Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Is the Universe Infinite?

The physicists talk about space
Like it was a thing with a body and face
It expands and contracts
(And these are the facts)
Yet no outline of it can be traced

--- Mike Huttner

O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space—were it not that I have bad dreams. 

---From Hamlet by Shakespeare


Infinite comes from the word finite. Finite is a relation which describes objects . . . an adjective. Objects have limits or bounds. Finite is almost synonymous with form. All objects have this primal quality called form.  Form relates to what is bounded or contained from an immediate surrounding. All objects necessarily have form. And they are finite. Infinite means without bounds or limits, however strictly speaking infinite serves as an adjective, a modifier of objects. So here we have a linguistic contradiction, or an oxymoron as we say. An object without bounds or limits is impossible.

Concepts on the other hand lack this property called form. Two such concepts are Universe and space. Universe and space refer to a Concept Category. Universe and space have no boundaries or limits but we treat them as if they do anyway. In other words we reify them (convert a concept into an object) and we do this so as to name and consummate higher order abstractions via our brains.

Space refers to that which lacks form. Or we could define space as a static separation between objects, sort of similar to distance. Space has no limits or boundaries because we think space when we relate or compare two or more objects. Space is a brain-work! So we could also describe space as infinite, but strictly speaking this is rhetoric, because infinite is an adjective and space is not an object.

Universe also lacks form. Universe is a high order abstraction nesting together the notions of space and all existing objects (matter). What happened is one day a Greek or a Roman got bored. He related all the stars, and all the trees and the Earth, and all peoples and all animals, and all rocks, all things and space . . . then Eureka! He thought and named Universe or cosmos. Universe is an idea! But in modern times people started to treat Universe as if it were a finite object like a belly of a pregnant woman swelling. But if Universe is an object what contains space? More space? What is the edge of this object made out of and what is outside of it? And how does the belly swell? What object is constantly being added or created so that the belly can swell? And where does that come from?

These problems are easily solved by assuming a fundamental object that mediates light and gravity between all atoms. In this conception both the atoms and the fundamental object have form, are finite, and contain each other. Atoms contain the fundamental objects, and the fundamental objects contain atoms. They set limits or boundaries to one another. The fundamental object has form of itself. It is the finest form and has some singular qualities such as the ability to superpose, intersect or overlap up to a critical density exemplified when two protons collide. This fundamental object doesn't need human ideas such as space to retain its form. It simply is.  It acts and reacts in accord with Newton's Law. It is topologically invariant if you want. This fundamental object never increases in length, width or height. Its just there. It imparts form to the atoms (in other words the atoms derive their form from these fundamental objects).  This is something that space cannot possibly do. And these mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms, again a work which space cannot possibly do.  Concepts, such as space cannot possibly perform causal relations such as containment or impart form or serve as the nexus of gravity or radiation. We need a form, a finite object to do such things. And we need to brainstorm it's qualities.  This is what sanity calls for!
The fundamental objects are like life lines beginning and ending on all protons and neutrons of the Universe and this might be the reason that the motion of the atomic 'central point' is so complex. . . If every single atom is always taking on a succession of locations(motion) then this would immediately influence every single other proton or neutron of the Universe. The proton or neutron has to constantly adjust itself or shift itself or reform itself to maintain its inherent connection to all others via the fundamental object which is probably thread-like. Its like hair.  Its not like these threads are ever going to literally annihilate or be created. They are always there, just impossible to detect individually unless there is a collision of protons where all these threads fight for a single location when the threads are all bunched and crunched together. . . hence the repulsion when protons and neutrons are .7 femtometers from each other.

One cannot possibly trace a beginning or an end to a proton or a neutron (or all H atoms) because the fundamental object that converge to impart form to a single proton or neutron . . . weave all protons and neutrons continuously. There is an underlying closed circle of this fundamental object. And this object is finite.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

Where does the CMBR fit into all this? We also need a source and mediator of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Assuming all the atoms of the Universe are connected by these fundamental objects, they would eventually end at the most distant Hydrogen atoms located at the "edges of the Universe" so to speak. These Hydrogen Atoms, call them the Omega Atoms, would assume an exotic form. Their form would not be spherical as an H atom located in the Milky Way Galaxy, since they are not fed fundamental objects from all directions of the sky. They would perhaps assume a sort of shallow angled pyramidal form. In other words these Hydrogen atoms would only have a "line of sight" or direction inwards and not outwards. They would supply fundamental objects to each and every atom located within a sphere which they themselves form. And because of their exotic form, if follows they would behave in a different mode then your run of the mill H atom in the Milky Way.  Perhaps these would emit in exotic electron transitions in a consistent manner.  Following from form, there signals could be more frequent, as if from the surface of a star.  There is nothing dull or prosaic about these hypothesized atoms.  There is nothing like them in the Universe.  So with this basic idea I suggest there is no need to assume a fake black body.

Instead of a dense ball of Hydrogen fog that cools and is expanded by a concept (such as space, dark energy or whatever) we would have a thin fog of exotic H atoms, where all the fundamental objects which mediate light and gravity as well as constitute all the atoms . . . end in all directions.  There are no atoms beyond the Omega Atoms.  Consequently no light can pass this wall, since the nexus object which mediates light is not only inherent to all atoms, but also can only begin and end on all atoms.  Thus the idea that there is a "last scattering surface" is supplanted by simply hypothesizing these exotic Omega Atoms.

These Omega Atoms are more or less evenly distributed, encircling all the stars and galaxies. These could be in a plasma like state because of their exotic form.  They could be emitting in forbidden electron transitions, by way of the fundamental objects which all converge on the Planck Telescope or any other object of the Universe. The distances and density of these Omega Atoms would vary pending direction in the sky. There would still be redshift due to the exceedingly great lengths as well as nature of the unique fundamental objects interconnecting all atoms.  Along these great lengths of EM Rope, the signals are less and less frequent in the way to all atoms of the Universe, including the Omega Atoms on the opposite side.  And there would still be anisotropies.  Galaxies would still move toward and/or away from each other via inertia.

And some of these so called Omega Atoms may be there vibrating for trillions of years.  Who knows?  Atoms are separated at great distances, thus there is (and was) never a threat that they would all contract into a single ball since gravity is clearly a function of distance.  Due to the nature of these fundamental objects, constituting and interconnecting all atoms, g
ravity forcibly works in an inverse square regime. In terms of a graph there is a steep downward slope to Newton's equations. If stars or interstellar clouds are separated by great distances they will never mutually work enough pull to bring them together in a 'contraction'. It doesn't matter how large their masses are! The so called energy density thins out so to speak.  In terms of gravity, stars separated by great distances work each other as if they were single hydrogen atoms with a net tug of the lowest possible ratio, namely Big G. And this is balanced out by about the same from radially all other directions. Einstein never had to add a hypothetical cosmological constant to maintain equilibrium.  

With the Omega Atoms, perhaps every once in a while some are lead within the conceptual sphere of the stars and galaxies. They would reform from a sort of half spherical form to a full spherical form. And on the same token perhaps every once in a while a group of atoms within the Omega Sphere are pushed out by exotic stars or galaxies, so that they make their way out to help form it, thus becoming Omega Atoms and helping to form what we could call the Omega Wall.  If we mapped out the CMBR billions of years from now perhaps it would look a little different. The so called CMB structure on the maps would appear differently because of unpredictable shifts and reformations of the Omega Wall.  So I put forward this experiment.  13.8 billion years from now, launch another satellite and remeasure the CMBR.  Oops I forgot . . . we won't make it that long.

If you haven't yet noticed my suggestion is like turning the Big Bang concept on its head. Its like we are in an immense spherical wall of exotic H atoms and they supply the web of zillions of these fundamental objects along which the signals are conveyed.  And these converge on the satellites that study CMBR as well as all stars and galaxies, since all are interconnected, each to the other by a single fundamental object (an EM Rope).  So I don't think there is any need to question the validity of the CMBR data, or redshift. All that is needed is a purge and rethinking of basic ideas.


It is like Nietzsche said. We really ought to get over the seduction of words! Infinite is a "god word" Undefined, misunderstood, misconceived, misused, overused, abused, confused, reified, deified, mythologized, etc. Infinite is an ontological contradiction. An oxymoron. We could use it to describe concepts since all concepts lack bounds or limits, but this is cheating and missing the point. One day some guy was fooling around with prefixes and out comes rhetoric and poetry. The physicists from a few hundred years ago pick up on this and start messing around with this word without thinking things through.

Universe is just an high order abstraction. Just an idea. Universe nests together the notions of space and of matter. Its sort of a binary conceptual system used throughout history. Universe refers to a concept category and lacks the primary quality of all objects, namely, form. And Universe, let alone space cannot possibly impart causal relations or undergo change effects such as expand, contract, accelerate, perform, inform, and so on. 

The Principle of Explosion (Critical Thinking Fallacy)

My new favorite critical thinking fallacy.

"The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso quodlibet, "from a falsehood, anything follows", or ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, "from a contradiction, anything follows"), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its negation) can be inferred from it." (Wiki)

Abstract from Ex Contradictione Sequitir Quodlibet by Walter A. Carnielli , João Marcos

"We summarize here the main arguments, basic research lines, and results on the foundations of the logics of formal inconsistency. These involve, in particular, some classes of well-known paraconsistent systems. We also present their semantical interpretations by way of possible-translations semantics and their applications to human reasoning and machine reasoning. 1 1. Do we need to worry about inconsistency? Classical logic, as we all know, cannot survive contradictions. Among the principles that were gradually incorporated into the “properties of correct reasoning ” since Aristotle, the Principle of Pseudo-Scotus (PPS), also known since medieval times as ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet (and also called the Principle of Explosion by some contemporary logicians), states that in any theory exposed to the enzymatic character of a contradiction A and ÏA one can derive any other arbitrary sentence B, so that the theory would turn out to be trivial."

I think we should apply this one to Big-Bloated-Bang.  

Monday, August 10, 2015

Laudato Si # 59

59. At the same time we can note the rise of a false or superficial ecology which bolsters complacency and a cheerful recklessness. As often occurs in periods of deep crisis which require bold decisions, we are tempted to think that what is happening is not entirely clear. Superficially, apart from a few obvious signs of pollution and deterioration, things do not look that serious, and the planet could continue as it is for some time. Such evasiveness serves as a licence to carrying on with our present lifestyles and models of production and consumption. This is the way human beings contrive to feed their self-destructive vices: trying not to see them, trying not to acknowledge them, delaying the important decisions and pretending that nothing will happen.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Cultural and Social Critique in Quotes

We had fed the heart fantasy,
The heart's grown brutal from the fare.

--- W.B. Yeats from The Stare's Nest By My Window

Now the death of God combined with the perfection of the image has brought us to a whole new state of expectation. We are the image. We are the viewer and the viewed. There is no other distracting presence. And that image has all the Godly powers. It kills at will. Kills effortlessly. Kill beautifully. It dispenses morality. Judges endlessly. The electronic image is man as God and the ritual involved leads us not to a mysterious Holy Trinity but back to ourselves. In the absence of a clear understanding that we are now the only source, these images cannot help but return to the expression of magic and fear proper to idolatrous societies. This in turn facilitates the use of electronic image as propaganda by whoever can control some part of it.

 ---John Ralston Saul, Voltaire's Bastards, 460

We risk being the first people in history to have been able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive, so "realistic" that they can live in them. We are the most illusioned people on earth. Yet we dare not become disillusioned, because our illusions are the very house in which we live; they are our news, our heroes, our adventure, our forms of art, our very experience. . . an image is something we have a claim on. It must serve our purposes. Images are means. If a corporation's image of itself or a man's image of himself is not useful, it is discarded. Another may fit better. The image is made to order, tailored to us. An ideal, on the other hand, has a claim on us. It does not serve us; we serve it. If we have trouble striving towards it, we assume the matter is with us, and not with the ideal.

--- Daniel Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, 240, 198

The camera has created a culture of celebrity; the computer is creating a culture of connectivity. As the two technologies converge---broadband tipping the Web from text to image; social networking sites spreading the mesh of interconnection ever wider the two cultures betray a common impulse. Celebrity and connectivity are both ways of becoming known. This is what the contemporary self wants. It wants to be recognized, wants to be connected: It wants to be visible. If not to the millions, on Survivor or Oprah, then to the hundreds on Twitter or Facebook. This is the quality that validates us, this is how we become real to ourselves---by being seen by others. The great contemporary terror is anonymity. If Lionel Trilling was right, if the property that grounded the self in Romanticism was sincerity, and in modernism was authenticity, then in postmodernism it is visibility.

---William Deresiewicz, The Chronicle of Higher Education "The End of Solitude" B6)

Capitalism originally sought to police play and pleasure, because any attempt to replace work as the central life interest threatened the economic survival of the system. The family, the state, and religion engendered a variety of patterns of moral regulation to control desire and ensure compliance with the system of production. However, as capitalism developed, consumer culture and leisure time expanded. The principles that operated to repress the individual in the workplace and the home were extended to the shopping mall and recreational activity. The entertainment industry and consumer culture produced what Herbert Marcuse called "repressive desublimation." Through this process individuals unwittingly subscribed to the degraded version of humanity."

--- Chris Rojek, Celebrity

What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared that the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

 --- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Nearly everything we do to enlarge our world, to make life more interesting, more varied, more exciting, more vivid, more "fabulous," more promising, in the long run has an opposite effect. In the extravagance of our expectations and in our ever increasing power, we transform elusive dreams into graspable images within with each of us can fit. By doing so we mark the boundaries of our world with a wall of mirrors. Our strenuous and elaborate efforts to enlarge experience have the unintended result of narrowing it. In frenetic quest for the unexpected, we end by finding only the unexpectedness we have planned for ourselves. We meet ourselves coming back.

