Bill’s obsession with free will causes him to predict
a global population of a trillion people as he continues to review The Tenth
Assumption of Science: Interconnection, with respect to its
demand for consupponibility.
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: "Collingwood somewhat unwittingly
insisted on consupponibility—the proposition that if you can assume one
assumption within a constellation, you must be able to assume all the others as
well."
BW: Anyone can assume anything they please, or any multiplicity of assumptions, without impediment. One has to adopt the principles of logic before multiple assumptions can be shown to contradict each other. If they do NOT contradict each other, it does NOT demonstrate that any of them are true: that requires evidence. If one assumption is shown to be "unmitigated truth", that does not ensure that any of the others are true, only that they aren't precluded.
BW: Anyone can assume anything they please, or any multiplicity of assumptions, without impediment. One has to adopt the principles of logic before multiple assumptions can be shown to contradict each other. If they do NOT contradict each other, it does NOT demonstrate that any of them are true: that requires evidence. If one assumption is shown to be "unmitigated truth", that does not ensure that any of the others are true, only that they aren't precluded.
[GB: Bill, go ahead and
“adopt the principles of logic” to show that the three assumptions I mentioned
above contradict each other. You simply cannot do it. It is not possible for
the second and third assumptions to be false if the first is true. I agree that
we cannot use consupponibility to prove truthfulness. Certain indeterministic
assumptions are consupponible as well (e.g., finity, absolutism,
etc.). Although, as univironmental determinists, we can never claim
“unmitigated” or absolute truth for any assertion, we can continue to supply
evidence in support of "The Ten Assumptions of Science" and Infinite
Universe Theory.]
TSW: "... I confronted numerous contradictions based on the conventional belief in finity. Once I discarded finity, the logic fell neatly into place."
BW: Perhaps it pleased you, but macroscopic infinity says nothing whatever about any of your other asserted features. All of them can logically exist in a finite macroverse.
TSW: "... I confronted numerous contradictions based on the conventional belief in finity. Once I discarded finity, the logic fell neatly into place."
BW: Perhaps it pleased you, but macroscopic infinity says nothing whatever about any of your other asserted features. All of them can logically exist in a finite macroverse.
[GB: Except for the microcosmic part of infinity
(The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions),
which you must conveniently and continually overlook because you are a Finite
Particle Theorist. There is no way that the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity
(All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) could
work in your finite “macroverse.” One either assumes there is a complement to
the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or one does not. That is why its
interpretation bedevils indeterminists to the point of ridiculosity as in the
monstrous book by Rifkin.[1]
Logically,
any assumption involving infinity must apply at all scales. Otherwise, one must
hypothesize a micro and/or macro stopping point, as in Finite Particle Theory
and the Big Bang Theory, which then becomes a contradiction of infinity. If you
were able to see this contradiction for what it is, you would have to give up
Finite Particle Theory. I doubt this will happen, for as Upton Sinclair said
“it is difficult to get a man to understand something when
his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”]
BW: On the other hand, microcosmic infinity - as you've
described it - precludes almost all of your other features. It logically
requires a universal, material "connection": the Block Universe. But,
that precludes the occurrence of events, so it contradicts causality and
determinism.
[GB: Already beat this one
to death. Your “Block Universe” idea is a contradiction of the Tenth Assumption
of Science, Interconnection
(All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other
objects that transmit matter and motion). For that to be true, all subdivisions
must result in both “matter” and “space.” There is no evidence whatsoever for
solid matter since the atomists proposed it. Perhaps you dwell on the “Block
Universe” idea so much because you desperately want to assume that your finite
particle really is solid matter.]
TSW: "... there is an ether ..."
BW: I suspect this will get some treatment later, but there is no evidence for such a substance, while there is ample evidence demonstrating that it doesn't exist. As I mentioned earlier, Special Relativity was fabricated for the sole purpose of preserving the wave theory, which requires a medium for the transfer of kinetic energy.
TSW: "... there is an ether ..."
BW: I suspect this will get some treatment later, but there is no evidence for such a substance, while there is ample evidence demonstrating that it doesn't exist. As I mentioned earlier, Special Relativity was fabricated for the sole purpose of preserving the wave theory, which requires a medium for the transfer of kinetic energy.
[GB: In a sense you are
right—I since changed back to the original spelling: aether. You are bit mixed up. The
Michelson and Morley (1887) experiment only proved that there was no fixed aether. Sorry, but Einstein’s
theory did not require a medium. He believed that Michelson and Morley had
proven that aether did not exist. There is plenty of evidence for the existence
of aether. More on that later…
TSW: "...
support the replacement of the Big Bang Theory by the infinite universe
theory."
BW: Simply asserting an infinite universe doesn't answer any questions about expansion, stellar evolution, or structural discontinuities ... even if the BBT is nonsense. I suspect there'll be more later.
[GB: You are right for once. Indeed, there will be much later. All the BBT nonsense is interpreted via the underlying indeterministic assumption of finity, which is one of the hallmarks of classical mechanics as well as today’s regressive physics. Simply replacing that assumption with infinity makes the BBT go away instantly. The question then arises: If infinity is so powerful, then what other ramifications does it imply?]
BW: Simply asserting an infinite universe doesn't answer any questions about expansion, stellar evolution, or structural discontinuities ... even if the BBT is nonsense. I suspect there'll be more later.
[GB: You are right for once. Indeed, there will be much later. All the BBT nonsense is interpreted via the underlying indeterministic assumption of finity, which is one of the hallmarks of classical mechanics as well as today’s regressive physics. Simply replacing that assumption with infinity makes the BBT go away instantly. The question then arises: If infinity is so powerful, then what other ramifications does it imply?]
TSW: "The
answer is that nothing, like completely empty space, is only an idea, just like
solid matter is only an idea. As shown time and again in our experiments, the
reality exists between these two idealizations. It turns out that it is
impossible for the universe not to exist - everywhere and for all time."
BW: I agree with your conclusion, but not your premises. An idea is an abstraction of distinct features from reality. That doesn't mean that those features don't exist in reality, nor that some mitigated combination provides a better view of reality itself. It isn't necessary to discard matter or its separation in order to get a perpetual universe.
BW: I agree with your conclusion, but not your premises. An idea is an abstraction of distinct features from reality. That doesn't mean that those features don't exist in reality, nor that some mitigated combination provides a better view of reality itself. It isn't necessary to discard matter or its separation in order to get a perpetual universe.
[GB: Nice that you like my
conclusion. Of course, an idea must always be a finite abstraction, while
reality is always infinite. Any abstraction only highlights the characteristics
of particular features. Moreover, as you imply, a more complete or more
accurate abstraction is always possible. Your last sentence betrays your
apparent belief that matter is some kind of crème-pie filling suited to your
Finite Particle Theory. In univironmental determinism, we define matter as an
xyz portion of the universe that contains other matter, ad infinitum. This bedevils absolutists who look for something
solid to hold on to. I am sorry that the infinite universe was not able to
accommodate you.]
TSW: "We no longer need suffer the indignities of non-Euclidean curved space, massless particles, matterless motion, and a Second Law of Thermodynamics without its complement."
BW: Suffer "indignities"?? We can reject logically incoherent ideas without resort to fabricating "complements" or assuming that the contrary necessarily follows.
TSW: "We no longer need suffer the indignities of non-Euclidean curved space, massless particles, matterless motion, and a Second Law of Thermodynamics without its complement."
BW: Suffer "indignities"?? We can reject logically incoherent ideas without resort to fabricating "complements" or assuming that the contrary necessarily follows.
[GB: Sorry Bill, but I have
indeed suffered “indignities” concerning the subjects mentioned. The only “C” I
ever got in college was in a physics class that tried to force me to accept
such logical incoherence. Obviously, I could not do it. You are right that,
once out of indeterministic academic control, one need not try to understand
the reasons for the outrage. Thousands of folks simply do not believe that
stuff without questioning why it exists. Sorry, but convergence as a complement
to divergence is not a “fabrication” and the universe is either finite or
infinite. What part of that logic don’t you get?]
TSW: "... systems philosophy, will be discarded as the "environment," previously neglected, becomes increasingly prominent as a factor in our survival."
BW: I don't think any scientific philosophy "discards" the environment. It simply tries to reduce the number of incidental influences (which can't be accounted for) in order to test the validity of theories about substantive features and characteristics of matter in motion. Granted, a lot of those theories are preposterous, but testing them requires experimental *focus* ... eliminating the random influences that are clearly present.
TSW: "... systems philosophy, will be discarded as the "environment," previously neglected, becomes increasingly prominent as a factor in our survival."
BW: I don't think any scientific philosophy "discards" the environment. It simply tries to reduce the number of incidental influences (which can't be accounted for) in order to test the validity of theories about substantive features and characteristics of matter in motion. Granted, a lot of those theories are preposterous, but testing them requires experimental *focus* ... eliminating the random influences that are clearly present.
[GB: Remember that systems
philosophy was born of solipsism, which, by definition, completely “discards
the environment.” That was the pre-Copernican way and it is the way of the Big
Bang Theorists. You are right that a proper focus is necessary. Univironmental
determinism maintains that the proper focus always must be between the
microcosm and its interactions with the macrocosm. In other words, we
theoretically divide the universe into two parts, not one part to the exclusion
of everything else. You can do this with any experiment. It would have totally
prevented the preposterous idea that the universe is finite and has nothing
outside of it.]
TSW: "... our
ecological "carrying capacity" of 10 billion people ..."
BW: Strange that you tend to be a radical opponent of
orthodoxy, while accepting an orthodoxy at face value. Peak population
projections are based on the current state of scientific knowledge. There's
nothing inherently "unimaginable" about a world population of 1
trillion by 2200 or 100 trillion by 2300. Current analysis simply assumes
perpetual stasis in fertility rates and consumables.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6038
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/10-billion-plus-why-world-population.html
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/10-billion-plus-why-world-population.html
[GB: Sorry Bill, but this
has nothing to do with orthodoxy whatsoever. The 10 billion claim is purely
based on data. Jump to page 288 to see the figures on population trends. World
growth rates maxed out in 1963 at 2.2%. They are now close to 1%. The annual
increase in world population maxed out at 90 million in 1989, and has been
declining ever since. By using that data as the inflection point, I was able to
draw figure 12-3, which includes the mirror image of the data before 1989. This
produced the sine curve showing that the maximum population for Earth will be
10 billion, which turns out to be the revised value predicted by population
experts in your links above. Although unheralded by the “orthodox,” the year
1989 marks the midpoint in humanity’s growth and development. Until that
inflection point occurred, we had little idea of what maximum population
would be. This type of “demographic transition” has occurred for semi-isolated
situations involving separate countries. Carrying capacity is a prominent
concept in biology, especially in game management, with which I am most
familiar. It describes a univironmental relationship between a specific species
and its environment.
Your imaginings about
trillions of people are plainly ridiculous. I have heard this type of silly
speculation before, always from indeterminists. They imagine that billions of
folks, in the grips of their supposed “free will,” could suddenly decide to
reproduce once again at fantastic rates. It is not true that “current analysis
simply assumes perpetual stasis in fertility rates.” All the data show that
fertility rates decline as countries develop and become urbanized—that is what
the demographic transition is all about. True, after 2050, when the population
reaches 8.5 billion, the rates will not change much. Like other species, human
populations require resources that are clearly limited. The first folks to the
table have it easy, the last, not so much. As populations increase, it takes
more and more effort to obtain the basics. That is one of the reasons urban
families are usually smaller than rural families. Maybe you should try raising
12 kids where you live now. Be sure to budget that $6 million that you will
need to put them all through college, which seems to be one of the basics
nowadays.
Once we reach 10 billion after 2400, I
suspect that there will be fluctuations in world population produced by, as
always, fluctuations in resources. For instance, the next continental glacial
advance might cover the higher latitudes with as much as a mile of ice as it
did 22,000 years ago. This process will be slow, of course, allowing folks to
move to warmer climes and appreciate the joys of having even smaller families.
The global demographic
transition shows our species to be like all the others. Like all the others, we
are microcosms subject to the macrocosm. We exist at the behest of the green
stuff growing on this planet. We may be infinitely complicated, but we are a
natural consequence of all that came before. The ongoing global demographic
transition is a daily reminder of the failure of indeterminism and its doctrine
of free will to predict or to understand anything at all.]
Next: Univironment
cotsw 029