcosm.]

Hence more mass.

[GB: True. In neomechanics, acceleration always increases mass. This is because the collision required for acceleration transfers some external motion of the collider to the insides of the collidee. Ideally, mass would remain constant when velocity remains constant during inertial travel through perfectly empty space.]

I don't think that is true. But who has done the experiment?

Who has heated an object and checked its velocity?

[GB: Bob, I think you mean mass instead of velocity. The Wikipedia quote[2] only mentions mass. They give an excellent example involving the effect of temperature on the mass of the kilogram used as the metric standard.]

Who has measured the mass of a ball that is spinning?

Just because energy is added, (energy being a human invention), does not mean that mass has increased.

[GB: Bob, I completely understand your reluctance to believe the claim that “energy” can increase mass. As happens so often in regressive physics, this is an example of what I call an “Einsteinism.” An Einsteinism is a statement or prediction that is true, but for the wrong reason. You are correct that energy is a human invention. In fact, “energy” is a mere calculation. Being neither matter nor the motion of matter, energy can do nothing at all. We can only understand the claims and the supporting data by evaluating them in terms of matter and the motion of matter. Each of the Wikipedia examples involves an acceleration, which requires a collision that not only changes the velocity of the outsides of things, but also changes the velocity of the insides of things (see the Neomechanics chapter in TSW for further details). In light of this, it is sometimes helpful to substitute the word “motion” for the word “energy” in trying to understand mass/energy discussions. Beware, however, that “energy” tends to be an errant mistress just like the other matter-motion terms, force, momentum, and space-time.[3] Each of these tends to be objectified as you did when you wrote that “energy is added.” Not being an object, energy cannot be added to anything. The correct visualization is the transfer of motion from one thing to another.

Note that Wikipedia finally mentions its typically reworded belief in the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). That’s right. An accelerated microcosm may gain mass (via absorption of internal motion), but it will lose the same amount of mass upon deceleration (via emission of internal motion). All we are doing here is transferring motion from place-to-place. No matter or motion is being harmed in the process.

Also note that it is often claimed that an object gains mass simply by traveling at high velocity in perfectly empty space. This is false. In perfectly empty space, it is not the velocity that causes an increase in mass, but the process, acceleration, by which that velocity is attained. Acceleration always requires a collision from a faster microcosm. The presence of aether changes the situation. At "constant" velocity, collisions with aether particles would tend to cause deceleration and a temporary temperature and mass increase similar to what occurs when a space capsule enters the atmosphere.]

Rev. 20140403

---

[1] Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass:

·         A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.

·         Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For example, consider the world's primary mass standard for the kilogram, made of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1°C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 × 10⁻¹² g).^[36]

·         A spinning ball will weigh more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14 x 10²⁹ J) represents 2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.^[37]

Note that no net mass or energy is really created or lost in any of these examples and scenarios. Mass/energy simply moves from one place to another. These are some examples of the transfer of energy and mass in accordance with the principle of mass–energy conservation.

[2] Ibid.

[3] 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.

Finity Begets Finite Particles and Finite Motion

On ResearchGate[1], my esteemed colleague, Mohammad Ayaz Ahmad posed this question:

“Are particles discrete or not?

In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to confront yet another fallacious concept in physics called continuity (infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of general relativity, which postulates a geometric solution to the phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the existence of a space-time continuum (note 1) and the curvature of said space-time. Truth is, continuity is wrong simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness means that there exist only discrete positional properties and that things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes immediately pointless (not to mention stupid) since both wrongly assume the existence of lines and other continuous structures.”

Readers of "The Ten Assumptions of Science[2]" and "The Scientific Worldview[3]" know about the philosophical choices required to distinguish between determinism (science) and indeterminism (religion). They know that the debate between those two worldviews is interminable. That is because fundamental assumptions always have opposites, and in the end neither is completely provable. To do science properly, however, we must choose the correct fundamental assumptions before proceeding.

Ahmad’s age-old question about whether particles are discrete or not is interesting in that it serves as a nice illustration of how assumptive choice affects conclusions. The choice here is between infinity and finity. It is obvious that no one can ever prove which is correct. No one can go to the edge of the universe to get a yes or no on infinity; no one will ever find the smallest particle. One may have difficulty in imagining how the universe could have an end to it. Would there be dragons there? If matter exists in one place, would it not exist in every place? One may have difficulty imagining a partless particle. Is matter a solid crème-pie filling of some sort? At the Progressive Science Institute, we use the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) to confront the Big Bang Theory and to resolve the multitude of paradoxes and contradictions in today’s physics and cosmology.

