Dialogue, Glenn Borchardt and William Markiewicz
[GB: Below is a dialogue
I had between 2009 and 2012 with Wilek (William) Markiewicz, a Toronto writer
and artist. He left Poland after the war, eventually founding The Polish Canadian Courier, the
first Polish independent paper in North America. He published this dialogue on
his Vagabond website. You may have similar questions and be ready for my
similar answers.]
Dear
Glenn,
After
a prolonged absence, I opened Vagabond’s Communication Page (May June issue) www.vagabondpages.com/may09/communication.html, and
what caught my attention was the title “Determinism” which was the subject line
of your email and I don’t see the connection with the topic. Is this a mistake?
-- because “Infinity” would be a more appropriate title than Determinism.
Please let me know.
I
have always been fascinated by the idea of infinite universe, infinite big and
infinite small. As my mind and senses operate in 3-4 dimensions I will ignore
right now the infinite dimensions which have beautiful mathematical formulas
but seem to me abstractions, like abstract paintings. So, from the platform of
my own dimension, putting aside other dimensions like, for instance, “string
theory”, I have the following question which can or cannot be answered, in my
view, it cannot: If I have no problem with an infinitely big universe because
it is not space that is lacking, how may the universe be reduced to infinity?
Where can remain matter in practically no space and, how can matter be
something other than matter? For our 3-4 dimensional mind, matter and space are
inseparable. If you have some comments I would gladly publish them if you don’t
mind.
Thank
you very much
William
William
[GB:
William:
Thanks
so much for your interesting questions. I was struck by your philosophical bent
and just thought you might be interested in The Scientific Worldview (TSW). So
few people seem to have the background and nonprejudicial mind necessary for
understanding the philosophy of univironmental determinism (the proposition
that whatever happens to a portion of the universe is determined equally by the
matter in motion within and without). This philosophy assumes micro and macro
infinity, and with it, an assumption of causality derived from Bohm (1957). I
have labeled Bohm’s view as “infinite universal causality.” It states that
there are an infinite number of causes for any effect. In science, we are lucky
to determine the primary causes, labeling the remaining causes as unknown. This
is why there is a plus or minus in every real measurement. Classical mechanics
and what is commonly referred to as “determinism” used finite universal
causality, based on the assumption that there were a finite number of causes
for a particular effect. With it, Laplace’s Demon was erroneously assumed able
to postdict the past and predict the future with perfect accuracy and
precision. Classical mechanics also contained the (usually hidden)
presupposition that the universe was microcosmically and macrocosmically finite.
I
share your suspicions about mathematics. My view is as follows:
Reality
involves a Euclidean universe that consists of matter in motion. Matter exists,
that is, it has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other material
objects. Matter always contains other matter within it, ad infinitum. That is,
there are no partless parts, as was erroneously assumed by the atomists. Motion
is what matter does. Motion is not “part” of the universe.
Ideality
involves our ideas about matter and the motion of matter. We use the ideality
of math to provide imperfect predictions regarding the motions of matter in the
real world. But unlike those overcome with idealism, we must continually remind
ourselves that the world is real and that our ideas are not. Thus we may have
the idea of perfectly empty space and the idea of perfectly solid matter, but
neither could possibly exist. All real things lie on the continuum between
those two ideas. Space always contains “matter” and matter always contains
“space.” Therefore we agree that space is matter. In TSW I also assume that
time is the motion of matter. Time is not a thing. Unlike material objects, I
cannot put time in my back pocket (even though it would be nice).
The
concept of 4-dimensional spacetime is just that, a concept, an idea. Spacetime
cannot exist. Only space (xyz) can exist. I can see my desk occupying a
particular xyz space and I can imagine it occupying a similar space tomorrow,
but that does not make spacetime material. The concept of spacetime may be
useful, but like other matter-motion terms (TSW, p. 53-63) it is neither matter
nor motion. This is where the Big Bang and string theorists have traded reality
for ideality. These folks actually believe that more than 3 dimensions are
possible, in fact, it is a job requirement. Moreover, they will not agree that
the universe presents us with only two phenomena: 1) matter and 2) the motion
of matter. A “modern physicist” seldom will know what time is.
