New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5281 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...] You just finished saying every form in the MM has an antecedent cause.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Right. Every form. No exceptions.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So, a form that has no antecedent cause would have no cause.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Also right. But it refers to a null set. There can be no such form. It would violate the causality principle.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Or if a form was not caused by substance, it is also without "cause" since being caused meant arising from other forms of the same substance.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Also meaningless, because there can be no such thing as a form not caused by substance.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This is the same thing as "coming from nothing" except nothing can be a more general term than is used. It's something other than substance. Or under your definition of substance, it is something that doesn't occupy space as we know it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Because you are still referring to the null set of uncaused forms, this statement too is irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You keep calling it a miracle for something to come from nothing but in your model something did come from "nothing" since no explanation or cause is needed for substance to exist.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Change of any kind clearly requires a cause. Existence only requires a cause if it changed from non-existence to existence sometime in the past. But if existence is eternal, it does not require a cause. It is not a form.

To the extent that substance changes (as when it changes form), it requires a cause. To the extent that it has a property that never changes (existence), no cause is needed.

Existence (eternal) is to forms (limited)
as the universe (infinite) is to any substance (finite)
as the set of all integers (infinite) is to the integers themselves (finite).

I'm not saying these infinities are easy to comprehend. But using Gamow's technique of one-to-one correspondences, it is possible to comprehend them. Then eternal time can be understood in the same way as infinite space and infinitely divisible scale. Dimensions are infinite, even though everything they measure is finite. -|Tom|-

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

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5282 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...] You just finished saying every form in the MM has an antecedent cause.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Right. Every form. No exceptions.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So, a form that has no antecedent cause would have no cause.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Also right. But it refers to a null set. There can be no such form. It would violate the causality principle.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Or if a form was not caused by substance, it is also without "cause" since being caused meant arising from other forms of the same substance.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Also meaningless, because there can be no such thing as a form not caused by substance.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This is the same thing as "coming from nothing" except nothing can be a more general term than is used. It's something other than substance. Or under your definition of substance, it is something that doesn't occupy space as we know it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Because you are still referring to the null set of uncaused forms, this statement too is irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You keep calling it a miracle for something to come from nothing but in your model something did come from "nothing" since no explanation or cause is needed for substance to exist.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Change of any kind clearly requires a cause. Existence only requires a cause if it changed from non-existence to existence sometime in the past. But if existence is eternal, it does not require a cause. It is not a form.

To the extent that substance changes (as when it changes form), it requires a cause. To the extent that it has a property that never changes (existence), no cause is needed.

Existence (eternal) is to forms (limited)
as the universe (infinite) is to any substance (finite)
as the set of all integers (infinite) is to the integers themselves (finite).

I'm not saying these infinities are easy to comprehend. But using Gamow's technique of one-to-one correspondences, it is possible to comprehend them. Then eternal time can be understood in the same way as infinite space and infinitely divisible scale. Dimensions are infinite, even though everything they measure is finite. -|Tom|-

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

Using the number line as analogy, substance would be the integers. We can say that a change in form is a change from one integer to the next and the rule of sequence as the causality principle, i.e., 1 causes 2 is the cause of 3, ad infinitum. Now, the integers and the number line may be thought of to exist eternally but this doesn't say anything about where the integer and the number line rules come from. Saying that the integers and the rules governing the number line just existed always and without cause requires a miracle on the same scale as that of Creationism.

Speaking of which, I think it is more meaningful to discuss existence as in the existence of rules than existence of substance. A substance can be anything or it can be nothing. This is an empty description of what it is. An integer is just a place holder for something that has a set of rules for its existence- it doesn't mean anything unless we ascribe rules and properties to it. Even in the MM, the property of occupying space and the rule of causality needed to be attributed to the idea of substance. So the larger question is whether a set having causality principle is created, evolved, or is eternal (aka without cause).

If it is created or evolved, the set arose from an essence that did not obey the causality principle. I refer to this state as "non existence" as opposed to existence. Then, existence as occupied by
a substance that obeyed the causality principle can be said to arose from a "substance" that did not obey the causality principle.

If the nature of existence (or causality) was eternal however, a true miracle is required since all the substance in the universe, the infinite of them, would all somehow intrinsically have a set of rules of behaviour and properties out of the blue.

