The Scientific Worldview

This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.

20170727

Playing the Big Bang Theory game

PSI Blog 20170727 Playing the Big Bang Theory game

All games have rules. If you don’t play by the rules, you might get sent home forthwith. The more I study it, the more I get the feeling that the Big Bang Theory is just a game. No real scientist could be serious about such a fabrication. Nonetheless, here we are, enduring the last days of the last cosmogony.

Those playing the game seem to know the rules well (e.g., the universe had an origin; Einstein is always right; mathematics determines what is possible, etc.). The winners maybe don’t get $200 million dollar contracts, but there are awards and prestigious academic positions aplenty. Folks standing on the ground outside the paradigm, like myself, just don’t get it. The logic escapes us.

Now, in preparing his forthcoming book “Notfinity Process,” PSI member George Coyne already has come up with 61 problems with the Big Bang Theory. Generally, it only takes a few such falsifications to disprove a theory, but like relativity itself, this is a tough nut to crack because of its association with religion. At the moment, the Big Bang Theory seems as everlasting as the universe. I am sure that George will come up with ever more problems before the theory meets its eventual demise. I hope he keeps his list up-to-date on a special webpage. It should be a great resource for future historians of science.

Typical of one of the problems that go to the heart of the matter is the one about the “universe from nothing,” which we already lambasted in a Blog by PSI member Rick Dutkiewicz.[1] Like Krauss’s “Universe from Nothing,”[2] there have been numerous defenses of the Big Bang Theory. One of the most famous was the ad hoc proposed by Alan Guth, an MIT professor, who wrote “The Inflationary Universe” back in 1984.[3] The math had not been working out well, so Guth simply jiggered it enough to keep the theory going.

Guth is famous for saying "The universe could have evolved from absolutely nothing in a manner consistent with all known conservation laws."[4] Like the rest of us of a practical nature, George wonders about “the mathematical or cosmological difference between ‘nothing’ and ‘absolute nothing.’ If there is a difference then it must be possible to compare various amounts of "nothing" from a small amount to a very large amount.”

Of course, all that Guth stuff is nonsense, but George persists in asking “What conservation law is Guth referring to that supports his claim?”

According to George’s excavation, Guth assumes that “gravitational energy is negative, and because it is in balance with the positive energy of matter, he concludes it is possible that the Universe evolved from ‘absolutely nothing’ without violating any known conservation laws.”

As George says, “To argue that the BBT agrees with all conservation laws depends on accepting that energy exists as a positive substance in matter and a “negative” one in the form of gravitation. However, even if one were to accept that premise, it still does not account for how matter emerges from nothing.”

This is an excellent example of how regressive physics has gone wrong. Energy is not a substance, it is a calculation. Even NASA promotes the idea that the universe consists of energy as well as matter. But according to progressive physics, the universe only consists of matter in motion. There is no energy “substance,” so repeating that old shibboleth will not help the universe to pop out of nothing. We are stuck with the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Physicists should pay more attention to thermodynamics and give up trying to objectify energy. Looks like the whole theory is a game about nothing.

[1] Dutkiewicz, Rick, 2012, Dutkiewicz Blasts Krauss Interview on “A Universe From Nothing”: The Scientific Worldview: Blog 20120620: Berkeley, CA, Progressive Science Institute [http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/06/dutkiewicz-blasts-krauss-interview-on.html].

[2] Krauss, Lawrence M., 2012, A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing: New York, Free Press, 224 p.

[3] Guth, Alan H., 1998, The inflationary universe: The quest for a new theory of cosmic origins, Basic Books, 384 p. [https://rebrand.ly/robot9b7e].

[4] Ibid, p. 12.

20170719

Quantum Mechanics Crashes into Infinity

PSI Blog 20170719 Quantum Mechanics Crashes into Infinity

Another good one from George Coyne:

“Here is an article by Steven Weinberg from Jan 19, 2016

Chapter 1 The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/

Here is an excerpt:

"The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?"”

