New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5337 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: If substance is the essence of forms, and this essence is eternal, how can forms be finite in duration?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Suppose substance was just atoms and atoms were eternal. Nonetheless, everything made of atoms -- molecules, compounds, water drops, bricks, asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies, ... -- has a finite lifetime and eventually explodes, decays, or gets absorbed. So that is a parallel example of finite forms being made of eternal substance.

Does that answer your question? -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I just gave that analogy (alkali and halogen combine to form a salt). But I used it only under the assumption that there were irreducible forms. In your reply, you stipulated further that substances were not irreducible, that they were infinitely divisible. Under this stipulation, your analogy fails since now every form is a substance so that every form must be eternal. And if they are eternal, they can't also be finite.

Or using your beloved integer set analogy, it would be like if we started out with the whole integer set instead of only the odd integers. Here, no matter how you add the integers, 1 +3, 2+5, 3+7, etc., you end up with an integer that has the properties defined by being an element in the integer set. You end up with another integer. So if existence is a property of elements in the integer set, for example, no matter how you add the integers, you end up with another integer that must be eternal.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5654 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Its the old what came first game,the chicken or the egg? Why go on and on with these kind of questions? They are all alike and none can be answered correctly.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

which came first? for a chicken to be born it has to come from an egg laid by a chicken not any hybrid between the two but just a chicken-so the chicken had to come first. it all depends on evolutionary theory but a 'thoroughbred' chicken would be needed to lay a real chicken egg. lol

dave

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Heheh - Nah, gonna have to disagree with you there, beasties evolve through changes in their DNA. DNA from the male and female combine to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new beastie. This then divides a shedload of times to form all of the cells needed for the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote.

Chickens evolved from pre- or non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. When that new zygote cell divided, it produced the first true chicken.

Before the advent of the first chicken zygote, there were only pre- and non- chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell resides firmly in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.

Of course, if you don't believe in evolution, the above is a load of toffee.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I think the egg came first for chickens and eggs. The mule is mostly infertile so the egg that produced them had to have come first. But the first living organism probably was probably asexual and wasn't the result of some reproductive process that already existed. So, maybe the chicken came first if we were speaking of the first living organism.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5655 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: you stipulated further that substances were not irreducible, that they were infinitely divisible. Under this stipulation, your analogy fails since now every form is a substance so that every form must be eternal. And if they are eternal, they can't also be finite.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Forms are made of substance. They are not the same thing as substance.

I just explained that every infinitely divisible form is finite in duration, even though the substance (or atoms) from which it is composed are eternal. That is because the substance (like atoms) just moves on from form to form as time continues. The only contradiction I see here is in your denial of the properties of forms and substance. Specifically, forms are temporary and substance is eternal. Please explain in detail what is bothering you about this.

You yourself are a form. You are presumably temporary. Yet the atoms that make up your body were all "borrowed" from other forms, mainly from things you eat or breathe. Someday, those same atoms will be recycled again into some other form. This all seems perfectly routine.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Or using your beloved integer set analogy, it would be like if we started out with the whole integer set instead of only the odd integers. Here, no matter how you add the integers, 1 +3, 2+5, 3+7, etc., you end up with an integer that has the properties defined by being an element in the integer set. You end up with another integer. So if existence is a property of elements in the integer set, for example, no matter how you add the integers, you end up with another integer that must be eternal.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Um, the set of all integers is infinite, not "eternal". So your last sentence should read "no matter how you add the integers, you end up with another integer that must be infinite", which is obviously false.

In an analogous way, when we add temporary forms made of eternal substance together, as happened to make your body, we get another temporary form (you).

I still see no hint of a problem here, yet see you struggling with this concept. I do not see why. But then, I didn't understand why you introduced the concept of "irreducible" because whether forms are irreducible or infinitely divisible makes no difference to this argument. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 8 months ago #5656 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

I find most of the arguments made in these threads irrelevant to the main issue of the discussion, which is if "infinity" can be part of this universe in any way, physical or non-physical.

Reading old posts by TVF, he argues that the universe is "infinite" in dimensions, mass, time and scale. I would like if possible for TVF to clarify is he has changed his mnind and whether he still insists an infinite universe exists as above, or he has changed his mind and limited the use of infinity to non-physical existence. Specifically, my questions to TVF are:

1. Is the univese infinite in physical dimensions in the MM?
2. Is the total mass(energy) of the universe infinite?
3. Has the universe been in existence for an infinite time? If yes,
which of (1) and (2) above are true or false?

Some answers will assist in determining the real issues of this debate.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5338 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I find most of the arguments made in these threads irrelevant to the main issue of the discussion, which is if "infinity" can be part of this universe in any way, physical or non-physical.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Different people have problems with different aspects of the model. 123's issues are no less valid or important than yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Reading old posts by TVF, he argues that the universe is "infinite" in dimensions, mass, time and scale. I would like if possible for TVF to clarify is he has changed his mind and whether he still insists an infinite universe exists as above, or he has changed his mind and limited the use of infinity to non-physical existence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I have not changed my mind about the universe being infinite. But existence, like infinity or eternity, is a concept, not a tangible, material thing. In that sense, and only in that sense, existence and eternity (much like "the set of all integers") are "non-physical". Nonetheless, they are real concepts that accurately describe attributes (properties) of the real universe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>1. Is the universe infinite in physical dimensions in the MM?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Dimensions are likewise concepts, and are not physical (material, tangible) entities. But with that exclusion understood, then yes, the universe is infinite in all five of its dimensions (space, time, scale).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>2. Is the total mass(energy) of the universe infinite?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Again, yes. But "total mass" is a concept analogous to "the set of all integers". It is not a material, tangible thing. It merely describes a count or totaling of material, tangible things. The count of sum or weight or mass of finite forms can be infinite even though all forms are finite, just as the count of all integers is infinite even though all integers are finite.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>3. Has the universe been in existence for an infinite time?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Yes. Every form is temporary, but the universe of all forms is eternal. This is again analogous to integers versus the set of all integers.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If yes, which of (1) and (2) above are true or false?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

With the clarifications listed, all are true. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 8 months ago #5340 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Questions from JoeW:

1. Is the univese infinite in physical dimensions in the MM?
2. Is the total mass(energy) of the universe infinite?
3. Has the universe been in existence for an infinite time?

From TVF:

With the clarifications listed, all are true. -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Thank you for the answers to the questions posed.

Can you describe then a mechanism which would limit the formation of an infinite physical form in a universe that is infinite in any conceptual sense, nevertheless, finite in every form.

The definition of Cantorian infinite set of integers is that for every integer N, there exists a next integer N+1.

Let recal that inf+inf=inf, in infinity mathematics. Then, the existence of an infinite physical form, like a star of infinite mass would not violate the infinite structure of such a universe, except if there is a mechanism to limit formation of such a form. I understand that "the finite cannot become infinite" postulate prevents an already finite form from becoming infinite but what about already existing infinite physical forms. In other words:

How does the use of infinity in MM prevent the existence of infinite physical forms in infinite time?

It seems to me that if your answer is that infinite physical forms in infinite time are not allowed then you are missing another postulate. Simply by saying that "the finite cannot become infinite" does not account or accomodate for that possibility.

Also, keep in mind that by assuming infinite dimensions, mass and scale, finite arithmetic does not apply any longer. Your answer must be justified using infinite arithmetic. Attempting to justify claims of the infinite using finite arithmetic is a fallacy of "huge" proportions. Recall that inf+inf = inf, whereas in finite arithmetic inf is a variable and inf+inf=2*inf. That makes a "huge" difference. It is well known in mathmematics that an infinite set is a proper subset of itself and can be equivalent to one of its subsets.

It is therefore not clear that in the universe of the MM even standard mathematics can be used, such as finite arithmetic, functions, derivatives and integrals. The existence of limits for functions, series or derivatives must be justified in the context of non-standard analysis. Simply put, the MM is NEITHER an intuitive model NOR a mathematically justifiable model in standard analysis terms. It is much more ellusive that the standard model. Anyone with different opinion must first become aware of the great dillemas present in mathmatics due to the introduction of infinity and the resolutions presented by Bolzano, Hilbert, Zippin, Robinson and others. The proposed solutions turn out to be much less intuitive and complicated than expected.

Laymen are often intrigued by the use of the term infinity in a cosmological model and are skeptical of finite models of the world but scientist take the exactly opposite view due to the unresolved paradoxes that infinity poses.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.315 seconds