Readers will
remember that the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is
infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) is one of the
guiding lights of all our work at PSI. Ever since Aristotle introduced it,
microcosmic infinity has given thinkers as much trouble as Newton’s macrocosmic
kind. Here is my response to our old friend Bill Westmiller who, like Captain
Bligh of matterless motion fame, likes to cherry pick among “The Ten
Assumptions of Science.” The Captain doesn’t like the Fourth Assumption of
Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so
there is no matter without motion)—not “sophisticated” enough for him. In
addition to infinity, Bill doesn’t like the Ninth Assumption of
Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them
similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them
dissimilar to all other things).
His comments
illustrate some of the hurdles we have to overcome to develop progressive
physics and Infinite Universe Theory:
BW: Of course, I have no problem distinguishing matter from the motion of matter. Our disagreement persists on the issue of "perfect" matter, which we've discussed extensively in the past.
>... Like all idealizations, solid matter and empty space do not and cannot exist. ...
BW: We agree that all known *compositions* of matter consist of physical components in motion. It took a long time to discover that a "perfectly solid" rod of iron is composed of atoms in motion. It took longer to discover that the atoms themselves are not "perfectly solid" objects, but are compositions of smaller physical particles in motion.
My proposition is that there are even smaller particles of mass that compose those sub-atomic particles. So, it's no surprise to me that you would be skeptical about those particles (Unimids) being "perfectly solid" objects. Even if they are not, I think the Unimid Theory explains a host of problems common in quantum particle theory.
However, our dispute is primarily philosophical. My position is that no matter can be in motion unless there is space where that matter does not exist. If all space is occupied by matter, no motion can occur.
[GB: False! All
the space in this room is occupied by matter, and yet, I have no trouble moving
about. As an absolutist, you assume that all matter has the same
characteristics. That is definitely not true, per relativism. This is in
tune with our definition of matter as an abstraction for all things. As with
all abstractions, matter per se does
not exist—only specific examples of matter exist. As such, each microcosm has
different characteristics. Those with the greatest mass (resistance to
acceleration) tend to displace those with lesser mass, as I do when I thrust
aside the air that blocks my passage through my open doorway.]
BW: There can be no such event as a
"collision" or "interaction" among particles, since they
would all be in constant contact. The universe would be one infinite solid
block of matter, with no motion whatever.
[GB: Again,
there are various kinds of matter, with each of them having characteristics
approaching solid matter and characteristics approaching empty space. This is
from my new book in preparation:
“MATTER-SPACE CONTINUUM. A range or series of microcosms that are slightly different from each
other and that exist between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and
perfectly empty space.[i] Like all idealizations, solid matter and
empty space do not and cannot exist.
The matter
end member:
As mentioned,
matter
is an abstraction; there is no such thing as matter per se—there are
only individual, unique examples of matter.[ii] The idea that solid
matter must exist deep down at some level is still just that, an idea, or
ideal, which never occurs in nature. The Greek atomists imagined that atoms
were true elementary particles filled with solid matter. The things we now call
atoms appear to contain mostly empty space. Even so, some absolutists assume
that we just have not gone far enough and that the nirvana of perfect solidity
is theoretically possible.[iii] At one time, the space
between you and I may have been considered empty. Now we know that is not the
case, for space is just the stuff that yields to the motion of other stuff.
These ideals exist only in our brains—they help us understand the properties of
various kinds of matter, but they can have no real existence. We use them to
understand the intervening reality. It is good enough for finding a doorway
instead of a wall, even though the doorway contains matter in the form of air
and the wall contains space. In IUT, what we consider solid matter is simply a
portion of the universe that offers more resistance to acceleration than other
portions we consider empty space.
The space end
member:
The
absolutist’s belief in the ideals of perfectly empty space, nothing, and
nonexistence comes right out of the cosmogonical handbook whose precursors are
the sacred texts of traditional religion.To insist, like the young Einstein and his positivist
friends, that space is perfectly empty or immaterial makes one a rank idealist.
To insist, as indeterminists are wont to do, that idealities could be or must
be realities merely provides another roadblock to the ultimate acceptance of
IUT.”
The
“block universe” you and others write about is impossible because matter cannot
take on the characteristics of either end member of the matter-space continuum.
Absolutists of that type tend to think of infinite divisibility as divisibility
of the ideal solid matter end of the continuum. Absolutists of another type might
tend to think of infinite divisibility as divisibility of the ideal empty space
end of the continuum. That would result in an empty universe. In actuality,
every subdivision anywhere along the continuum always ends up with both properties:
solid matter and empty space.]
[ii]
Coyne, George, 2017, Notfinity process (in press): Denver, CO, Outskirts Press.