[GB: Thanks George for the nice illustration of the regressive quandary that mathematicians get into when infinity raises its ever-present head. Remember that neomechanics is simply the addition of our assumption of infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) to classical mechanics. This is consupponible with our revised assumptions of causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything).

The upshot is that any measurement anyone could make always has a plus or minus. Only an infinitely long equation could make perfect predictions, which, of course, will never happen. As quantum mechanists have found out, the infinite subdividability of the universe pertains to even the smallest of microcosms. The Infinite Universe always provides yet another collision from yet another microcosm that contributes to the variability that we are forced to present as the margin of error. Infinite subdividability makes it impossible to have “equations [that] are perfectly deterministic.” In the Infinite Universe, there always are still smaller microcosms whose motions we cannot determine precisely. That is how “probabilities get into quantum mechanics.”]

20170712

Worldview hysteria and conversion disorder

PSI Blog 20170712 Worldview hysteria and conversion disorder

Figure 1 Brasoveanu’s view of modern physics.[4]

Jesse writes:

“I am now fully on board with your view that there is no point in debating the regressives. I had the misfortune of discussing with a few pHd physicists on Quora and they started ad hominem's immediately. They got quite hysterical.

I pondered that awhile. I believe it has to do with what I am now calling "Foundational Wordview" (FW) that I loosely define as: "Any assumptions that are made by individuals that highly influence how they view and interpret phenomena in the world."

These FW's can be in any field and pop up in very unlikely places. Many religious people hold them (many don't). Many climate change people hold them. Many physicists hold them. Many politically active people hold them.

I have found that if you test the FW's of most people, it initiates a "Fight or Flight" response that is dramatic. It is basically hopeless to engage in conversations with these people because they either run away or fight you. There is no listening involved. It's an interesting field of study in it's own right. How are these formed? Are there any people without them (I keep trying to think if I hold any)? Has anyone figured out how to shatter them?”

[GB: Thanks for the comment Jesse. As you imply and Wikipedia confirms, the use of an ad hominem is a sure way of losing a debate: "Argumentum ad hominem is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”^{^[1]} Being on the eventual winning side of the arguments you mention, we do not need to resort to name calling. Most dissident physicists have come across hysterical behavior involving those topics.

Ironically, hysteria is now called “conversion disorder,” in which “The sensory and motor manifestations of conversion disorder take many forms and are designated conversion reactions because the underlying anxiety is assumed to have been “converted” into physical symptoms.”^{^[2]} Maybe we should redefine “conversion disorder” to indicate the response we get when especially emotional types are confronted with Infinite Universe Theory. So far no physical effects have been reported by those who have read any stuff from the Progressive Science Institute (other than dithyrambosis, which, as you found out, can lead to lack of sleep and spousal boredom due to equations and lengthy words).

I agree that more work needs to done on what you call Foundational Worldviews. I touched on this in previous books, such as “The Ten Assumptions of Science,” in which I traced it to the philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism. How one gets to either view depends on the univironment, which, in this case, amounts to the person and the environment. My ever-popular Blog on scientific curiosity gives us a hint.[3] The gist is that, in science we determine the truth by interacting with the external world via observation and experiment. Children who have had their hands slapped enough times tend to stifle their curiosity. Religions are notorious for discouraging curiosity, which might lead to philosophical confusion and eventual unbelief. Cloisters keep us from venturing too far afield in search of beliefs without contradictions.

About Foundational Worldviews you ask: “Are there any people without them (I keep trying to think if I hold any)?” Of course, everyone has them, except that they tend to become increasingly deterministic with increasing contact with the infinite variety of the external world. You can begin to find out what yours are by studying "The Ten Assumptions of Science."

