anpheon

A "paradigm" is the set of premises upon which a discipline builds its conclusions. In ancient times the premises were reached by dialectics, i.e. logical argument. Thales was one of the earliest Greek philosophers to record the results of prior such arguments. Noting the obvious fact that material things exist, he stipulated that a material substance, the "Ylem", exists everywhere in space. He asserted that all material things are made of this single substance. Ensuing Greek philosophers then began their arguments, whose conclusions set up the paradigm upon which present Theoretical Physics rests.
      Though Physics subjects its conclusions to the test of physical experiment rather than pure argument, the conclusions so tested are consequences of the underlying premises; thus are not the basic premises themselves. The paradigm of the moment is called into question only when there is an unresolvable discrepancy between a given consequence and data provided by experimental measurements of events in the physical world. A "scientific revolution" occurred whenever any such underlying premise had to be revised accordingly.
      It is now thought that the most basic Greek premise of all, "matter per se exists and is the stuff of which all things are made", has been cancelled. It is said that matter is a form of energy. The first law of classical physics, "The conservation of matter", has now become "The conservation of energy".
      That conclusion, however, stems from a complex series of prior events. First, the Greek philosophers had not fully set forth the basic items of which the universe is made. Second, Newton defined his terms and set up his three laws of motion in accord with the paradigm reached by those philosophers. Third, the present definitions of the basic elements of Physics are derived from the equations set forth by Classical Physics as an expression of Newton's laws of motion. But the equations do not accurately express Newton's concepts nor, therefore, his laws. Fourth, Newton's concepts were based on false premises; and the present terms and definitions, though they are not quite Newton's, are just as false. Fifth, a series of hidden mathematical errors permeate the revolutionary papers that sired the present metaphysical foundations of Science.
      Far beneath the scene lay the real cause of what went wrong. The paradigm of modern Physics is a covering theory built on the paradigm of Classical Physics, which was incorrect all along. The real frontier of Theoretical Physics is not at the perimeters of its specialties; it is at square one: The basic metaphysical premise beneath its present paradigms is false.

A premise is an assumption, a hypothesis, a concept to be accepted as valid without proof. It is the "this" in "if this, then that"; where "this" is always to be taken as true and "that" is its logical consequence. An unrecognized premise exists; accepted as the fundamental "this is true" foundation of the paradigms of modern Science.

Some twenty-seven centuries ago Thales set forth his thesis that the universe is filled with a primary material substance, out of which all discrete material objects are made. Concerning the nature of the physical world, the ancient Greek Philosophers later set forth the three main themes that vied with each other for acceptance ever since. Noting the perfect regularity of certain heavenly patterns, Plato hypothesized that pure mathematical form is the essence of reality; wherefore the world revealed by our senses is an illusion. Noting how plants grow from tiny seeds, and an animal from a minute embryo, Aristotle postulated The Theory of Becoming, in which the basic items of nature change their properties and thereby themselves evolve. Others set forth the "Kinetic Atomic Theory", that matter is made of ultimate unchanging basic particles moving about in empty space. The latter became Newton's doctrine and has been carried by Modern Physics to its illogical conclusion that the ultimate particles, quarks, are "extensionless points". (Since an extensionless point is an imaginary mathematical construction this brings us back, as Heisenberg once announced, to the Platonic doctrine that pure form is the essence of reality and sense evidence is an illusion.)
In debating the consequences of Thales' opening theme, the Greek Philosophers' dialectic omitted one "yes or no" question. Without asking it, evidently they assumed the answer is No; and proceeded on that assumption. There is therefore an unstated postulate, a hidden premise, at the heart of every theory leading to and included in those of today. To discover that question, thus the secret premise that still persists, we will glance at "Science and First Principles", by F. S. Northrop; The MacMillan Co, N.Y. 1931; pg 8,

The kinetic-atomic theory, that matter (or energy) is made of discrete ultimate separate particles, is the primary plank in the scientific paradigm of today. Taken together with the portions I italicized above, it is supported by the belief summarized in Northrop's sentence, "The proof is absolutely sound; and so brilliant in character as to be almost humorous." But that proof rests on the unstated answer to the unasked question:

Is matter compressible?

It is a very simple question, with a yes or no answer. Without asking the question or perhaps even knowing it exists, present Theory rests on the answer: No. The single basic premise beneath the paradigms of modern science was introduced by the No assumed by the Greek philosophers thousands of years ago.
The "brilliant" argument is valid if and only if matter itself, the Ylem, is basically incompressible. Indeed, the entire ultimate-particle theory of matter rests on the very same assumption. At the far end of every consequence based on that opening premise lies total mystery. As of now the mystery is blamed on the way God made the world, rather than its real cause: The primary premise is false.

God is very proud if His creation. The product, Mankind, is miraculous in very many ways. Our "operating programs", however, are made by Man himself. Some of them, called "instinct", are imprinted in the materials forming our genes (which are analogous to tape recordings rather than blank chemical tapes), and some of them we learn from each other.
      Our inter-actions are ultimately governed by our conception of what the world physically is. That conception is based on what Science tells us about the basic structure of our universe. Science says it is a disembodied, totally impersonal place filled with separate charges of energy acting in automatic response to the probabilities specified by differential equations. No other causes and no values or deeper meanings exist in this world-view, upon which our philosophers and therefore, whether we know it or not, we ourselves decide how we should lead our lives.
      The world-view of present Science is false. The mental operating programs by which we live, written by ourselves based on that world-view, are therefore defective.
      Because Newton's unspoken hypothesis was false and because it has never been adequately corrected, there is a chaotic lack of precision in Physics' definitions; which fit neither Newton, our equations, nor physical reality. [That comment is not a criticism. It is offered in defense of both Newton and Physics. A man builds from where he starts, and he starts with what he knows, and what he knows at the start is what he was taught. If that was false, that's not his fault.] The immediate goal of this book is to help cure that defect by revising and completing all aspects of modern Physics.

_______________

      My analysis is powered by an entirely different metaphysical foundation than that of either Aristotle, Plato, Newton or present Science. Its basic premise was heard in the center of my head, spoken by a different voice and presumably a different entity than me. (That, in 1952, was the only time I ever heard such a voice.) It said, "Jerry!    Let matter be compressible."
      To me, that meant the space-filling material I was contemplating, made of separate incompressible almost infinitesimally small particles touching one another and moving about everywhere, does not necessarily consist of particles. It meant that a bodily compressible material could fill space without being particulate. My primary premise thus rests on the answer, "Yes!", to the ancient unasked question.
      The basic premise of this book is: A compressible material substance permeates all space everywhere. A compressible material can move within, around, upon and through itself merely be deforming and changing the volume bits of it occupy during such motions. Example: Consider a solid glass globe, say as large as our solar system, with a spherical red portion 1 inch wide embedded in it. Letting glass be incompressible, nothing could enter that globe and the red sphere could not move at all. Now consider a hollow solid glass globe filled with a compressible material - say air - with a spherical red marble 1 inch wide embedded in it. Letting the globe have a portal into it, anything could enter or leave and the red marble could move all over the place. We could, for instance, insert many more red marbles into the globe merely by compressing the air that already completely filled it.
      A compressible material can conduct pressure changes merely by bodily deforming in the act of conducting such changes through itself. An easily movable compressible material can form into all the many-patterned things that constitute particulate matter.

Aware that modern Physics denies the existence of a space-filling material medium I extensively analyzed the reasons for such a denial; and found conceptual and mathematical errors everywhere. The denial is conceptually and mathematically invalid. (This has been written up in a dozen or so uncirculated prior books, wherefore I will not argue these matters in here.) Those who are familiar with the accepted theories and would automatically reject a contrary view are advised to study some of those prior books; the last of which was written a year ago to open the way for this one; which is presented in two Volumes.
Volume One is entitled "Physics". It will analyze the basic terms of Physics and the Newtonian concepts on which the definitions of those terms are based. These terms, including "atoms, mass, force, space and time" and others, will then be redefined. A major difficulty in that endeavor is to separate the useful conclusions due to Newton's impeccable logic from the implicit conclusions due to his defective metaphysics. Though Newton tried very hard to do exactly that, one's metaphysical premises are the only prior knowledge beneath one's step-by-step logic; and cannot be avoided no matter how hard one tries.

My analysis and redefinitions of the basic elements of Physics began only a few years ago. Because most of it is new, much of it developing during the very act of writing this book, Volume One will include some of the arguments that led to and justify the revisions we will reach. Because some of the revisions and redefinitions were finalized as they were being written, the arguments may be redundant. Since the analyses and revisions are based on a new and different metaphysics, relevant portions of this metaphysics will be explained as needed. Volume Two is entitled "Metaphysics". It is independent of the Physics discussed in Volume One but does continue the metaphysical story begun there.
Other than that it will help explain what God physically is, this work is not about religion nor psychic phenomena. The subjects are Metaphysics, Physics and Science. My musician friend said It told him, "God gives strength through prior knowledge." Metaphysics is the prior knowledge upon which the basic elements of Physics are defined. The new premise is, "Let matter be compressible." A premise contains within itself all its own consequences. I have been trying to reason them out ever since. This book presents the results.

In the Principia, Newton wrote,