Critique of TSW Part 12d Interconnection

Blog 20140409 

Bill estranges water from its environment and considers light to be a particle, as he continues to review The Tenth Assumption of Science: Interconnection.

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

TSW: "At what point should we consider this water to be nonhuman?"

BW: H2O is always H2O, no matter where it is. There is no such thing as "human water" or "non-human water". The *location* of any particular molecule of water is *not* an essential characteristic of water, it's just a position. If we were to consider position to be an essential characteristic, then all 200 zillion molecules of water in the Earth environment, each with a different position, would have to be defined and named as unique "objects". That would be pretty silly: H2Ox24924231y10678323z8501231731. Of course, each molecule of water is a *different* object and each of them interact with other objects (H2O or otherwise) to create effects, but they all share identical characteristics.

[GB: Bill, my sentence was an illustration of interconnection. Obviously, water inside the body is a vital constituent, while it becomes less vital as it leaves the body. A molecule making the transition from body to epidermis does not make that transition instantaneously. Gradually, it moves from being part of what we call “Bill Westmiller,” to being part of a sweat-soaked shirt. It does make quite a bit of difference where that water is. Just ask the fellow suffering dehydration in the desert.

Your championing of systems philosophy in connection with that sentence nicely illustrates the pitfalls of microcosmic overemphasis. H2O does not exist all alone in the universe. Each H2O molecule exists at the behest of its environment as well as its constituents. What happens to a particular molecule of H2O is not simply dependent on the characteristics of that particular microcosm. It depends on the univironmental interaction between that microcosm and its macrocosm. H2O molecules within the human body are not identical to those outside it. By making the identity claim, you once again demonstrate how important the indeterministic assumption of absolutism is to systems philosophy. Per relativism, we assume that microcosms may be similar, never identical. For practical purposes, of course, we often simply assume that they are identical. A snowflake is a snowflake even though no two of them are identical. It does not make any difference when we make a snowball.

Snowball fighters probably would consider all of this to be mere philosophical nit picking. It is not. The absolutism you display is consupponible with the modern indeterminist’s belief in finity. Determinists know full well that relativism, not absolutism is the correct assumption. We just need to keep that in mind when we are forced to ignore the less significant characteristics of microcosms in order to classify them as “identical.” We do this in the same way in which we use causality. We know that there an infinite number of causes for a particular effect but, in practice, we need to discover only the most significant ones in order to make predictions. No two of these predictions are ever perfectly identical because we necessarily had to leave out an infinity of less significant causal factors. We recognize this every time we include an error bar along with our analysis.

You have touched upon another way in which we might be able to understand the uniqueness of all microcosms. I have defined microcosms as xyz portions of the universe that have location with respect to other portions of the universe. Because each of these microcosms is in motion with respect to all other microcosms, we can now avail ourselves of the only legitimate use of the matter-motion term, “spacetime.” Even if we assumed that all H2O molecules were identical, each would have a unique spacetime position. The macrocosm of each molecule would be unique. Its univironment therefore would be unique as well, even though absolutists married to microcosmic finity still would think all the microcosms were identical.]

TSW: "Where does the human being end and the environment begin?"

BW: Humans are as much a "part" of the concept "environment" as water. We are distinguished from all those other environmental objects by essential characteristics, particularly a body. Any physical thing not directly interacting with our physical body is not a part of our body. So, H2O in, or on, my body is one aspect of my identity as a human. A molecule of H2O in the Indian Ocean is not an aspect of my identity ... until it evaporates, is blown H2O around the world, inhaled or consumed, and finally absorbed by the tissues that compose my body. Then - and ONLY then - is it "connected" to my body. I am not "connected" to all the H2O remaining in the Indian Ocean.

[GB: It is interesting to see you struggle with the placement of your hypothetical disconnection. Glad to see that you agree that “H2O in, or on, my body is one aspect of my identity as a human.” On the other hand, it is unfortunate that you feel that you have no relationship with the Indian Ocean. I guess, for those who assume disconnection, it is “out of sight; out of mind.” Your examples hit upon an important aspect of both interconnection and causality: distance. The significance of connecting microcosms and causes often follows a distance function. Thus, the Moon has more influence on Earth than does Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, etc. That is not because there is an absolute disconnection between any of those microcosms, but because the significance of each depends partially on distance. We do not need to hypothesize some imagined discontinuity for us to understand that.]

TSW: "Long after they expire, the old cells lie loosely upon the skin as so much dead weight - they are actually part of the environment.

BW: Ignoring the fact that humans are always a part of the environment, dead skin cells are not an *essential* component of human identity, so how or when they shed isn't relevant.