You ask: “Has anyone figured out how to shatter them?” Well, that is exactly what we do at PSI. There is no way to replace a powerful paradigm without replacing the foundational assumptions of that paradigm first. That will not be easy. The bigger the fish, the harder they fall. The connection between cosmogony and religion appears almost everlasting. The “shattering” you write about is serious philosophical and economic business. Nonetheless, it is proceeding apace with every step out of the indeterministic box. Cosmogonists are now talking about oxymoronic multiverses and parallel universes. The Internet spreads deterministic information with light speed. Once having learned something about the Infinite Universe, it is hard to unlearn it. Ultimately, however, it all comes down to this: horse, water, drink. You cannot teach someone who does not want to be taught. With regard to the traditional indeterministic beliefs that underlie cosmogony we only need to ask: How is that working out for you?]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[2] https://www.britannica.com/science/conversion-disorder

[3] http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-meaning-of-curiosity-in.html

[4] Not all mainstream physicists are happy with modern physics and cosmogony. In addition to presenting this amusing cartoon at a conference, Dan has written a reformist book proposing a unification of SRT and QMT: Brasoveanu, Dan, 2008, Modern Mythology and Science, iUniverse, 94 p.

20170705

Boundaries and existence in the Infinite Universe

PSI Blog 20170705 Boundaries and existence in the Infinite Universe

In response to George Coyne, who wrote: 'In order for anything to exist it has to have boundaries,' henk wrote:

“Does a cloud have a boundary and if yes, how to describe that? I can see a boundary from the ground but not flying in the clouds.”

[GB: Boundaries exist because of what we describe in 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). Microcosmic boundaries consist of submicrocosms, each of which contains subsubmicrocosms ad infinitum. The macrocosm that surrounds each microcosm also consists of “submicrocosms, each of which contains subsubmicrocosms ad infinitum.” As you point out in your cloud example, boundaries are not absolute even though indeterminists often like to think that they are. A cloud, of course, has a boundary whether you are able to see it or not. There is a gradual to somewhat gradual transition between the cloud (a microcosm) and its environment (its macrocosm).

You asked how to describe boundaries. I will give examples from earth science. Geologists confront the vagueness in boundaries anytime they deal with nature directly. However, engineers, working at their drawings in the office, sometimes consider boundaries to be absolute. This can be a problem in the assessment of earthquake fault hazard. I once saw a fault map drawn by an engineer. It was a series of straight lines instead of having the curves, en echelon segments, slight changes in strike, and other vagaries that nature provides.

Another example:

The evolution of soils results in layers useful for determining their ages. However, soil layers are notorious for sometimes having vague boundaries that torment beginning students. This is how we describe boundary thickness in soil science:

]

henk: So, if the universe exists as a thing it must have boundaries? Why?

[GB: Of course, your very astute question involves the two opposing fundamental assumptions one can make about the universe: 1) that it is finite or 2) that it is infinite.

If the universe was finite, then like all things, it would have xyz dimensions and would have a beginning and an ending, as assumed in the Big Bang Theory.

If the universe was infinite, it would have different rules:

1. It would have no dimensions.

2. It would have no boundaries.

3. It would have neither beginning nor end.

A finite object has a necessary boundary because it is a microcosm, an xyz portion of the Infinite Universe surrounded by its macrocosm (the rest of the universe). The boundary is formed by the interactions between the submicrocosms within and without as in your cloud example. A clearer example would be a helium balloon, which has a more definite boundary. It holds its shape as long as the pressure inside is similar to the pressure outside.

A microcosmic boundary is determined by deterrence—collisions with supermicrocosms in the macrocosm. It is what happens when Newton’s First Law of Motion operates in the Infinite Universe. All microcosms traveling under their own inertia eventually collide with one or more microcosms—such is the boundary. As an aside, we often speak of “determinism,” which speaks of the things that lead to deterrence, not necessarily of whether we can actually “determine” anything. In other words, henk, we have boundaries because the universe is infinite. In the Infinite Universe there is no place that a microcosm could go without running into another microcosm, which temporarily slows its further motion, constituting a boundary. The Infinite Universe “itself” has no such boundaries because it is endless, continuing on forever. The perfectly empty space of the idealist cannot exist and thus nonexistence is impossible.]