[iii]
AbuBakr, Mohammed, 2007, The End of Pseudo-Science: Essays Refuting False
Scientific Theories Taught in Schools, Colleges, and Universities, iUniverse,
86 p.
Posts
10 comments:
Granted, we have to use abstract terms to describe what fundamentally we cannot observe. Has this blog ever considered using a more modern concept than micro and macrocosms? How about a Field concept? Matter waves doesn't it?
And you know what I mean, don't tell me that matter can't move, because I believe you say that very thing in your book TSW
GB: ... Bill doesn't like the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things).
As I intended to make clear in my lengthy dissertation on your book, I entirely agree with this statement. In fact, I agree with 95% of your Ten Assumptions. That's hardly "cherry picking".
GB: As an absolutist, you assume that all matter has the same characteristics.
Not true. Although I propose a fundamental particle of mass, there are a multitude of compositions of those particles which all have distinct characteristics. A proton is different than an atom, is different than a protein, is different than your body. I have no problem with the proposition that your body can move through an atmosphere of nitrogen.
GB: ... [A continuum exists] between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space.
That's simply saying that all compositions of matter have different densities. I agree. But, you can't have something called "density" unless there is a distinction between physical objects and their absence. Your body can walk through air, but it can't walk through another person's body. That applies all along the "continuum": a neutron can't occupy the same space as another neutron. There can be no "collision" of neutrons unless there is space between them that is "not neutron".
GB: ... there is no such thing as matter per se - there are only individual, unique examples of matter.
That's equivalent to saying there are no humans, only individual, unique examples of humans. You can't have an "example" of something if there is no something. Granted, that "something" is an abstraction, not a physical object: humans are entities with specific characteristics in common. An example of a human IS a human: one unit of the larger set of entities sharing common attributes.
GB: ... The things we now call atoms appear to contain mostly empty space. Even so, some absolutists assume that we just have not gone far enough and that the nirvana of perfect solidity is theoretically possible.
I'll plead Nolo Contendere, but not guilty. As I said, even if a Unimid particle is not a "perfectly solid", it provides an explanation for every physical effect of every thing. Yes, atoms were assumed to be fundamental, but even if they aren't, they provided an excellent explanation for the unique identities of nearly all physical objects. The atomic theory was certainly not useless; John Dalton wasn't pursuing "nirvana", just a rational explanation for what exists in reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#First_evidence-based_theory
GB: ... The absolutist’s belief in the ideals of perfectly empty space ... are the sacred texts of traditional religion.
I think you have that wrong. The absolutist belief is that something can come from nothing. Of course, I totally agree with your objection to Einstein's proposition that "perfectly empty space" has form, "contains" immaterial energy, or "creates" gravity. That's nonsense. The Big Bang Theory is nonsense: it's a religious proposition of the creation of something from nothing (or at least from the abstract conception of some "supernatural thing" that "creates").
Has this blog ever considered using a more modern concept than micro and macrocosms? How about a Field concept?
[GB: Univironmental determinism (What happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter within and without) postdates modern physics. Its use of “microcosm” for a portion of the universe and “macrocosm” for its surroundings is more modern than Field Theory. Field Theory, as considered to be “immaterial” by Einstein, is a century old. It is regressive, not progressive.]
Matter waves doesn't it?
[GB: Indeed it does. A leaf waving in the wind is a good example of matter waving. But that is not what is meant here. You still need to learn the difference between a particle and a wave. Waves are group motions, while particles are matter—portions of the universe having xyz dimensions. Waves occur in a medium, which is made up of numerous particles. Despite the regressive physics promulgated by Einstein, there are no such things as wave-particles.]
I am grateful for your clear and excellent explanation on this tremendously important topic. Your paradigm of the matter-space continuum, in which complete solidity or emptiness is impossible provides a superb foundation for understanding infinite divisibility. I contend that the reason that this is so difficult for many people to understand is because their approach to thinking about it is very heavily conditioned by ideas of matter as a “thing” and space as not a thing (i.e. “nothing.”)
Thanks for citing my book. I am still waiting for my editor to send me the final edited chapter of Notfinity Process, so that I can send it to the publisher.
Thanks George. On Wednesday I will have some more to say about some comments I got from Bill.
"5. Because empty space is impossible, the nonexistence of the universe is impossible."
I gleaned this off your main page under the 10 assumptions, and would like to suggest a modification.
Although I agree in principle that empty space is impossible, I think the concept requires further thought and investigation when defining it as a reason for the existence of the universe.
