tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post5313755747977958867..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Infinity or Determinism?Glenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-68796661222825119372009-08-17T11:23:09.781-07:002009-08-17T11:23:09.781-07:00William:
One could also say that matter is what a...William:<br /><br />One could also say that matter is what a person is. What you are is equally as important as what you do. In regard as to what matter is, maybe the Third Assumption of Science, UNCERTAINTY, will help: It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything. Thus, we know pretty much about what matter is. For example, I know a lot about the computer before me, which is matter, but consistent with the Third Assumption, I will never know everything about it. This is consistent with INFINITY. Those who seek the ultimate, final answer to what matter is will never find it because the universe is infinite. Thus, the indeterministic opposite of the Third Assumption, certainty, is an errant mistress that has led many a philosopher astray.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-38801548973280056782009-08-17T11:20:06.845-07:002009-08-17T11:20:06.845-07:00Glenn -- nobody can objectively deny that matter a...Glenn -- nobody can objectively deny that matter and the motion of matter are equally important, but subjectively, psychologically, for the creative individual, motion is more important, because motion is what he does, while he often neglects preoccupations which we metaphorically call 'material.' Of course, primary particles cannot exist, because primary to what? To the preceding void, or to the following crowd? We don't even know what matter is.<br /> <br />I have an impossible deadline, after accomplishing it, I hope to plunge into your links. <br /><br />cheers WilliamWilliam Markiewicznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-82805112676933922822009-08-16T21:45:20.601-07:002009-08-16T21:45:20.601-07:00William:
Both matter and the motion of matter are ...William:<br />Both matter and the motion of matter are equally important, as per the Fourth Assumption of Science, INSEPARABILITY (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). One must be careful to not overemphasize either of these phenomena. We both assume the Eighth Assumption of Science, INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and the macrocosmic direction). One can imagine each level, as you say it, to contain two things: objects and the space between them, ad infinitum. There is no reason for there to be an end to the number of objects and the spaces between them. This is why matter ultimately cannot be “defined,” as the atomists theorized. Of course, from time to time, scientists discover what many might consider to be the ultimate particle that cannot be subdivided. The Higgs particle, if shown to exist, will receive the same treatment, only to await the next even-larger cyclotron. At some point we won’t bother to pursue that path because of the great expense. We always will be required to choose between finity and infinity. <br /><br />The main problem with a finite particle is this: all such particles would have no parts and no structure; each would be identical to all the others and incapable of evolution. That would not be the way to make a universe containing the infinite variety we see all about us. Such a particle would not be capable of the six main types of univironmental interactions (TSW, pp. 127-151). For example, the absorption of motion that occurs in all known reactions would be impossible, because any such microcosm would not contain submicrocosms capable of accepting the motion.<br /><br />The real universe doesn’t care whether we can imagine its infinite character or not. I agree that switching from finity to INFINITY is a huge step, but with a bit of practice the so-called “paradox” disappears. Thus, as mentioned above, I can’t imagine a finite particle being of any use in explaining the phenomena of the universe. As you can see in TSW, like everyone else, I had to make a choice between finity and INFINITY. This was the key to understanding the universe. On the other hand, I am not surprised that anyone who could believe in matterless motion also would believe in spiritualism—they essentially are the same thing. Disappointment in the inability to find a finite particle amounts to a disappointment in classical mechanics, because both are founded on the indeterministic assumption of finity.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-77817749665038224832009-08-16T21:39:25.976-07:002009-08-16T21:39:25.976-07:00Glenn -- for most individuals, in particular the c...Glenn -- for most individuals, in particular the creative ones, "motion" is more important than "matter." Therefore the idea that motion is not "part of the universe" may sound confusing.<br />I stick to the idea that infinity of the universe goes both ways, infinite great and infinite small. This means that if there is no such thing as a primary particle, then at each stage of infinity there must be matter with its three dimensional universe and its motion. How could it be possible? If it is so, our mind has no way to grasp it. For me, this paradox makes it impossible to define matter. I believe it was the physicist Hilley who presumed that the wave precedes matter -- but wave of what?? If my memory is good, he became a spiritualist because he couldn't find any possibility of existence of primary matter. Could you follow speculation in this direction, or maybe you did it and I didn't grasp it properly, or maybe the whole concept of matter, of universe, is erroneous and we must look at it otherwise. But here, as the French say: "Je donne ma langue au chat."<br /><br />Cheers,<br />WilliamWilliam Markiewicznoreply@blogger.com