Like Ahmad, most scientists assume finity. That is why the Big Bang Theory and Finite Particle Theory are so popular. Of course, any hint of the infinite must be “illogical” for those who consciously or subconsciously assume finity despite the endless variety we see all around us. Finity, however, poses many contradictions, some of which were pointed out by Ahmad. In the effort to save that assumption, scientists have proposed extra-Euclidean dimensions and geometrical and other mathematical solutions for understanding natural phenomena. Sorry Ahmad, but Einstein’s space-time concept was ultimately used, not to propose an infinite regress, but to do just the opposite: stuff the entire universe into a finite pre-Copernican bundle.

To do that, Einstein had to objectify motion. This was his most important philosophical error.[4] Although critical of relativity, Ahmad does the same thing: “Nature is discrete and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their positions change from one discrete value to another.” This would be a surprise to Newton and to anyone who has studied inertia, in which an object travels through space in a continuous fashion per the First Law of Motion. No energy inputs are required. For motion to occur in discrete steps, an object would require discrete collisions per the Second Law of Motion. Energy exchange would be required for each deceleration/acceleration step. Discrete material objects have xyz dimensions and location with respect to other objects. Motion does not have dimensions; like time, it is not “part” of the universe. It is what those parts do. The adjectives “discrete” or “continuous” do not apply to motion.

I have to agree with Ahmad that the continuity assumed in various abstractions is purely idealistic. Those are study aids, not real objects. How then do the adjectives “discrete” or “continuous” apply to real objects? In combination with infinity we use the Tenth Assumption of Science, Interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). Thus, we know that the smooth, continuous surface of an object really is composed of discrete particles. Ahmad and I would not agree on the question of what is between those discrete particles. It is either something or nothing. One who assumes infinity would choose something; one who assumes finity would choose nothing.

The concept of nothing, however, is an idealization, just like the concept of solid matter. Empty space and solid matter are ideals, neither of which exists in nature. Everything that exists has the characteristics of both. Even as interconnection approaches infinity, there must be “empty space” for those intervening objects to transmit motion. Subdivision always produces what we call matter and empty space, ad infinitum.

Ahmad would say that it is “illogical” to assume infinity. True, for the cosmogonist that switch would amount to a revolution in thought, but it is no more difficult than believing the universe exploded out of nothing. As we showed in our latest book[5], the logical replacement for the Big Bang Theory is Infinite Universe Theory, the culmination of what Copernicus only started.

---

[1] ResearchGate.net is an international community of scientists who share bibliographies and downloadable copies of peer-reviewed publications as well as manuscripts of work in progress. Both positive and negative results are encouraged. One lively feature allows investigators to ask public questions of each other in their fields of expertise.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/assumptions.html

 ): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.

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

 ): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

[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 9c The Ten Assumptions of Science: Irreversibility

Bill catches an error and consupponibility and the nature of certainty arise.

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 9c)

 "All processes are irreversible."

TSW:  "Causality, uncertainty, and irreversibility thus are consupponible."

BW: I would agree that causality and irreversibility are logically coherent (consupponible). However, "certainty" is a state of mind, not a state of nature. I'm certain that the next time I slap my desk, it will produce a sound. It is an "unmitigated truth" that the collision of objects in a gaseous environment will produce a sonic wave, whether anyone hears the tree falling or not.

[GB: Remember what the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty claims: It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything. Thus, you are right that certainty is a state of mind. We can only claim certainty by ignoring infinity. It is not even certain that the desk will be there the next time you try to slap it (a jokester might shove it out of the way). The upshot: In science, nothing is 100% certain, although we can get pretty close. In an upcoming paper Steve and I were able reject a particular null hypothesis with 99.9999999999999% certainty.]

TSW:  "... it is not uncommon to find chemists and physicists who consider movements in opposite directions at equilibrium to be indications of reversibility."

BW: There are plenty of scientists who consider any two mathematical statements separated by an equal sign to be "reversible", when they are merely interchangeable.

[GB: Right. That is how math is done. It is also why its idealism often prevents us from understanding the real world. Math, like the chemist’s claims of reversibility, must be taken with a grain of salt.]

TSW:  "Thornes and Brunsden were moved to write that "time is distinguished by possessing the property of intrinsic direction and in the macroscopic sense being irreversible."

BW: A silly statement, since time has no *directional* component. Change has no sign: any difference in position is a change, irrespective of the motion vector of the objects ... which is one reason why I prefer my definition of time, rather than simply equating it to motion.

[GB: Agree, although one often hears of the “arrow of time.” Glad to see that you are beginning to see time as the movement of all things with respect to all other things. Now if you could just get rid of that idea that rotation might occur without time…]

TSW:  "The idea of time independence ultimately promises life eternal since it calls for matter to sit still and ultimately to disappear - the solipsist's dream."

BW: I agree with your conclusion, but IF matter *requires* motion, as you've asserted, who is the solipsist?

[GB: The fact that matter requires motion has nothing to do with what we think about it, solipsist or not.]

TSW:  "All events are 'similar' and not 'identical,' as would be required in an absolute conception of reversibility ..."

BW: Well, not ALL events, only those of the same kind. Gravity is not the same as acceleration, even if Einstein thinks their effects are equivalent (which they aren't). However, even if the effect of one gravitational scenario is "identical" to a second gravitational scenario, the law of gravity doesn't respect scenarios. Even though two scenarios are never perfectly identical, the effects of the law of gravity are always identical. Nevertheless, the gravitational process, even if two cases were identical, is still not reversible.

[GB: All events have some similarities, because all occur as a result of collisions (see Newton’s Second Law of Motion). You are about the only person who thinks that gravitation does not involve acceleration. What is the point of writing that “the effects of the law of gravity are always identical”? All microcosms are bathed in an infinite macrocosm filled with an infinite number of supermicrocosms. Neither the causes nor the effects involving any two of them could ever be “identical,” no matter how similar they might be. Perhaps the identical effects you are thinking of are, like all identities, simply imagined. Certainly, no two folks falling off a cliff will suffer identical injuries.]

TSW:  "... it is a special preoccupation of certain indeterminists to try to imagine a 'time' that occurred 'prior' to the existence of the universe."

BW: Which is laughable, even as a fantasy. Deists and theists fantasize some supernatural entity "choosing" to create the universe, but that word is logically impossible in the absence of a universe.

[GB: Agree!!!]

TSW:  "Only an indeterminist could regard the debate as fruitless."

BW: Only a mystic could regard their beliefs as existing independent of reality, logic, and evidence ... but hey, whatever rocks their boat.

TSW:  "Reversibility could only occur in systems that are completely isolated from the rest of the universe."

BW: I don't think any event is reversible *even if* it were perfectly isolated. A collision is a collision, which can't be undone. So, you can call me an "absolutist" on the issue of reversibility.

[GB: Good catch. Looks like I will have to remove that statement from the next edition. I guess I was too enamored of those chemistry experiments we did in “isolation from the rest of the universe.” If we could have looked at those in more detail, we would have found each collision within them to be unique. After all, even our imagined perfect spheres in billiards cannot collide without some degree of variance from a straight line.]

Next: Infinity

cotsw 018

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

Uniformitarianism and Bill's perfect, albeit temporary, isolation. 

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 9b)

 "All processes are irreversible."  (continued)

TSW:  "Uniformitarianism declared that the same motions were repeated over and over again."

BW: Not quite. Geologically, Hutton saw a compounding of the same *kind* of events, but his theory applied to the "natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe."

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

 [GB: You have to realize that uniformitarianism is a rough generalization, just like causality, which never expects the causes for any two effects to be identical. Instead, the causes are similar, as 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). In geology, we use uniformitarianism all the time even though we never expect it to work perfectly.]

 TSW:  "[Uniformitarianism] was the perfect key to the future. Taken literally and absolutely, uniformitarianism ... was just another version of finite universal causality."

BW: I don't think that's fair to Hutton. He didn't consider the sedimentary process "perfectly the same" in every geologic age, only the laws (solubility, gravity, etc). But, you can criticize his idea of an "alive Earth" acting as a conscious "superorganism" all you want.

[GB: I suppose you are correct—that is why I included “literally” and “absolutely.” Of course, many indeterminists, who typically believe in absolutism, had trouble with this. If you did not want to believe in uniformitarianism, you would only need one exception to falsify it—probably the best example of the vulnerability of Potter’s “falsification” criterion when used by indeterminists. Neomechanics and infinite universal causality had not been invented yet. Classical mechanics, under which he was working, had all kinds of assumed perfection (identical finite particles, etc.). I understand that some folks still hold to that idea.]

TSW:  "Even those systems coming closest to being perfectly isolated were only approximately so."

BW: In UT [Bill’s “Unimid Theory”], fundamental particles can exist in perfect isolation for a limited time, but anything that qualifies as a "system" certainly cannot. It amazes me that so many experimental physicists imagine "isolated systems" in a gravitational field. Contrary to Einstein's proposition, gravity is not equivalent to acceleration. It is not a "curved space", but rather an energetic process involving objects in motion. Even geosynchronous satellites are affected by gravitational forces (or they wouldn't stay where they are) and they are NOT in any kind of "inertial state".