[GB: Sorry, but in that particular analysis I had chosen the human body as my microcosm of interest. I considered the macrocosm (i.e., environment) to be everything outside that microcosm. I was illustrating the essential fact that the boundaries between things are not as definite as the absolutist tends to believe. Earlier in that discussion, I mentioned that some of those skin cells were in the process of dying. One minute they were alive and a microsecond later they were dead. Where to place the physical boundary? Because interconnection obtains, the boundary keeps changing every microsecond.]
TSW: "A thing is transformed into another thing only as it gains or loses matter or motion to other things in its environment.

BW: Correct: transitional phases aren't relevant to the issue of whether anything is "connected" to one entity or another: their constituent parts are simply moving from one position to another. The two primary objects don't need to come into contact at all.

[GB: I do not think that it is that simple. Most transformations I am familiar with go through transitional phases. It is never just the movement from one place to the other, although we sometimes use that reduction to advantage. Actually, every transformation involves the exchange of motion as well as matter. In mainstream vernacular, any chemical reaction you can name always involves a gain or loss of “energy.”]

TSW: "... interconnection and infinity demand that subquantic exchanges must occur somewhere in the subatomic hierarchy."

BW: It does occur "subquantic", though it has nothing to do with interconnection or microcosmic infinity.

In the UT, a photon is a rotating stack of Unimids moving at c, while an electron is a quasi-spheroid, usually in an orbital shell. When the photon hits the electron, and a sufficient portion of the photon energy is absorbed, the electron accelerates and separates from the electron shell. The "separation velocity" required has been accurately measured in the Photoelectric Effect, but it isn't correct to say that the electron picks up a "full quanta of motion" ... it acquires energy, which is a composite of mass and motion, from the photon.

Except for the instantaneous moment of collision, there is no "connection" between the photon and the electron. There's nothing in the process that is "infinite", it's all done in finite quantities of energy (mass in motion).

[GB: Glad to see that someone is working on aether-1 (your “photon”) as well as aether-2 (your “Unimid” particles). It is good that you did not put your disconnection at the photon boundary. Otherwise, you would have been out of the “subquantic” business altogether and would have to claim the photon as a finite particle. In "Universal Cycle Theory[1]," Steve and I proposed an infinite series regressing from baryonic matter that forms from aether-1 particles that form from aether-2 particles that form aether-3 particles, ad infinitum. Without interconnection we would have been unable to develop that speculation. In our Neomechanical Gravitation Theory[2], we show that aether-1 is not only the medium for light and gravitation, but also the unseen particle that forms ordinary matter via vortex motion.] 

TSW: "... the exchange of motion between those infinitely subdividable particles is not restricted to the quantum."

BW: A longer story, but the Plank "quanta" is not actually a quantity, it is a conversion factor. It's just the relationship between rotational frequency and energy content. Those two features are modified concurrently in the process of generating light particles.

[GB: Sorry, Bill, but there are no such things as “light particles.” Light is wave motion in the aether.]

TSW: "We have rejected Greek atomism in the study of matter; let us reject it in the study of motion."

BW: A purely mystical stance. You can assume whatever you'd like, but you can't expect acceptance of a postulate with no evidence whatsoever. I expect skepticism in advocating the existence of Unimids, but if they can be shown consistent with actual experiments (like the Photoelectric Effect), that will constitute evidence.

[GB: I consider Planck’s smallest quantum of motion to be the impact produced by the collision of a single aether-1 particle. In the spirit of infinity and interconnection, still smaller impacts are expected from aether-2 particles, ad infinitum. Thus the sentence you think “mystical” is a deduction implied by those two assumptions. As a positivist and aether denier you once again claim that theoretically necessary microcosms do not exist, unless they are your own “Unimids,” of course.]
TSW: "For a connection to occur between two objects, we merely require there to be something else between them. This something else need not be 'solid' matter."

BW: This doesn't correlate with any definition of "connection", nor with your previous statements about the lack of empty space between all objects, to infinity ... which is a perpetual solid.

[GB: I do not think that knowledgeable people really believe that connections require solid matter. The “solid matter” of a copper wire is mostly “empty space.” Remember that your misunderstanding in the last half of your sentence is based upon a misquote. Infinite subdividability always produces what we idealize as “solid matter” and “empty space.” I know that this is hard to understand, especially for an absolutist who believes in finity. The truth is that you cannot make a universe out of finite particles. We have learned through much experience that each thing in the universe must be made of other things. In the infinite universe, there can be no stopping point, either microcosmically or macrocosmically. All matter comes from other matter, ad infinitum. Univironmental determinists consider this evidence-based assumption to be more realistic than the explosion of the universe out of nothing. The existence of unchanging finite particles from all eternity is no better.]

TSW: "... interstellar regions contain gas and dust that form at least a partial interconnection."

BW: According to your previous statements, there must be matter between every particle of gas and dust: there can be no such thing as "partial" connections if there is no such thing as "empty space".