 ---Boorstin, The Image, 61

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, the University of Toronto, and the Paris Institute of Political Studies, along with the most elite schools, do only a mediocre job of teaching students to question and think. They focus instead, through the filter of standardized tests, enrichment activities, AP classes, high-priced tutors, swanky private schools, entrance exams, and blind deference to authority, on creating hordes of competent system managers. Responsibility for the collapse of the global economy runs in a direct line from the manicured quadrangles and academic halls of Cambridge, New Haven, Toronto, and Paris to the financial and political centers of power. . . The elite universities disdain honest intellectual inquiry, which is by its nature distrustful of authority, fiercely independent, and often subversive. They organize learning around minutely specialized disciplines, narrow answers, and rigid structures designed to produce such answers. The established corporate hierarchies these institutions service--economic, political, and social---come with clear parameters, such as the primacy of an unfettered free market, and also with a highly specialized vocabulary. This vocabulary, a sign of the "specialist" and, of course, the elitist, thwarts universal understanding. It keeps the uninitiated from asking unpleasant questions. It destroys the search for the common good. It dices disciplines, faculty, students, and finally experts, into tiny, specialized fragments. It allows students and faculty to retreat into these self-imposed fiefdoms and neglect the most pressing moral, political, and cultural questions. . . These elite universities have banished self-criticism. They refuse to question a self-justifying system. Organization, technology, self-advancement, and information systems are the only thing that matters.

 ---Christ Hedges, Empire of Illusion, 89-90

a technique of apparent learning, of acquiring facts. He learns how to receive a purely literate education, one using only a small part of his personality and challenging only a limited area of his being. He begins to see life as a ladder, as a permanent examination with some praise and some further exhortation at each stage. He becomes an expert imbiber and doler-out; his competence will vary, but will rarely be accompanied by genuine enthusiasm. He rarely feels the reality of knowledge, of other men's thoughts and imaginings, on his own pulses; he rarely discovered an author for himself and on his own. In this half of his life he can respond only if there is a direct connection with the system of training. He has something of the blinkered pony about him; sometimes he is trained by those who have been through the same regimen, who are hardly unblinkered themselves, and who praise him in the degree to which he takes comfortably to the blinders. Though there is a powerful, unidealistic, unwarmed realism about his attitude at bottom, that is his chief form of initiative; of other forms---the freely-ranged mind, the bold flying of mental kites, the courage to reject some 'lines' even though they are officially as important as all the rest-of these he probably has little, and his training does not often encourage them.

---Richard Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy, 229

Men do not become what by nature they are meant to be, but what society makes them. The generous feelings, and high propensities of the soul are, as it were, shrunk up, seared, violently wrenched, and amputated, to fit us for our intercourse with the world, something in the manner that beggars maim and mutilate their children, to make them fit for their future situation in life.

---From Memoirs of Thomas Holcroft

Ironically, the universities have trained hundreds of thousands of graduates for jobs that soon will not exist. They have trained people to maintain a structure that cannot be maintained. The elite as well as those equipped with narrow, specialized vocational skills, know only how to feed the beast until it dies. Once it is dead, they will be help-less. Don't expect them to save us. They don't know how. They do not even know how to ask questions. And when it all collapses, when our rotten financial system with its trillions in worthless assets implodes and our imperial wars end in humiliation and defeat, the power elite will be exposed as being as helpless, and as self-deluded, as the rest of us.

 ---Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion, 114

There is a dark, insidious quality to the ideology promoted by the positive psychologists. They condemn all social critics and iconoclasts, the dissidents and individualists, for failing to surrender and seek fulfillment in the collective lowing of the corporate herd. They strangle creativity and moral autonomy. They seek to mold and shape individual human beings into a compliant collective. The primary teaching of this movement, which reflects the ideology of the corporate state, is that fulfillment is to be found in complete and total social conformity, a conformity that all totalitarian and authoritarian structures seek to impose on those they dominate. Its false promise of harmony and happiness only increases internal anxiety and feelings of inadequacy. The nagging undercurrents of alienation and the constant pressure to exhibit a false enthusiasm and buoyancy destroy real relationships. The loneliness of a work life where self-presentation is valued over authenticity and one must always be upbeat and positive, no matter what one's actual mood or situation, is disorienting and stressful. That awful feeling that being positive may not, in fact, work if one is laid off or becomes sick must be buried and suppressed. Here, in the land of happy thoughts, there are no gross injustices, no abuses of authority, no economic and political systems to challenge, and no reason to complain. Here, we are all happy.

---Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion, 138-39