[GB: Sorry to hear that your theory hypothesizes “perfect isolation” of any kind at any time or place. Mostly, I don’t agree with Einstein either, but I do agree in the Equivalence Principle—a microcosm in inertial motion requires a collision to produce the acceleration needed to change that state, as in Newton’s Second Law of Motion. On the contrary, except for infrequent positioning that requires jet bursts, satellites are in inertial motion. They require an engine to go “up” or “down” with respect to the axis of the vortex in which they exist. Their “horizontal” motions are unpowered, and therefore inertial. The perfectly “straight line” envisioned in Newton’s First Law of Motion cannot exist. That is because all inertial microcosms are parts of vortices of one kind or another.]

TSW:  "At the same moment that any two objects seem to be approaching a former relationship, other objects in the infinite universe are converging on them and diverging from them, ensuring that the relationships between the two objects and others outside the system are never identical at subsequent moments."

BW: Correct, eventually. However, I think spin (even of two connected objects) can persist, without encountering an "event" that modifies their motion, through many cycles. Spin is objective motion, as described in my previous notes, which is what makes it a useful clock.

[GB: Disagree with the word “eventually.” The relationship between two different microcosms is always changing. There is no “eventually” about it. For instance, the relationship between the bat and the ball changes throughout the swing. To consider only the collision between them would be a microcosmic error (i.e., neglect of the macrocosm that includes the surroundings). In addition, no microcosm with or without spin, can exist “without encountering an ‘event’ that modifies” its motion. Again, we assume this with interconnection, as explained in detail in our book, "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe."[1]

TSW:  "As Santayana so wisely put it, "All movements of matter are ... responsive afresh to a total environment never exactly repeated, so that no single law would perfectly define all consecutive changes, ... every response would be that of a newborn organism to an unprecedented world."

BW: A misrepresentation: "laws" don't ignore environmental changes, even if those using them may ignore inconsequential, spurious effects. For example, Newton's law of gravitation doesn't ignore ANY masses "external to" those being scrutinized. When applying the law to calculate the orbit of the earth, scientists will ignore the effects of Ursula Major ... but the law itself does not.

[GB: Disagree. Santayana’s famous statement is correct. There is, in fact, “no single law [that] would perfectly define all consecutive changes.” That is what is meant by the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). This becomes clear in your own example involving gravity, which becomes even more correct as we discover more and more microcosms in the infinite universe. Many classical mechanists, however, claimed that their finite equations were perfect predictive tools (e.g., Laplace’s Demon). You might want to reread Bohm’s “Causality and chance in modern physics.”[2]

TSW:  "... if one assumes that all effects have an infinite number of causes ..."

BW: Well, we haven't gotten to infinity (yet), so all you've established is that every effect (event) has a cause (matter in motion to collision), not how many causes any particular event might have. However, one only need assume that space and motion are continuous - rather than granular - to arrive at the conclusion that no two collisions are identical. In some respects, "continuity" may be a more important principle than infinity.

[GB: Sorry, but space is not continuous. It always contains an infinity of microcosms. The concept of “continuity” is ill defined, precisely because a definition (“fin” or “finis”) would amount to a contradiction. The “granular” property applies to matter (space, i.e., xyz dimensions), but not to motion, which does not exist and therefore does not have xyz dimensions. Perhaps you are mistaking “continuity” for interconnection.]    

TSW:  "... then it is also necessary to assume that an effect will never occur in exactly the same way twice."

BW: ... although "exactly" is an "idealized" term. We don't need perfection to observe consistent effects from the same type of collisions. For example, if I slap my hand on my desk, it will create a sound every time. The cause is always the same and the effect is always the same, even if they are not "exactly" the same.

[GB: Yes, that is exactly what we do all the time in science. It is why we always have a plus or minus in whatever we do in the natural world. Perfection only can be imagined.]

TSW:  "Not only are any causal laws we can devise finite and therefore incomplete, they also are derived from previously occurring causes."

BW: Only true if the standard is perfection. To say that we are not Gods and cannot realize the abstract ideals or principles we might derive from nature, is not a fault. Abstractions are not nature, only mental conceptions of general traits and processes that we find in nature. Your statement verges on fatalism. We *can* know how things work and we *can* depend on the "unmitigated truths" we discover about nature.

[GB: Sorry that you think giving up finite causality is pessimistic. Folks who know me seem to think that I am anything but fatalistic or even pessimistic. Infinite causality is simply realistic in an infinite universe. We can know how things work, but we don’t need no "unmitigated truths" to do it.]

Next:  Irreversibility (Part 9c)

cotsw 017

---

[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] Bohm, David, 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p.