[GB: I put that “partial” in there for the benefit of positivists, such as yourself, who assume that if they cannot detect intervening particles, then they do not exist. Maybe you ought to be more consistent and try that on your Unimid particles.]

TSW: "Even those who still support the ballistic theory of light must admit that space is not empty when light is traveling through it."

BW: I do support the Newtonian or Ritzian theory of light as an emitted material object (even if it has "wave-like" characteristics). Unimid photons cannot travel through *occupied* space: any collision would disrupt at least a portion of the Unimid photon stack.

[GB: Egads!]

TSW: "This [aether] view survived until about 1910 when the Michelson-Morley experiments and special relativity led to its widely acclaimed rejection."

BW: Einstein's Special Theory was advanced *for the sole purpose* of preserving the wave theory. He consistently believed in an invisible "Aetherial Medium" before and after it was disproved by the Mitchelson-Morley experiments. He just "waffled" by saying the concept was no longer "necessary". In order to save the aether, he had to destroy the concepts of length, motion, and time. Dualism asserts that light is *both* a particle and a wave. Totally irrational, since the two states of motion are entirely different.

[GB: Agree. Irrational indeed. Also, remember that MM87[3] did not prove there was no aether, only that the aether was not fixed.]

TSW: "... consupponibility without interconnection is a contradiction in terms."

BW: I'll treat the next section as a distinct "chapter" on logical coherence.

Next: Consupponibility

cotsw 027

[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] 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.

[3] Michelson, A.A., and Morley, E.W., 1887, On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether: American Journal of Science, v. 39, p. 333-345.


Westmiller said...

GB: I do not think that knowledgeable people really believe that connections require solid matter.

Perhaps we're using different definitions of the word "connection". I use it in the sense of joined in a physical attachment:

With that meaning, not all physical objects can be "connected", since there would never be any collisions between objects: they would never be separate. There would never be any motion of matter, since there would be no separation space over which to move: there would only be adjacent, attached matter (something else).

You seem to be using a secondary definition, in the sense of a momentary contact, contextual relation, or association: The objects aren't joined or attached, but separate. That is, there is space where neither object exists, even if they occasionally interact.

GB: The "solid matter" of a copper wire is mostly "empty space."

If there is "empty space", where no atom exists, then the atoms (by my definition) aren't "connected", even if they occasionally transfer electrons between themselves. Perhaps you would say they are "connected" because they do occasionally exchange electrons; they interact.

Likewise, an atom of copper has distinct components, even if they must continually interact to maintain the existence of a stable atomic structure. However, those components (protons, neutrons, electrons) have distinct separate existences. If they didn't, each atom would be a solid object. Perhaps you would say that none of those components can exist without being "interconnected", but it's evident that isn't true: each of them can exist without forming a copper atom.

So, the disagreement here may be merely semantic. I agree that every physical object in the universe could interact with any other object, even if they are currently separate. However, the implication of your "connectedness" is that they are all always attached.

Glenn Borchardt said...

On connections and contact:

I think you are getting the gist of interconnection and its being a physical necessity for the existence of the universe. There always must be microcosms and “empty space” between any two microcosms for the infinite universe to work. In the infinite universe, no two microcosms can be in what the indeterminist might think of as an “ideal solid contact.” That would require two ideal perfectly solid, finite objects surrounded by ideal perfectly empty space. These never exist in reality, because any microcosm we have studied always contains “empty space” and every “empty space” we have studied always contains microcosms. Without the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), we cannot understand contact, just as we could not understand matter, which we define as that which contains other matter, ad infinitum.

Remember, that by the indeterminist’s definition, “empty space” is perfectly empty. With infinity and interconnection, however, that is never the case for even an instant. As we explained in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," baryonic matter forms from aether-1 and aether-1 forms from aether-2, ad infinitum. The exchange of matter and motion between microcosm and macrocosm continues at all levels all the time.

On copper atoms:

Right, the microcosm of an atom of copper has submicrocosms consisting of the components you mentioned. No two of the components are identical 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). Each can have separate existences as you mentioned. That is why we call them submicrocosms and why there never can be a solid object, such as the finite particle required for your Finite Particle Theory. For anything to exist, at least two microcosms must converge per the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things.)

Let me repeat the definition of interconnection: “All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion.” That neither says nor implies that all objects are always attached. That would be a contradiction of our assumption that all things in the universe are in motion with respect to all other things (i.e., there can be no “solid” matter). In addition, I do not believe that “every physical object in the universe could interact with any other object.” Some objects are so far apart that could never happen. Remember that the infinite universe may have an infinite number of possibilities, but it also has an infinite number of impossibilities. Isn’t it truly interesting that your “semantic problems” generally involve indeterministic misinterpretations of what I wrote?