New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[George]: Am I right Tom, is this the Logic behind <u>"your"</u> claim to the "Essence of Existence?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Your wording lacks rigor, but seems qualitatively correct. "Nothing" can't become "something", and "something" can't become "nothing". Therefore, because some things exist, their essence must have always existed, even though their form keeps changing. -|Tom|-

One can prove anything if false premises or invalid logic are admitted.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: Then, existence ex-creation is possible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Do you know the meaning of "non sequitur"? -|Tom|-

That fallacy and the list of the other fallacies that follow can be found in the arguments you have made over time regarding your "always existing universe, filled with gravitos travelling at billion times c and colliding with matter to cause gravitational attraction".




<b>Non Sequitur</b> Idea disconnected Conclusion does not follow from premise

<b>False Analogy</b> Faulty comparison, eg. apples and oranges Premises are not comparable

<b>False Authority</b> Apparent expert isn't one on this subject Premise may be untrue

<b>Red Herring</b> Irrelevant issue, distraction Premise is irrelevant

<b>Faulty Causality</b> A happens, then B happens, so A caused B Conclusion is not a necessary deduction

<b>Circular Reasoning</b> A is true if B is; but B is true only if A is too One premise alone is insufficient

<b>Evading burden of proof</b> A and B are true; let C disprove them itself C may require a different conclusion

<b>Faulty Generalization</b> A and B are true, so all others must be Mistakes overlap for inclusion

<b>Slippery slope</b> extended faulty causality; A and B so Z Conclusion does not follow directly

<b>Simplification</b> denies complexity of circumstance Excludes necessary premises

<b>Either-or</b> reduces results to only two cases Excludes alternative conclusions

<b>Double standard</b> higher burden of proof on opponent Denies validity of inconvenient syllogisms

<b>Bandwagon effect</b> A and B believe, so C need not test belief Peer pressure displaces logic

<b>Flattery</b> lures with implied approval Positive emotion displaces logic

<b>Negative emotion</b> displaces logic

<b>Poisoning the Well</b> pre-empts reasoned response to argument Opposing premises disqualified prematurely

<b>Ad hominem attack</b> against the individual vs the idea Evades reasoned argument

<b>The straw man</b> creates an artificial image to attack Premises are untrue


haven't see the following to be honest:

<b>Veiled threat</b> discourages with alarmist or threatening language

<b>Loaded language</b> enforced bias Diction displaces logic

Tom,

I think to me the issues come down to drawing a line in the sand and saying that what exists in our universe by virtue of observation, logic and physical laws (excluding the assume energy cannot be created nor destroyed" dictates that we find we did come into existance from nothing. In the same manner that particle pairs come into and vanish from the Chiral Condensate.

I grant you and I accept that whatever that is may be "Someting" not "Nothing" in some form beyond our physical Universe. Yur view I believe is that it is part of our Universe. That is where I find the conflict.

I believe we can make a statement about our existance as coming from nothing in terms of our physical connection but the orgin is an influx from creation that is beyond our Universe and therefore is an entirely a seperate issue and question.

That comes down to your view that "Nothing" isn't actually nothing but is "Something". In that regard I would agree but I believe it belongs in studies and reference to that which is beyond our universe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: That fallacy and the list of the other fallacies that follow can be found in the arguments you have made over time regarding your "always existing universe, filled with gravitos travelling at billion times c and colliding with matter to cause gravitational attraction".

<b>Non Sequitur</b> Idea disconnected Conclusion does not follow from premise

...

<b>The straw man</b> creates an artificial image to attack Premises are untrue<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Your whole post is a straw man argument inasmuch as it is a claim without example or justification and has nothing to do with the point you were responding to.

That point was a non sequitur argument in your previous "syllogism". Plaese address yourself to that step in your own argument and show how it follows from the premises. If it does not follow from the premises, then your argument is invalidated. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: I grant you and I accept that whatever that is may be "Someting" not "Nothing" in some form beyond our physical Universe. Your view I believe is that it is part of our Universe. That is where I find the conflict.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I defined "universe" as "everything that exists". So every "something" must be part of our universe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>...the orgin is an influx from creation that is beyond our Universe...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You are free to use your own definitions of words if you at least state them. What is "our universe" and what is "beyond our universe"? I watch "Star Trek" too. But allusions to science fiction concepts do not substitute for rigorous definitions in physics.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>That comes down to your view that "Nothing" isn't actually nothing but is "Something".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I do not recognize this view as "mine". Moreover, it looks self-contradictory to me. -|Tom|-