Is the Universe a Thing or a Process?

PSI Blog 20240527 Is the Universe a Thing or a Process?

Neither. The universe contains things (nouns) and their motions (verbs).

 

From George Coyne, who is the Canadian director of PSI and author of “Notfinity Process”[1]:

 

“Hi Glenn,

 

If you and I are correct in the view that there is no limit to microcosms in motion then there is no ultimately large object that can be referred to as the Universe. So we need to think of universe as a verb involving a process of matter in motion rather than as a noun referring to a defined object. Do you have a comment on this? Does it conform with your model of reality? Your blog readers may be interested in what you have to say on this.”

 

[GB: Thanks George. You have hit upon an age-old conundrum concerning matter and motion. Thinking of a thing requires one to “define” it, that is, to make it definite and quasi-isolated from the rest of the universe. While each thing, each portion of the universe has XYZ dimensions, the Infinite Universe does not. So, is it still correct to think of and talk about the universe as if it were a normal finite object? Of course, that is what today’s cosmologists do, having become cosmogonists, who claim to study the “origin of the universe.” To do so, they must think of it as finite—something that once did not exist, but now it does.

 

They get around this by using Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory in which he assumed perfectly empty space and his General Relativity Theory in which he assumed the universe had four dimensions. While those are not scientifically valid claims, they are highly popular with those who assume the Fifth Assumption of Religion, creation (Matter and motion can be created out of nothing) and “feral mathematicians” who assume the Fourth Assumption of Religion, separability       (Motion can occur without matter and matter can exist without motion).

 

There has always been confusion between matter and motion. Philosophical dualists such as Descartes tend to think of matter as natural and motion as supernatural. In modern times Alfred North Whitehead even became known as the “process philosopher”—to wide popularity. Modern physics entertains the idea of “matterless motion” when it speaks, like Einstein did, of matterless fields responsible for gravitation and magnetism.

 

I have even come across reformists who use math in their “attempts to determine the size of the universe,” which makes no sense unless one assumes it is finite. Even so, I prefer to use XYZ dimensions to designate each of the things within the Infinite Universe and to use motion for what those things do. The noun-verb convention found in all languages obviously is suitable for understanding each portion of the universe.]

 

 

PSI Blog 20240527

 

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

---

[1] Coyne, G.S., 2021, Notfinity Process: Matter in Motion (2nd ed.), Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, 408 p. [https://gborc.com/Notfinity].