There are two possible states of empty space, |0|, or absolute nothingness, and |1|, or absolute emptiness. Both conditions could be seen as mathematically possible, but requiring an infinite quantity of X to achieve. The potential for either condition becomes infinite, making an absolute state of the universe unachievable. It's the possibility that either state could exist as a definable universe, that makes the universe itself infinite in nature.
Both |0| and |1| represent opposing, or inverse end points. They are equal but opposite dimensionless states. End points on a number line. The infinite universe is the dimension that lies between them. The universe is |1| > ∞ > |0|.
The universe is an endless struggle in nature to become an absolute state. We are defined by the separation of two opposing absolute conditions. |0| cannot equal |1|, which would be the only solution to the ongoing universal problem. There's no resolve. We exist, because 1/0=∞.
It's the only logical conclusion.
As an 11th assumptions of science, if I might be so bold to suggest.
11. The universe can only be understood through human assumptions, using human reason and logic to form a consensus.
The reason is simple. The universe is infinite, making it incalculable by its very nature. One thing is certain. There is an answer to explain the cause of everything, and it's our shared quest to figure it out in human terms. And a radically different scientific approach towards that answer is required, as you are suggesting.
Thanks Andy for the comment (my responses are in brackets).
"5. Because empty space is impossible, the nonexistence of the universe is impossible."
I gleaned this off your main page under the 10 assumptions, and would like to suggest a modification.
Although I agree in principle that empty space is impossible, I think the concept requires further thought and investigation when defining it as a reason for the existence of the universe.
[GB: The further thought simply is this: both “empty space” and “solid matter” are idealizations and cannot possibly exist. This is an example where the idealizations of math can fail us.]
There are two possible states of empty space, |0|, or absolute nothingness, and |1|, or absolute emptiness.
[GB: Sorry Andy, but there is no difference between the idealization of absolute nothingness and the idealization of absolute emptiness. Neither is possible.]
Both conditions could be seen as mathematically possible, but requiring an infinite quantity of X to achieve.
[GB: My tiny brain cannot figure that out. I would think that an infinite quantity of nothing is still nothing, both in reality and in the ideality of math.]
The potential for either condition becomes infinite, making an absolute state of the universe unachievable. It's the possibility that either state could exist as a definable universe that makes the universe itself infinite in nature.
[GB: Sorry, but the existence of the Infinite Universe has nothing to do with math. The universe exists everywhere for all time because it is real and not ideal. The one thing the universe cannot do is to produce ideal empty space—no math necessary.]
Both |0| and |1| represent opposing, or inverse end points. They are equal but opposite dimensionless states. End points on a number line. The infinite universe is the dimension that lies between them. The universe is |1| > ∞ > |0|.
We exist, because 1/0=∞. It's the only logical conclusion.
[GB: Sorry, but that only follows if you assume absolute nothingness and absolute emptiness are not identical. I do not assume that.]
As an 11th assumptions of science, if I might be so bold to suggest.
11. The universe can only be understood through human assumptions, using human reason and logic to form a consensus.
[GB: Interesting, but it would need to have an opposing assumption for it to be fundamental. Let’s just say it is a nice goal. It could never be achieved because “understanding” is always incomplete in an infinite universe and a consensus could never be achieved. That is because each of us goes through many stages of understanding. A 2-year old, 6-yr old, or even a 20-yr old may not have much of a clue about the nature of the universe and probably might not even know what a consensus was. The supposedly well-educated cosmogonists developed a consensus, but got it wrong because the initial assumption was wrong.]
The reason is simple. The universe is infinite, making it incalculable by its very nature. One thing is certain. There is an answer to explain the cause of everything, and it's our shared quest to figure it out in human terms. And a radically different scientific approach towards that answer is required, as you are suggesting.
[GB: Andy, I hope what you mean by “the cause of everything” is not that the universe had a cause. The beauty of Infinite Universe Theory is the realization that the universe did not have a cause and that every single thing within it did have a cause produced via convergence from other things, ad infinitum. In any case, with our assumption of infinite subdividability, it would be a non sequitur to be able to determine all the infinite factors involved in even one cause. The best we can do is to determine only a few of the major factors involved in a cause. We just have to accept that the infinite universe forces us to have a plus/minus for every determination.]
[GB: Andy, I hope what you mean by “the cause of everything” is not that the universe had a cause.]
No, not exactly.
The universe is in a constant state of cause, and we are the constant effect. It's trying, and failing, to become something else. It wants to be absolute, |0| or |1|, not to imply consciousness. It just keeps tirelessly plodding away, like it's always done.
[GB: Sorry Andy, but there is no difference between the idealization of absolute nothingness and the idealization of absolute emptiness. Neither is possible.]
Given there is an infinite number of possibilities, it's a good thing the universe can't resolve some of those possibilities, or we might not be here.
