## 20210719

### The impossibility of infinite density

PSI Blog 20210719 The impossibility of infinite density

Another great question from Abhishek Chakravartty, winner of this week’s book prize:

“On page 262 of UCT[1], you wrote the following:

‘For every region of the universe, total-mass always approaches infinity. As a consequence of interconnection, within a fixed region of the universe, something must exist between every microcosm found in that region. This interconnection never stops. Because interconnection continues into infinity, total-mass increases with each iteration deeper into the hierarchy. Therefore, the calculations never end. Total-mass becomes ever-larger with the iterations, and it approaches infinity in the process.’

Then how is it possible for any person to have a finite mass? I am asking this question because the physical body of any person also occupies a fixed region of the universe.”

[GB: Good question. Unfortunately, I didn't agree with Steve on this, but no changing his mind and he was the first author. One could just as easily say the total mass of the universe was zero. Mass is the resistance to acceleration. The Infinite Universe cannot be accelerated because there is nothing outside it to do the accelerating. By that definition, the universe would have no mass.

Like much of mathematics, this subject is plagued by the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics). Absolutists typically are idealists who think perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space exist. As astute readers know, these two concepts are the ideal endmembers of the matter-space continuum. Although they cannot possibly exist, they are useful for understanding the properties of real things. Similarly, no portion of the universe can have infinite mass. For instance, the so-called “black holes” certainly are very dense, but they are not, and cannot be infinitely dense (even Hawking agreed they were gray, not black). Similarly, electrons (and possibly aether particles) have a density of 1010 g/cm3 (Borchardt, 2017),[2] but they don’t have infinite density.

What absolutists forget is that the subdivision of portions of the universe always results in what we think of as two properties: solid matter and empty space. With the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion), we always get both properties. The universe does not produce only perfectly solid matter or perfectly empty space. Again, whatever we get is always both “solid matter” and “empty space.”

Now to your question about your own mass…  Remember that we are all microcosms containing submicrocosms confined within a more or less definite boundary. All those constituents follow the solid matter-empty space continuum I described above. Like black holes, electrons, and aether particles, there is no possibility you or any other portion of the universe could contain only perfectly solid matter or perfectly empty space.]

[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

Abhishek Chakravartty said...

In the blog, you wrote the following :

'Absolutists typically are idealists who think perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space exist. As astute readers know, these two concepts are the ideal endmembers of the matter-space continuum. Although they cannot possibly exist, they are useful for understanding the properties of real things. Similarly, no portion of the universe can have infinite mass.'

Can you explain to me the similarity between the impossibility existence of perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space and the impossibility of any portion of the universe to have infinite mass?

Glenn Borchardt said...

Abhi: Remember that, according to Collingwood (1940), fundamental assumptions cannot be proven or disproven. They simply need to be accepted or rejected. That, of course, is the case with 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). Its opposite is the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics). Thus, absolutists tend to have religious backgrounds and use many of the other religious assumptions. For instance, like Plato, they might believe that perfect circles and spheres and perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space actually exist. This is in spite of the fact there is no evidence for any of those. Debates over fundamental assumptions are interminable. Their only value is to educate fence-sitters to finally make a decision that leads to further scientific progress or to further religious regression.

Now to the impossibility of infinite density… Infinite density is akin to the absolutist belief in perfectly solid matter. It is akin to Hawking’s “singularity” in which the entire mass of the universe was assumed to have been concentrated in a tiny point smaller than the size of the period at the end of this sentence. That is what the math demands when you assume the universe is expanding. The belief in absolutism includes all manner of idealization in which one believes that the thing imagined actually could exist. Relativism is consupponible with infinity. That is why there are no two snowflakes and no two “identical” twins alike. Each of those microcosms has an infinity of submicrocosms within surrounded by a macrocosm containing an infinity of supermicrocosms without. If you don’t believe that, just get your microscope out and examine your so-called “identical” objects in detail. Of course, in many cases, that still leaves room for positivists and operationalists to hold fast to absolutism. If you don’t care to do a detailed examination or to use a microscope or telescope or other instrument, your faith in absolutism and finity may survive. That is why only the curious can be scientists.