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.]
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].
Come on Glenn,
ReplyDeleteParticles and motion?
That is nearly as bad as Einsteins' media-less background.
Modern physicists think FIELD, as do I.
I hope to get my book published this year.
Universal Oscillation Theory possibly titled The WHole Enchilada. It covers determinism as well as oher subjects.
George