PSI Blog 20260309 Getting Your Philosophical Ducks in a Row
Know your fundamental assumptions before philosophizing.
“Getting all your ducks in a row" means to prepare
everything necessary to do something successfully. Photo credit: Dennis
Flanagan/Facebook.
About 50 years ago I began to realize that the irrationality
that led to the Big Bang Theory involved philosophy rather than science. It had
little to do with the data that were being gathered, but with the absurd
interpretations thereof. Most of philosophy was of little help—much of it was
irrational too. My chance reading of R.G. Collingwood was a turning point. His
“Essay on Metaphysics”[1]
had a lot of irrational stuff, but he also had a clear exposition on
presuppositions, which we all have unbeknownst to us. Once we recognize them
and bring them into the light of day by speaking them or writing them down,
they become fundamental assumptions.
Unlike the ordinary assumptions we use all the time in
science and in everyday life, fundamental assumptions have special
characteristics: 1. They cannot be completely proven or completely falsified.
2. They always have an opposite, which is false if the first is true. 3. If you
have two or more fundamental assumptions, they must be consupponible, that is,
you must be able to suppose both without contradiction. That allows you to form
a “constellation,” analogous to a flock of “birds of a feather” like the ones
in a row above. Also like those ducks, every part of a proper constellation
heads in the same direction.
Understanding Philosophy
If you really want to become a “deep thinker”—one who
understands what the Infinite Universe and one’s own existence is all about,
you must understand philosophy. That is difficult for most folks because
philosophy is a mess. That is because it involves a perpetual struggle between
rationality and irrationality, determinism and indeterminism, reality and
ideality, science and religion. What is presented in most philosophy courses is
a hodge-podge overlooking the philosophical battlefield with its fallen soldiers
amid their tomes and other weapons strewn all around. The carnage never stops;
we are born into it, knowing little about the Infinite Universe, how it
operates, and our place within. We only learn that by experiencing what the
world offers. Opposing fundamental assumptions are subjects of endless debate
because neither can be proven or disproven. Only by choosing the correct
assumptions can we get a true picture of reality.
To understand philosophy, you must convert those
unrecognized presuppositions into fundamental assumptions. You then must choose
between those you consider rational and their opposites you consider
irrational. You are lucky. I already did that for you:
This table just summarizes “The Ten Assumptions of Science,”[2] which underlie all the books and all the blog posts published by the Progressive Science Institute. Note: you can download the free pdf or get a paperback or hardcover at Amazon.
If you are science-minded you will want
to memorize the fundamental assumptions in the science column; if you are
religious-minded you will want to memorize the fundamental assumptions in the religious column. Unfortunately, those
attempting to reform relativity and the Big Bang Theory often presuppose from
both sides of the philosophical struggle, risking illogic:
“Cherry Picking” from Both Sides
Some might accept materialism, which assumes the
existence of matter, but accept disconnection, which assumes the
existence of perfectly empty space. This is a common affliction of aether
deniers who misinterpret the Michelson-Morley Experiment and ignore the Sagnac,
DeSitter, and Galaev experiments.
Some commonly try to assume both causality and acausality
at the same time, in the effort to preserve the illusion of free will. This is
highly probable for those having been reared in a religious tradition even
after they might have given that up.
Some, such as the promoters of Steady State Theory, crossed the
rationality-irrationality boundary twice, assuming finity, infinity,
and creation at the same time.
Still others assume the two opposites, finity and infinity,
at the same time, as in multiverse and parallel universe theories. Still others
claim the expanding universe of the Big Bang Theory does not require finity.
The Religious Logic of Regressive Physics and Cosmogony
One dubiously “admirable” property of regressive physics and
cosmogony is their consistent logic. Both are founded on fundamental
assumptions that are religious and therefore irrational. Here are a few
examples:
To begin with, Einstein’s rejection of aether assumes disconnection,
absolutism, and finity and therefore assumes space is perfectly
empty.
Perfectly empty space (nonexistence) is consupponible with the assumed creation
of the universe out of nothing. Our own existence proves nonexistence is
impossible.
Consistent with the above is Einstein’s invention of the photon, which
is massless, contains perfectly empty space, and travels perpetually through
perfectly empty space.
Similarly, perfectly empty space is consupponible with creation,
which is the generally undisclosed fundamental assumption upon which cosmogony
is founded. It is why progressive physicists call the Big Bang Theory the “Last
Creation Myth.”
The Doppler effect, once considered responsible for the cosmological
redshift and the interpretation that most galaxies are receding from us, only
occurs in a medium. Einstein’s aether denial above assumes a medium
does not exist.
Dark energy, which is assumed responsible for the expansion of the
universe, is a calculation that assumes matterless motion. Because no matter is
associated with it, dark energy is based on separability.
Cosmogony’s imagined “Heat Death of the Universe” is based on the
assumption of noncomplementarity. In the real, Infinite Universe, each
thing is a result of convergence of constituents from elsewhere. These
constituents eventually undergo divergence, forming the
constituents of still other things.
The Big Bang Theory is plagued by many ordinary assumptions
not mentioned above. I have listed 25 falsifications of the theory here.
Basing cosmology on the fundamental religious assumptions above brought great
popularity to Einstein and the Big Bang Theory.[3]
Probably a hundred books have been written by religious folks who noted the
similarities between those theories and their own beliefs. I suspect the “Last
Creation Myth” will be around as long as religion remains popular. Normally, a
single falsification can bring down a theory, but that obviously does not hold
for one so tenaciously attached to religion. There no doubt have been many
falsifications of the 4,000 extant religions, but they also survive.
Once you get “all your ducks in a row” on either side of the
philosophical struggle you are ready to understand the universe without being
bedeviled by the contradictions of relativity, cosmogony, and most philosophy.
PSI Blog 20260309
Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy
of the just-released Second Edition of “The
Scientific Worldview” to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational
view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise
of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy
Now.
[1] Collingwood, R.G. 1940. An Essay on Metaphysics.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of
Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://gborc.com/TTAOS; https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf].
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of
Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk