Systems philosophy at its worst via Jacques Monod

PSI Blog 20161214

Astute readers know that both the Scientific Worldview[1] and the universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism, the observation that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. In other words, nothing in the infinite universe can exist without interacting with its environment.

You also know that the current scientific world view, which appears to be compatible with regressive physics and cosmogony, is systems philosophy. But as I have pointed out numerous times, systems philosophy is microcosmic, that is, it invariably tends to overemphasize the microcosm (the thing itself) and ignore the macrocosm (its environment). The archetype is the Big Bang Theory, which considers the entire universe to be finite, an entity unto itself, with nothing outside of it.

Now comes this radical quote from Monod based on systems philosophy, which has since been proven entirely incorrect:

“Of this the upshot is that there is no possible mechanism whereby the structure and performance of a protein could be modified, and these modifications transmitted even partially to posterity, except by an alteration of the instructions represented by a segment of DNA sequence. Conversely, there exists no conceivable mechanism whereby any instruction or piece of information could be transferred to DNA.

Hence the entire system is totally, intensely conservative, locked into itself, utterly impervious to any "hints" from the outside world. Through its properties, by the microscopic clockwork function that establishes between DNA and protein, as between organism and medium, an entirely one-way relationship, this system obviously defies any "dialectical" description. It is not Hegelian at all, but thoroughly Cartesian: the cell is indeed a machine.”[2]

Jacques Monod, who wrote this mess, was a French Nobelist writing at the height of the Cold War when any mention of dialectics was politically taboo. This apparently made it impossible for him to conceive of the “dialectical” interaction of anything with its environment. The result was this swing of the pendulum to such an extent that molecular biology has since proven him wrong a million times over.

The title of his book “Chance and Necessity” also betrays his steadfast adoption of regressive physics and its indeterministic interpretation of causality and uncertainty. Like today’s obsolescent quantum physicists, he considered chance to be objective. Like those folks, he never would have accepted the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything).[3] Like those folks, he uses “chance” to fill the knowledge gap instead of using the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). In an infinitely subdividable universe[4] there is every reason to assume that all those variations listed under “chance” are produced by mechanical interactions nonetheless.

Oh, all right, maybe a cell is like a machine, but like all machines, it requires constant attention from its macrocosm. The supposition that a cell is a machine does not remove it from dialectical interplay.

---

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

[2] Monod, Jacques, 1972, Chance and necessity: NY, Vintage, p. 110 [http://bit.ly/Monod72].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [Free download at http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13320.21761].

[4] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, CO, Outskirts Press, 626 p.  [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com].

 

Do spent batteries have less mass?

Blog 20161207

In response to my Blog on "Does Energy Have Mass?," Ben Gingrich asks:

“Do fresh batteries have more mass than spent ones?”

[GB: Yes.]

And:

“Is a battery lighter after it has been used?”

[GB: Yes.]

Ben then asks:

“If so, would this demonstrate our theory that energy (at least in some forms) has mass?”

[GB: No.]

Ben then asks:

“I don't know the details of how a battery works, but it would seem a way to test the idea, no?”

[GB: No. It would not be a test of the “theory that energy has mass.” Instead, it would be a test of the E=mc² equation and its proper interpretation.[1] The gist of the previous Blog was that energy does not exist; it is a calculation. So, energy does not have mass.

Energy is neither matter nor the motion of matter. Energy is a matter-motion term. When ordinary matter is involved in the exchange of motion we use the matter-motion equation for kinetic energy KE=1/2 mv². When EM (electromagnetic) radiation is involved we use the bi-directional matter-motion equation E=mc². This appears very difficult for folks to understand, so I will go through it once again.

First of all, you need to know the definition of mass, which is “resistance to acceleration.” In a gravitational field, of course, we can measure this as being correlative with weight. Indeed Ben, you are right that a discharged battery would weigh less than a charged battery. But again, remember that mass is not matter; mass is a measurement of matter.

Second of all, you need to understand the meaning of the E=mc² equation[2], which we use in neomechanics for describing the emission of motion per Figure 1:

Figure 1. Neomechanical interactions demonstrating the absorption and emission of motion.[3]

This cartoon essentially shows that the internal motion of the microcosm (battery in this case) slows as a result of the exothermic chemical reactions that result in the transfer of some of this motion to the macrocosm (the light bulb in this case). When the internal submicrocosms slow down, they present less resistance to acceleration. In his book, “Relativity for the million,” the relativist Martin Gardner wrote “As the coffee cools, mass is lost.”[4] This is close, but no cigar. It is typical of the regressive view of what the E=mc² equation signifies. Thus the statement is only partially correct. Mass is not “lost”; mass decreases.

In the regressive vein, the use of the word “lost” implies that mass is a thing that magically turns into another thing, energy, which in this case supposedly flits magically throughout the universe as matterless motion. The correct statement is “As the coffee cools, mass decreases.” The submicrocosms that constitute the “guts” of the microcosm still exist after part of their motion has been transferred across the microcosmic boundary to accelerate supermicrocosms in the macrocosm (environment) (Figure 1). Because those submicrocosms then have less motion, their momenta (P=mv) are reduced, causing the microcosm to have less resistance to acceleration. They impact the internal wall of the microcosm with less force, which otherwise would better counteract and “resist” the force we would use to measure the mass of the microcosm.

In my forthcoming book on Infinite Universe Theory, I explain it with this example apropos to the season:

"Suppose that an entire football team forms a densely packed circle. Remember mass is simply a measurement: the resistance to acceleration. Now, suppose that another football team tries to test the resistance to acceleration of the first team by trying to push it over. They might be able to do it, probably by running at the stationary team and colliding with it. Next, let us have the first team display a little internal motion, with fists and feet flying in all directions. Now, the second team will have to run and push a little harder, because the first team will be less of a pushover. In other words, some of the force (F=ma) produced by the second team will be diminished by the hitting (F=ma) produced by the first. The mass of the first team has increased because its resistance to acceleration has increased. The second team will have to push even harder to push the more active team over."

       

Note that in neomechanics each microcosm is surrounded by an infinite number of supermicrocosms. In the case of a battery undergoing discharge as the result of an exothermic chemical reaction, some of the supermicrocosms could be the nitrogen or aether in the atmosphere.

The absorption of motion produces the opposite effect (Figure 1), increasing the mass of the battery along with its charge. This principle is now being used to charge cell phones and other devices with the application of infrared radiation (https://www.cnet.com/news/wi-charge-willcharge-all-your-devices-at-once-using-infrared-light-hands-on/). It also is the same principle involved when plants absorb light during photosynthesis.

Remember that all these changes in mass are miniscule and that the amount of matter before and after always remains the same per the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Above all, the changes merely involve the transfer of motion from one thing to another.]

---

[1] Note that the test would be complicated by the far greater non-electrochemical production of heat such as that produced by electrical resistance, etc.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc², Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].

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

[4] Gardner, Martin, 1962, Relativity for the million: New York, Macmillan, p. 66.

Cosmogonist Kaku knows the mind of god

Blog 20161117

Here is the latest from Jerry Coyne’s blog:

Michio Kaku embarrasses himself, says that the laws of physics and the behavior of subatomic particles reflect “the mind of God.”

Note: I don’t know how much more outlandish regressive physics needs to get for Jerry to give up cosmogony as well.

For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].