In short, I don't think it makes any sense to base an eternal existence under a static causality model even if the essence of the universe
is eternal.

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5580 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Tom,

I actually find your arguement the very basis of religion.

quote:
*************************
"Existence from nothing" means there was a time when things were different, an evolution or aging of the universe, a change from one state to a fundamentally different state. That is the idea that requires a miracle. Are you so accustomed to thinking in terms of origins that require miracles that it has become alien to you to consider seriously the one possibility that requires no miracle? -|Tom|-
*************************

Religion was formed as a means to supply answers where knowledge failed. Since they didn't understand how worms appeared in a rain barrel it was a miracle. Not understanding 0

>(+n)+(-n) does not require a miracle, it requires study and time to understand.

To have always existed without ever having been created. Now that requires a miracle.

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

n/a4
Offline
New Member

21 years 8 months ago #5582 by n/a4

Replied by n/a4 on topic Reply from George

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

I actually find your arguement the very basis of religion.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Tom, What principles of physics does your concept follow?

Wouldn't existence without cause be a miracle?

How is what you are saying any different from religion?

Sincerely,

George Moore

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5288 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What principles of physics does your concept follow?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The six principles of physics are:

every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause
no process backwards in time
no true instantaneous action at a distance
no creation ex nihilo
no demise ad nihil
the finite cannot become infinite

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Wouldn't existence without cause be a miracle?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Any thing without a cause would be a miracle. But "existence" is not a thing that exists. It is an intellectual concept. We have only two possibilities to explain the origin of existence (as distinct from the changing of forms):
(a) Nothing became something.
(b) Existence always was and always will be.

(a) requires a miracle. (b) does not. So (b) is the choice mandated by the principles of physics.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How is what you are saying any different from religion?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Apparently, it is not different to some of the folks participating in this discussion. But I see it as different because (b) requires eternal time and no miracle, whereas (a) requires finite time and a miracle.

I don't know what to say to those who cannot imagine something existing forever, and who therefore insist that an initial miracle must have occurred. The miracle and finite existence scenario is the opposite of "existing forever". And "unimaginable" (a limitation of our thought processes) is very different from "miraculous" (requiring something incapable of being produced by nature, or the impossible, or a supernatural being).

While this discussion has been interesting, and I complement all who participated in it, we now seem to be going in circles and repeating ourselves. The conclusion seems to be that some of us are more comfortable with a First Cause and a miracle, while others of us are more comfortable with existence being eternal. Unless someone has a brainstorm, we seem to have stopped making progress and fresh arguments.

In brief summary of my position, I flatly reject the notion that there is no difference between the two positions. I see "existence had to be caused from nothing" as meaning that the time for existence, however great, has been finite up to now. Whereas eternal existence means it has not been finite up to now. This is analogous to someone who insists that the set of integers, however large, cannot be literally infinite because all integers are finite, and we cannot name any integer that is anything but finite. Nonetheless, the concept is infinite, whether someone's imagination can grasp that or not. -|Tom|-

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

n/a4
Offline
New Member

21 years 8 months ago #5289 by n/a4

Replied by n/a4 on topic Reply from George

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Tom)Any thing without a cause would be a miracle. But "existence" is not a thing that exists. It is an intellectual concept.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
So...How is what you are saying any different then what I was saying about "NOTHING" and "EVERYTHING"?

Here is another of your quotes:
"There is another possibility: That it always existed. -|Tom|-"

Wrong, you just said "existence is a thing that doesn't exist" therefore if it doesn't exist it could not have always existed.

I have to say, and please take this as constructive critisism, SHAME ON YOU! You said earlier in this thread that you don't like "NAME GAMES" yet here you are trying to justify two different statements. You criticize my paradox as false yet claim "The "way out" of this circular reasoning is the one invoked by the Meta Model." Are you trying to develope science or are you trying to form a cult?

I'm afraid you are losing credibility here, you might want to try and save face by clearly stating you position or at least admit and claim confusion. At this point I can't imagine anyone, including yourself, knowing whether you are coming or going.

Sincerely,

George Moore

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

Time to create page: 0.329 seconds