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.