PSI Blog 20200316 What Pierre Berrigan learned from reading
Collingwood
[GB: Pierre Berrigan, translator
for the French version of Infinite
Universe Theory learned his progressive physics from his uncle, Paul Marmet, the famous dissident physics
professor who sacrificed his career on the alter of relativity and cosmogony.
In this Blog we present his take on Collingwood, who was a major influence for The
Ten Assumptions of Science, which is the foundation for all
our work]:
What I learned from reading Collingwood
Pierre Berrigan
The term « metaphysics » has certainly been badly
mistreated in the last few decades (centuries?), and has come to designate the
lot of all types of weirdness, off-this-world and wacky ideas. As such, the
entire discipline tends to be ridiculed and dismissed by scientists as useless
and unintelligible nonsense, fruitless and endless arguing, akin to enquires
about the afterlife, spiritism, extrasensory perception, numerology, astrology,
the sex of angels and how many of them can fit on the top of a needle.
In my opinion, R.G. Collingwood did a pretty good job in
straightening things out in « Essay on Metaphysics »[i], although one can wonder
if science (or anyone, for that matter) even bothered to take note. If I have
not totally wasted my time reading, what I retain is that metaphysics is the
science that studies absolute presuppositions.
As defined by Collingwood, absolute presuppositions are
concepts that:
1. cannot be proven or disproven
2. have one and only one opposite which is its negation, and
which also cannot be proven or disproven
3. about which no question can reasonably be asked
4. can only be propounded
5. in the case where more than one is propounded, are
consupponible among a set of absolute presuppositions
Anyone who (still) views metaphysics as the arena of
intellectual wanking is probably violating one or many of the above rules that
define absolute presuppositions. Endless debates among otherwise intelligent
people, that see no possible hope of outcome or settlement, is a good
indication that maybe questions are being asked about some absolute
presupposition, or that attempts are being made at proving or disproving some
absolute presupposition.
Whether scientists like it or not, a set of absolute
presuppositions underlie, orient and to some extent govern all science and how
science is done. Whatever is their endeavour, enquiry or accomplishment,
scientists, consciously or not, whether they will admit it or not, necessarily
made a prior assumption of one or its opposite of each absolute presupposition
that makes up the set of absolute presuppositions underlying their discipline.
Although I can in no way pretend to be a metaphysicist
myself, what I did next is an attempt at a list of absolute presuppositions
that specifically apply to physics, and more specifically to cosmology, which
is the common subject of interest of ACG [GB: The local alternative cosmology
group run by Marmet’s son Louis.] So, I came up with this preliminary list:
1.
Infinity. The universe is
spatially and temporally infinite.
2. Conservation. Matter or energy cannot be created or
destroyed.
3. Isotropy. On a sufficiently large spatial and temporal
scale, the universe appears the same at all locations, in all directions, and
at all times (cosmological principle).
4. Causality. All events have causes.
5. Rationality. There exists an intrinsic coherence,
elegance and purpose in all of nature's processes and entities.
Examples of predictions from theories that are widely
accepted as scientifically valid will show which metaphysical choices underlie
modern physics:
Age of the universe:
thinking of the universe as having an « age » implies that the universe did not
exist at some point in time. The concept of « age », when applied to the
universe, is contrary to the absolute presupposition of « infinity »
(temporal).
Black Holes: objects
surrounded by an « event horizon » singularity beyond which time and space
interchange each other, that have no inside, and at the center of which exists
a punctual mass of infinite density are absurdities. This is contrary to the «
Rationality » absolute presupposition.
Big Bang: according
to the theory, the universe was denser in the distant past. This is contrary to
the « Isotropy » absolute presupposition.
Big Bang event: the
theory posits that everything that exists in the universe suddenly appeared,
forcibly, out of nowhere. This is contrary to the « Conservation » and the «
Causality » absolute presuppositions.
Quantum
fluctuations: the occurrence of particle-antiparticle pairs spontaneously
popping into existence and vanishing into the void is contrary to the «
Conservation » and the « Causality » absolute presuppositions.
Wave functions: the
idea that cats can at the same time be dead and alive is an absurdity, and
contravenes to the « Rationality » absolute presupposition.
There are more examples. But these are sufficient to
conclude that the following absolute presuppositions were assumed by modern
science:
Finity: the universe is both spatially and temporally
finite. It has a beginning, therefore an age, and a size, i.e.: a spatial limit
beyond which nothing exists, not even space, and a temporal limit before which
time did not exist.
Non-conservation: matter/energy can spontaneously be
created, and can be annihilated.
Anisotropy: the average density of the universe, on a very
large scale, varies with time, and is not the same at all distances.
Acausality: some events may have no cause.
Absurdity: objects with absurd properties may exist and
absurd events may happen in physical reality.
It is my humble opinion that there is cause to critically
examine science's actual metaphysical choices, and ponder on whether or not
these choices are commendable, and if the results and implications of said
choices are desirable.
There is no getting around the fact that metaphysical
choices (read: choice of absolute presuppositions) orient the way science is
done. For example, astrophysicists are, as I write, looking for new star
formation theories and alternate galaxy dynamics to explain the elderly galaxy XMM-2599, because of their prior
assumption that durations superior to 13.8 billion years are not permitted.
With the assumption of temporal infinity, XMM-2599 would not be a mystery: add
2 trillion years to the « age of the universe » and the existence of XMM-2599
is perfectly understandable. General relativity led to black holes; quantum
mechanics led to alternate realities; supernovae brightness-distance
relationships led to accelerated expansion of space and to dark energy; and so
on. The mathematical prediction of absurdities or the empirical observation of
unexplained phenomena should lead further research in the direction of
realistic science, and not towards the easy way out of « new physics » that
have no hope whatsoever of being ever falsified, such as dark energy, virtual
particles, superior dimensions, stretching space, or alternate universes, as if
any of these could ever be considered as physical realities.
Given these metaphysical choices, scientists nowadays act
as if they had lost the ability to distinguish between the absurd and common
sense, with blessings from the Copenhagen Interpretation. And as long as such a
mentality prevails, physics, and science in general will keep losing
credibility among the general public, now in an increasing struggle to make
sense out of things that intrinsically do not (« What was before the Big Bang?
»; « What does space expand into? »; « Could the Big Bang be the result of two
universes colliding with each other? »). Such a trend can easily be taken to a
logical and extremely dangerous outcome: if the rising popularity of the flat earth
theory can be considered harmless, the antivaccine movement, on its part, has
already made fatal victims. Believers want to believe. If faith in science is
lost, the masses will turn to irrational beliefs in political or religious
precepts, wherein history relates massacres by the millions in the name of
imaginary authorities.