And that's kind of my point. Absolute 0 is theoretically impossible to achieve, and it would take an infinite amount of time to figure that out conclusively. Fortunate for us, once again.
It's not the impossibilities that bring about the universe. It's the mathematically unsolvable possibilities that allows a universe to persist indefinitely, with no definable beginning or end. The universe remaims in a constant state of motion as a result.
[GB: Interesting, but it would need to have an opposing assumption for it to be fundamental. Let’s just say it is a nice goal. It could never be achieved because “understanding” is always incomplete in an infinite universe and a consensus could never be achieved. That is because each of us goes through many stages of understanding. A 2-year old, 6-yr old, or even a 20-yr old may not have much of a clue about the nature of the universe and probably might not even know what a consensus was. The supposedly well-educated cosmogonists developed a consensus, but got it wrong because the initial assumption was wrong.]
I guess I'm of the mindset, never say never. But I would have to agree at this juncture in evolution, we'd never see this sort of global consensus within our lifetime.
As for opposing assumptions, they're a dime a dozen. So I really don't see an issue there. There can only be 1 right answer though. It exists, or we wouldn't. And that answer is definitely beyond computation, but at the same time not beyond our ability to understand it. It's there, waiting for us to explain it to each other.
[Andy: We exist, because 1/0=∞. It's the only logical conclusion.]
[GB: Sorry, but that only follows if you assume absolute nothingness and absolute emptiness are not identical. I do not assume that.]
They are equal but opposite states. They are not identical. |0| is non-existence, |1| is existence without dimension. It's a completely singular state of existence. The universe would essentially be akin to a perfect solid with a value of |1|. Distance and/or dimension would be rendered meaningless. Neither state posses dimension, or anything else associated with physical dimension, like time, motion, matter, etc, etc. They are absolute states.
It takes a while to wrap your brain around it, but I can assure you, they are opposing states for two potential universe that will never exist. Fortunately for us.
[There are two possible states of empty space, |0|, or absolute nothingness, and |1|, or absolute emptiness.
[GB: Sorry Andy, but there is no difference between the idealization of absolute nothingness and the idealization of absolute emptiness. Neither is possible.]
I meant to refer to absolute space, not empty space. Space really defining a potential universe in general terms, which could be |0| or |1|.
I still disagree. There is a difference between absolute nothingness and absolute emptiness.
Stepping outside the rigid definition I am suggesting, absolute emptiness would be similar to a void. Imagine for a moment you were in this void like state. You couldn't really go anywhere, because there would be no point in it. Every location would be absolute, or identical. There's no center, or middle, or edge. It's a perfectly smooth state of space lacking anything identifiable as a unique position. It's like a blank stack of paper waiting for context to fill a book. The blank paper only has potential to become something more. It's greater than nothing, which is the complete absence of even a void. It's a universe without matter or motion. Nothing is exactly what it implies, nothing. Not even the dark empty void.
Of course, neither state can exist. We're the proof of that simple fact.
[GB: Sorry, but the existence of the Infinite Universe has nothing to do with math. The universe exists everywhere for all time because it is real and not ideal. The one thing the universe cannot do is to produce ideal empty space—no math necessary.]
I would have to disagree. The universe behaves mathematically, always, and without exception. It's a reciprocal relationship. To understand one fully, is to understand the other fully. The universe is bound to mathematics, and mathematics is bound to the universe.
And no, the universe doesn't produce empty space. Empty space represents a potential state of the universe, which can be converted to mathematics as a value of |1|, as the complete absence of everything can be converted to the numeric value of |0|.
That's the bridge to the mathematical universe. The potential is what binds the universe to the laws of mathematics. There's a sequential magnitude between |0| and |1|.
The potential to be either is infinite. I would speculate that any contractive force we experience, like gravity, is driven by the potential in |0|. Anything expansive, which I would get back to you on at this point, is driven by |1|.
|0| and |1| create equal and opposite potential that we experience in the infinite universe. This is why your microcosms and macrocosms in the univironments can expand and/or contract.
Dimension needs boundaries. Dimension in the infinite universe is defined by |0| and |1|. This is how our 3-dimenional perspective arises from the infinite. Without a limit, infinity would be as dimensionless as the |0| and |1| states I am describing. Think about it.
∞ by itself has no dimensions.
|0| by itself has no dimensions.
|1| by itself has no dimensions.
Space needs all three potential states for a universe to persist in. It can only be realized as one of these states. It obviously is not, |0| or |1|.
The infinite universe exists, because it would take an infinite amount of time to become anything else.
|1| / |0| = ∞
|1| > ∞ > |0|
It's the only thing that makes sense.
Post a Comment