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.