I
urge you to read TSW or some of the papers abstracted from it. Pdfs and links
are available on the PSI website. My blog
http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2007/06/welcome-to-scientific-worldview.html
contains numerous questions that I have answers from the univironmental point
of view.
References:
Bohm,
D., 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and
Brothers, 170 p.
Links
to these are at www.scientificphilosophy.com:
Borchardt,
Glenn, 2004, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony':
Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 1, no. 1, p. 3-6.
Borchardt,
Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science and the demise of cosmogony [abs.],
Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division: Metropolitan State College of Denver
and the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Sciences, 79th Annual Meeting of
AAAS-SWARM, v. Program with Abstracts, p. 22-23
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221706041_The_ten_assumptions_of_science_and_the_demise_of_cosmogony].
Borchardt,
Glenn, 2004, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of 'cosmogony',
Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 1, no. 1, p. 3-6
[10.13140/2.1.2638.5607].
Borchardt,
Glenn, 2007, Infinite universe theory, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy
Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 4, no. 1, p. 20-23 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3515.0247].
Borchardt,
Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE,
iUniverse, 411 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/ ].
Infinity
forever,
Glenn]
Glenn]
You
Wrote:
"Motion
is not “part” of the universe"
This
sounds murky. If not part of the universe then part of what? Is our own motion
not part of the universe either? Of course, put on your blog whatever you like.
William
[GB:
Thanks.
I
must admit that it is hard for many folks to grasp the reality of motion not
being a “part” of the universe. Parts have xyz dimensions; motions do not. For
instance, legs are part of the universe; running is not. Running is not a
thing, it is what things do. Running does not have xyz dimensions and therefore
is not “part” of the universe. The fact that running “occurs” within the
universe does not make it “part” of the universe. The parts of the universe are
divisible, while motion is not.
Here
is a bit from a paper on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc2” that I am working on
at the moment:
“Language
as the Key to Reality
All
languages are based on nouns and verbs, that is, things and their motions. The
“physical meaning” that we seek in our everyday life is none other than that
formalized in the abstract as “matter” and “motion.” My usage of the terms is
as follows:
“Matter”
is the abstraction for “all things.” Things have length, breath, and width;
they have existence. There is no such thing as “matter” per se, just as there
is no such thing as “fruit” per se. We only have specific examples of
individual things, just as we only have specific examples of fruit, such as
apples or oranges. From infinity,
we realize that each xyz portion of the universe contains matter, things that
always contain other things, ad infinitum. In other words, there are no
partless parts. Empty space and solid matter are ideas. Reality exists in the continuum
between them. The further implication is that empty space cannot exist and that
nonexistence is impossible.
“Motion”
is the abstraction for what things do. Motion does not exist, it occurs. In my
usage, “motion” is shorthand for the “motion of matter.” Nonetheless, there is
no “connection” between matter and motion, because that term is given only to
matter. Again, motion is what matter does. Motion is not “part” of the
universe. This relatively simple conception of matter and motion has been obscured
by the idealistic fog surrounding relativity. It is somewhat ironic that this
view of inseparability actually demands that we conceive of matter and
motion as two separate categories. I like to think of them this way: if I can
put it in my pocket, it is matter; if I can’t, it is motion. Thus, legs consist
of matter, but running does not; particles are matter, waves are motion.
Examples of motion are: sound, fire, light, and time.
Language,
of course, is not infallible. The descriptions of matter easily and properly
take the nominative form. Motion, however, is a noun describing action. Thus we
unavoidably objectify action simply by categorizing it as a noun. It gets
worse. We commonly say that we have “things” to do when we actually mean that
we will participate in various activities. In science we commonly refer to the
“occurrence” of various specimens, when specimens really don’t “occur,” they
“exist.” These examples may seem mere quibbles, but they are symptoms of the
problem that lies at the root of the misunderstandings surrounding the
equivalence principle. The fact that it has spread from popular culture to
scientific culture just shows how interconnected they are.”
