Who is a philosopher?

Blog 20161026 Who is a philosopher?

Just received an interesting question from Philip Atkinson, who seems to already know the answer to the question he asks:

“Please forgive the impertinence of my question, but as there is no useful accepted definition of philosophy, how do you know you are a philosopher?”

Actually, we are all philosophers, just as “we are all scientists” as the good book ("The Scientific Worldview") says with its first sentence. The rest is just detail. My definition of philosophy is: The study and understanding of how the universe works. Thus, even infants begin their studies and understandings probably even before they are born. Of course, most folks are too busy subsisting: gathering food, shelter, and clothing just to stay alive. Their philosophies are unlikely to cover much more than their immediate surroundings and day-to-day concerns. More fortunate types like you and I have free time that avails us the opportunity to contemplate the universe in more detail.

Upon doing so, I think of philosophy as the “conclusions” part of life. When we write a scientific work, we are always asked: What do you conclude from all that you have discovered? After 40 or so years of living, one should have some conclusions. Younger folks may want to know what they are.

Unfortunately or not, as humanity reaches out to explore ever-increasing portions of the universe, the philosophic job also becomes ever-more complex. We have at our disposal the millions of volumes prepared by previous philosophers and scientists. We have the benefit of their speculations and prognostications. We have the benefit of the history of what worked and what did not work. As data accumulate, our pronouncements about how the universe works invariably are challenged—they eventually need revision. Nonetheless, certain laws of nature appear to be immutable. For instance, the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), will never fail us, despite what the cosmogonists proclaim. That is why I started my work with a firm foundation: "The Ten Assumptions of Science."[1] Without such a consupponible beginning, anyone who attempts grand conclusions and what it all means for humanity will most certainly be wrong.

Today’s philosophers have to be scientists as well. They have to be able to answer the big questions in physics such as: What is the universal mechanism of evolution? Is light a particle or a wave? Are there more than three dimensions? Is the universe infinite or finite? Is the universe expanding? Does dark energy exist? Is the equation E=mc² valid? Does aether exist? And the big questions in sociology: Is there free will? What is the meaning of life? Will humanity become extinct by its own hand? Why are there wars? What is the evolutionary purpose of religion? Is there life after death? Is there a god? What is the P-C gap and what does it have to do with global population growth? Are there contradictions in your work? And on and on… Answer one question incorrectly, and you have to go back to the books.

Another primary concern for philosophers is knowing their place within the determinism-indeterminism philosophical struggle. I hinted at my place by using the word “consupponible,” which, according to Collingwood,[2] means that if you hold several fundamental assumptions, they should not contradict each other. That puts me on the deterministic end of the struggle. Contradictions are an abomination for scientists. That is why I oppose much of today’s physics and cosmology, which is fraught with contradictions and flat-out paradoxes more in tune with religion than science. Today, the frontier in philosophy includes the resolution and removal of the indeterministic speculations that have become rampant since 1905.

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [ http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13320.21761 ]; Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony', Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, p. 3-6 [ http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/TTAOSATDOC.pdf ].

[2] Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An essay on metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p.

Rare 1984 version of “The Scientific Worldview” now available for free download

Blog 20161019 Rare 1984 version of “The Scientific Worldview” now available for free download

Not many folks know that "The Scientific Worldview" was first published by PSI as a limited edition in 1984.[1] The widely distributed edition of 2007 is nearly identical.[2]

 

With the advent of easy digital scanning, we have decided to put the 1984 manuscript on Research Gate as a free download at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259196124_The_scientific_worldview?channel=doi&linkId=5801191f08ae23fd1b6200b8&showFulltext=true

You may wonder: Why the 23-year delay? Well, for one, my literary agent shopped it around to a dozen conventional publishers with no success. This quote from Random House was a typical response:

A magnificent achievement, but too dense for the general reader and too tendentious for the scientist.

For another, I knew that every book has its optimal time. Books, like everything else, are part of a univironment. Controversial books, like TSW, are swords only useful in the philosophical struggle. Darwin delayed publication of his “Origin” for two decades as well. Upon publication in 1859, it became an instant bestseller among the educated who had benefited immensely from the “first industrial revolution” that occurred in Britain between 1750 and 1850.[3] It was part of the struggle between capitalism and feudalism that continues to this day. I wonder: Is TSW still too dense and tendentious?

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 1984, The scientific worldview: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [10.13140/RG.2.2.16123.52006].

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].

[3] Deane, Phyllis, 1979, The first industrial revolution (2nd ed.): New York, Cambridge University Press, 332 p.

Infinity and eternity

Blog 20161012 Infinity and eternity

Ed says:

“When I read your closing "infinity for eternity", I liked it. Then I started thinking... I may be getting the concepts mixed here but it seems like infinity refers to a space or volume. But it can't, because by definition it is boundless. Eternity is based on time. Essentially it is infinite time. But if time doesn't exist then eternity can't either. Hmmm. I might be tossing all night over this one... Is our language inadequate to accurately describe either of these terms or are my wires completely crossed here?”

[GB: Thanks Ed for the interesting question. I used to close with “Infinity forever,” but was persuaded to change it by Nick. Now, I might change back again. Actually, infinity is difficult for most folks to imagine. In Infinite Universe Theory we assume that the universe consists of an infinite number of microcosms in motion. There can be no end to the universe, either macrocosmically or microcosmically. In particular, there is one “thing” that the universe cannot produce: perfectly empty space. Universal time is the motion of each of these microcosms with respect to all the others. Per conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), each of these microcosms (xyz portions of the universe) is continually changing. These changes are motions and, as you mention, motion does not exist. If motion does not exist, then neither does eternity.

You are correct in implying that our use of the word “eternity” is an objectification of motion, which was Einstein’s most important philosophical error.[1] Of course, that happens whenever we use time as a noun. I wish there were more appropriate words for describing motion, but we just need to keep in mind that those are descriptions, not of xyz things, but of what those xyz things do.

Ed, you are correct that eternity cannot exist, for only things can exist. There certainly is no such thing as “an eternity.” Nonetheless, we are part of an unbounded Infinite Universe in which innumerable things are moving in all directions without cease. Back to “infinity forever,” which seems to involve just a little less objectification.]

   

[1] 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, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].

Regression of the week: Tyson thinks he might be living in the matrix

Blog 20161005 Regression of the week: Tyson thinks he might be living in the matrix

Thanks to Steve Puetz for this heads-up on the latest regressive outrage:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/28/neil-degrasse-tyson-says-yes-we-all-could-be-living-in-the-matrix.html

This comes as a special shock because Neil Degrasse Tyson is supposed to be the modern replacement for Carl Sagan. That a well-trained scientist would bother himself with such sci-fi notions shows just how far astray regressive physics and cosmogony have gone. This propensity needs a little explanation:

It is particularly revealing because Tyson gives no physics in his answer, just pure speculation based on immaterialism. After all, if you can believe in Einstein’s “immaterial fields” you can believe almost anything else. In addition to the matrix idea, others have considered that we might be part of a grand simulation. Tyson couches this in terms of probability, which just goes to show that he has not been able to make up his mind and that he lacks principles that would help him do so.

Those familiar with "The Ten Assumptions of Science" know that neither materialism nor immaterialism can be proven correct. That is why I wrote materialism like this: “The external world exists after the observer does not.” Clearly, there can be no personal proof of that. Likewise, we could be imagining all the things and all the occurences around us, with our senses being part of that imagining. Berkeley’s chair might disappear after he left the room and Chopra’s consciousness might be required for the universe to exist after all. Of course, all those imaginings, like Tyson’s matrix, are nonsense.

As we mature, we should be able to determine the difference between sense and nonsense. We do this by finally deciding which of the two dialectical opposites in philosophy is likely to be correct and thereafter assuming that we have made the correct decision. Making that decision closes many doors (e.g., matrices and simulations) and opens many others (e.g., how the universe really works).