The Scourge of Absolutism

PSI Blog 20170329 The Scourge of Absolutism

Response to comments from William Westmiller:

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: Sorry, but that is hardly true. Relativism is the opposite of absolutism, which is required for Finite Particle Theory (FPT). Similarly, infinity is the opposite of finity, which obviously also is required for FPT. Interconnection is the opposite of disconnection, which is required for FPT as well. Your agreement with “The Ten Assumptions of Science” is at most 70%.]

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: Sorry, but, strictly speaking, there can be no “fundamental particle of mass.” Mass is not a particle. Mass is defined as the resistance to acceleration. It is a property of microcosms. In addition, no particle can be considered “fundamental” if it has a “multitude of compositions.” The word “composition” implies the bringing together of other things. Each one of your “compositions” must contain still other particles, which in turn must be the fundamental particle that you seek but shall never find. ]

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: Density is only relative. It is true that a particular microcosm cannot occupy the same space as another microcosm of the same type. It is true that the collisions between microcosms cannot occur unless the space between them does not contain the same type of microcosm. That does not mean, however, that the space between them must be devoid of any other microcosms of some other type (e.g., We presume that all baryonic matter is penetrated by and contains aether particles.]

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: Right. Fruit and matter are abstractions. There is no such thing as a fruit or matter per se, only specific unique examples of these abstractions. The lesson learned here is that each microcosm is a unique example of matter, but that matter per se cannot exist.]

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: Of course, you are free to hypothesize any particle you wish for explaining anything you want. Just do not claim that your pet particle is the ultimate particle and that it does not contain submicrocosms that contain still other subsubmicrocosms, ad infinitum.]

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").

[GB: I do not know where you got the idea that absolutism is not religious. In Infinite Universe Theory nonexistence (perfectly empty space) is impossible, whereas it is critical to most religious explanations. You are correct that the idea that something could come from nothing is religious and that the idea is the foundation of Big Bang Theory, in contradiction of the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). What you fail to understand is the connection between the idealization of empty space and the idealization of solid matter. Absolutists assume that both idealizations are realities, when, in actuality, both are impossibilities. In the current situation those mistakes foster creationism, aether denial, and wasted effort involving FPT.]