New Scientist: Reigning Promoter of Regressive Physics

Blog 20150506

New Scientist, the popular science magazine, has been outdoing itself lately. It has been an ardent supporter of the Big Bang Theory at least ever since I got disgusted with Gribbin and the gang in the late ‘70’s. One of the latest outrages should shine on the soul of every immaterialist:

“Samuel Johnson thought the idea was so preposterous that kicking a rock was enough to silence discussion. "I refute it thus," he cried as his foot rebounded from reality. Had he known about quantum mechanics, he might have spared himself the stubbed toe.

Johnson was responding to Bishop Berkeley, a philosopher who argued that the world was a figment of our minds. Could he have been right?

With its multiverses and cats both alive and dead, quantum mechanics is certainly weird. But some physicists have proposed that reality is even stranger: the universe only becomes real when we look at it.

This version of the anthropic principle (see "Was the universe made for us?") – known as the participatory universe – was first put forward by John Archibald Wheeler, a heavyweight of 20th-century physics. He likened what we call reality to an elaborate papier mâché construction supported by ...”

It seems that there is more of such claptrap most every week. New Scientist should be anointed “Reigning Promoter of Regressive Physics.” Maybe we should have a full-time staffer for keeping track of the magazine’s activities. Right, the universe only becomes real when we look at it.” Egads! In the real world, there are material causes for all effects. The quantum world is supposed to be extra special, so special that even determinists such as Jerry Coyne are not sure that a vestige of free will might be contained therein.

You can search on “quantum” in the Blog site just to see what I think about quantum mechanics. In Infinite Universe Theory, of course, quantum mechanics follows all the basic rules of the universe (TTAOS[i], anyone). Size is relative, and while we will never be able to observe smaller and smaller particles, we still assume they exist. I especially like the Blog in which Morgan Freeman follows the partly line as he observes an experiment in which particles make waves in liquid, declaring that combination to be a true “wave-particle.”

I won’t bore you with all the Deepities in the article, which you can read yourself. The next one asks the question: 

What with finity being the go-to assumption in regressive physics, this is thought of as a legitimate question. Egads again!

[i] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/assumptions.html ): Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.


henk korbee said...

I quote from the article 'Can w understand everything(every thing?)?:'It took 3.8 billion years, but we got there in the end. For most of the history of life on Earth, life was pretty dull. Then humans evolved, and things got interesting. '. Why is one using a linear model for time? In math it is shown that linear expressions are easy to handle to do calculations which fits well, so is that the reason to match reality with a linear model? I listened to T. Maudlin's explanation how he used linear expressions to construct open sets which aren't the usual open sets from the present topology-theory. Anyhow Maudlin claimed tha nature doesn't know about open sets. Right, to my opinion, and so p.e. differential equations. It works quite well with good results as we can experience. I remember that a well known psychiatrist said that time is a complex notion.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Yikes! New Scientist's regressive campaign has reached its limit. On 20150504 it asks:

"Could we destroy the universe?

With great power comes great responsibility. As our grip on Earth grows ever tighter, so does the possibility that we could destroy it, or at least ourselves.

But the prospect pales into insignificance when you consider that we may have the power to do something even worse…"

At least, solipsism can't get any worse...

Looks like indeterministic panderation can't get any worse either. It is bound to get a million eyeballs: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630190.700-could-we-destroy-the-universe.html?cmpid=EMP|NSNS|2015-0504-GLOBAL-humanuniverse&utm_medium=EMP&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=concept&utm=%20humanuniverse&cmpid=EMP|NSNS|NSSUB-2015-0504

Glenn Borchardt said...

Another stupid question by New Scientist:

Does the universe know we are here?


Glenn Borchardt said...

Comment 20150705 Henk

[GB: henk, no we will never understand everything per the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). You are correct in supposing that we think of time as linear because that is an easy simplification. You also wrote “I remember that a well known psychiatrist said that time is a complex notion.” Sorry, but time is not a notion, it is motion, which can vary from simple to complex. As always, nonlinearity occurs as a result of infinite universal causality described by the Second Assumption of Science as causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). Effects are the accelerations that result when microcosms collide. Each microcosm contains an infinite number of submicrocosms and its macrocosm contains an infinite number of supermicrocosms. This makes it impossible for there to be any perfect linearity. The idea of perfect linearity stems from classical mechanics in which Newton's Second Law of Motion unfortunately assumes finity, there being only two objects involved. Because there actually are millions of objects involved, no two collisions are ever identical and repeats of all real interactions always produce a plus/minus variation. The current fad in mainstream science is to realize this in what is now called “chaos theory.”]

Glenn Borchardt said...

Comment 20150707 Bligh

Bligh writes: “Agree. Time is definitely a complex notion. Time depends on which frame of reference one is referring to and which process within that F.O.R. Overall though we can clearly see that the direction of time's arrow is one way only.”

[GB: Bligh: Disagree. Time is definitely not a notion, complex or otherwise. Time is motion and has nothing to do with frames of reference (FOR). Nature does not care one whit about FOR. Nonetheless, being solipsistic, regressive physicists such as Einstein were obsessed with FOR. They were positivists of the operationalist stripe (i.e., “Anything or any motion we can’t measure (such as aether), neither exists nor occurs”). Of course, one needs a FOR in order to measure motion (time) and that measurement is different for each motion (time). Regressive physicists tend to debate each other about whether “the direction of time's arrow is one way only.” For neomechanists, that is moot. The Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) eliminates the need for any such discussion. All microcosms in the infinite universe are moving with respect to all other microcosms. Universal time is the motion of each thing with respect to all other things. Specific time, which does require a FOR for its measurement, records the motion of only one thing with another.

You also mentioned that “chaos theory is really another form of hidden determinism.” This I can agree with per the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). The more we look for causes, the more likely we are to find them.]