Regressives, by Definition, Don’t Know What Time Is

 

PSI Blog 20220627 Regressives, by Definition, Don’t Know What Time Is

 

What is time? The mysterious essence of the fourth dimension

 

https://go.glennborchardt.com/4D

 

“The true nature of time continues to elude us. But whether it is a fundamental part of the cosmos or an illusion made in our minds has profound implications for our understanding of the universe”

 

That’s the lament New Scientist[1] is still pushing on a mostly unaware public. This trope is showing lots of wear, but it will not disappear until Einstein worship becomes passé.

 

Time is motion.

 

That simple fact escaped Einstein and his regressive followers. It is supposed to escape all students of physics—or else. As the referenced article above demonstrates, regressives can get a lot of mileage out of spreading the usual obfuscation. If you can get folks to believe time is mysterious, an illusion, or a 4^th dimension, you can get them to believe all sorts of nonsense. After all, the “theoretical physicists” admired by New Scientist are smarter than the rest of us. And besides, aren’t wormholes and explosions out of nothing fun?

 

Readers: Please take a look at this article. After recovering from your headache, please send me your analysis of which of the Ten Assumptions of Science were violated. The best analysis will be included as a Guest Blog and will receive a free PSI book.

 

 

 

---

[1] New Scientist promotes itself as the most popular weekly science and tech magazine in the world. [http://www.cpst.org/10-science-magazines.html]

 

Imaginary or Real?

PSI Blog 20220620 Imaginary or Real?

 

Abhishek asks:

 

Whom do you call a superintelligent being in the following sentence?:

 

"Laplace illustrated his view of determinism by hypothesizing a super intelligent being that has come to be known as Laplace’s Demon."

 

[GB: Abhi, your question illustrates how difficult it is for religious folks to distinguish between the imaginary and the real. Obviously, Laplace's Demon was not real. It was only hypothesized—in other words, simply imagined. He was not thinking of a devil or a god that actually existed (i.e., had XYZ dimensions and location with respect to other real things).

 

As I explained in "Religious Roots of Relativity,"[1] religion is imaginary, while science is real. Laplace’s Demon is imaginary in the same way gods, souls, heaven, and hell are imaginary. None of those exist in the real world, although most folks tend to believe they do. In the book, I presented “The Ten Assumptions of Religion” as the dialectical opposites of "The Ten Assumptions of Science." Remnants of those religious assumptions plague physics and cosmology to this day. That is why Einstein was able to imagine and promote light as a massless particle traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. That imagined particle was accepted in 1905, with it still being accepted today as the foundation of the silly universal expansion hypothesis and the resulting Big Bang Theory. That one regressive step in favor of religion has thrown what is otherwise considered “modern” physics into what I rightly call “regressive” physics.

 

So how do we distinguish the imaginary from the real? Here is a start:

1.   Real things have XYZ dimensions; imaginary “things” do not.

2.   Real things can be imagined too, but they must be similar to other real things (e.g., all things contain other things, and thus contain matter and have mass).

3.   All real things are in motion, but motion does not exist, it occurs.

4.   “Matterless” motion is an oxymoron still common in regressive physics due to its connection with religious imaginings such as ghosts and spirits.

5.   All real events are the results of collisions between real things per causality.]

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

 

The Mind-Brain Problem and the Obstinance of Matterless Motion

PSI Blog 20220613 The Mind-Brain Problem and the Obstinance of Matterless Motion

 

Abhi writes:

 

“When you define existence as the xyz portion of the universe occupied by a microcosm after its formation via submicrocosmic convergence and before its destruction via submicrocosmic divergence, I think that you are confusing the meaning of existence with the meaning of tangibility. Tangibility is one type of existence because anything which occupies any xyz portion of the universe indeed can be touched. But tangibility is not the only type of existence. For example, when a person or animal is alive, it is possible to touch the body of that person or animal, but impossible to touch the mind of that person or animal. But this does not mean that when the person or animal is alive, the mind of that person or animal does not exist. This means that the mind of a person or animal is always intangible irrespective of whether the tangible body of that person or animal is alive or dead. When that tangible body of that person or animal dies, the intangible mind of that person or animal becomes the soul of that person or animal.”

 

[GB: Thanks, Abhi for bringing to our attention another somewhat subtle and very popular connection between science and religion. Philosophers have argued about the “mind-brain problem" for centuries. At the Progressive Science Institute, we solved that one 40 years ago with the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).[1] Like so many other religiously tainted debates, this one becomes moot when we realize the brain is XYZ matter and the mind is the motion within the brain. What you propose is matterless motion, which by the way, is still popular among regressive physicists. That is, after all, what Einstein meant when he claimed gravitational and magnetic fields to be “immaterial.” It was what he meant when he claimed light to be a matterless particle nonetheless capable of motion.

 

Your deduction from mind to soul fits with millennia of religious dreams and imagining. It fits with the spirits, ghosts, and gods who likewise are imagined to be matterless motion. It is not based on science, but on the Fourth Assumption of Religion, separability (Motion can occur without matter and matter can exist without motion).[2] Having been religious for almost 20 years, I can sympathize a little bit with your reassuring frame of mind here. You are not the only one who would like to live forever, even if only as a bit of matterless motion. Unfortunately, that will never occur for you or me or anyone else. Your instincts are right: You love this life so much that you do not want it to end. Good thing the universe is infinite and real and not the product of anyone's imagination. There is no end to the discoveries you can make in the meantime.]

 

 

 

  

  

 

 

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].

 

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

  

Demons Haunting Regressive Thermodynamics

 PSI Blog 20220606 Demons Haunting Regressive Thermodynamics

 

[GB: While we are on the topic, it behooves us to subject ourselves to the regressive view. Be reminded that all these demons are imaginings still with us years after I published the solution to their demise, albeit in a rather obscure proceedings volume.[1] In short, the resolution to these bedevilments is simply the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). Of course, this assumption implies the universe is infinite, which remains a no-no among cosmogonists. The current version of such nonsense is being pushed by our venerable “American Institute of Physics,” and not by the usually suspect rag “New Scientist.” Note: If you actually attend this webinar, please take notes. We would love to have your progressive review of it for a guest blog.]

  Demons Haunting Regressive Thermodynamics

To see a more readable version of the webpage, click on:

 

 https://go.glennborchardt.com/TD-Demons

 

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2008, Resolution of the SLT-order paradox, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Albuquerque, NM, v. 5 [10.13140/RG.2.1.1413.7768].