Glenn
-- for most individuals, in particular the creative ones, "motion" is
more important than "matter." Therefore the idea that motion is not
"part of the universe" may sound confusing.
I
stick to the idea that infinity
of the universe goes both ways, infinite great and infinite small. This means
that if there is no such thing as a primary particle, then at each stage of infinity there must be matter with
its three dimensional universe and its motion. How could it be possible? If it
is so, our mind has no way to grasp it. For me, this paradox makes it impossible
to define matter. I believe it was the physicist Hilley who presumed that the
wave precedes matter -- but wave of what?? If my memory is good, he became a
spiritualist because he couldn't find any possibility of existence of primary
matter. Could you follow speculation in this direction, or maybe you did it and
I didn't grasp it properly, or maybe the whole concept of matter, of universe,
is erroneous and we must look at it otherwise. But here, as the French say:
"Je donne ma langue au chat."
Cheers,
William
William
[GB:
William:
Both
matter and the motion of matter are equally important, as per the Fourth
Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no
motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). One must be
careful to not overemphasize either of these phenomena. We both assume the
Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity
(The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and the macrocosmic
directions). One can imagine each level, as you say it, to contain two things:
objects and the space between them, ad infinitum. There is no reason for there
to be an end to the number of objects and the spaces between them. This is why
matter ultimately cannot be “defined,” as the atomists theorized. Of course,
from time to time, scientists discover what many might consider to be the
ultimate particle that cannot be subdivided. The Higgs particle, if shown to
exist, will receive the same treatment, only to await the next even-larger
cyclotron. At some point we won’t bother to pursue that path because of the
great expense. We always will be required to choose between finity and infinity.
The
main problem with a finite particle is this: all such particles would have no
parts and no structure; each would be identical to all the others and incapable
of evolution. That would not be the way to make a universe containing the
infinite variety we see all about us. Such a particle would not be capable of
the six main types of univironmental interactions (TSW, pp. 127-151). For
example, the absorption of motion that occurs in all known reactions would be
impossible, because any such microcosm would not contain submicrocosms capable
of accepting the motion.
The
real universe doesn’t care whether we can imagine its infinite character or
not. I agree that switching from finity
to infinity is a huge step,
but with a bit of practice the so-called “paradox” disappears. Thus, as
mentioned above, I can’t imagine a finite particle being of any use in
explaining the phenomena of the universe. As you can see in TSW, like everyone
else, I had to make a choice between finity
and infinity. This was the key
to understanding the universe. On the other hand, I am not surprised that
anyone who could believe in matterless motion also would believe in
spiritualism—they essentially are the same thing. Disappointment in the
inability to find a finite particle amounts to a disappointment in classical
mechanics, because both are founded on the indeterministic assumption of finity.
Infinity
forever,
Glenn]
Glenn]
Glenn
-- nobody can objectively deny that matter and the motion of matter are equally
important, but subjectively, psychologically, for the creative individual,
motion is more important, because motion is what he does, while he often
neglects preoccupations which we metaphorically call 'material.' Of course,
primary particles cannot exist, because primary to what? To the preceding void,
or to the following crowd? We don't even know what matter is.
William
[GB:
William:
One
could also say that matter is what a person is. What you are is equally as
important as what you do. In regard as to what matter is, maybe the Third
Assumption of Science, uncertainty, will help: It is
impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more
about anything. Thus, we know pretty much about what matter is. For example, I
know a lot about the computer before me, which is matter, but consistent with
the Third Assumption, I will never know everything about it. This is consistent
with infinity. Those who seek
the ultimate, final answer to what matter is will never find it because the
universe is infinite. Thus, the indeterministic opposite of the Third
Assumption, certainty, is an errant mistress that has led many a philosopher
astray.
Infinity
forever,
Glenn]
Glenn]
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment