quote:
Originally posted by Tommy
I have not yet read about your MM Tom, because I want to get my ideas out first lest they be influenced by others.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
At best, that approach will allow you to reinvent the wheel. More probably, you will end up with a polygon as your invention. Reading the reasoning of the great minds that have gone before is the only way to get to the goal within a lifetime. "Contamination" is not a danger because we always have our filters operating and reject that which we do not understand, or understand well enough to disagree with. It is only ego that makes us want to solve the riddle of existence without the benefit of the thoughts of others.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I am just trying to help Tom. I am only trying to get my thoughts clear before I read yours. It was only your thoughts that I had in mind when I said I was stating my beliefs before I read of the other. I have solved the riddle of existence in my own mind, but not without the help of others. I don't know what you are up to yet, but up to a couple letters ago I could understand everything you said. Now you are sounding different, combative. I have read many of the great writers, I even constructed a web page with a collection of writings which you can see at
www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/seminar.html
I don't have my name on that until the very bottom, but I did that all by myself.
quote:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Poincare said that when looking for a universal, the simplest is most likely to be true. But there is another requirement, if a principle is universal, it will have to explain the simplest principle too. Thus the universal principle is the simplest principle. The First principle.
T <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">his is a case in point. Your entire argument went in circles, back and forth between "simplest" and "universal" or between "whole" and "parts". But this dichotomy rests on an assumption equivalent to a miracle: that existence itself had a beginning.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is a case in point of what? Didn't I start out with an assumption of wholeness? Since when can't I make assumptions, everyone else does it in science. At least I am up front about it. And what is wrong about Wholes and parts? I didn't make that up, they and relatinships make up the core of systems theory, and systems theory goes back a long long time. Remember, you have to look at or be able to see the whole pictuire, if you do it word at a time, it may appear circular to you. When I said beginning, I was referring to a physical beginning. I don't think I have any doubts that at one time everything was hygrogen. I don't think "existence" had a beginning. I do think that physical existence did have a beginning. I do not think either one of them came from absolute nothingness.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In MM, this Gordian knot is severed cleanly. All forms in the universe have a "beginning" when they are assembled or discharged from other pre-existing forms. And all forms have an "end" when they are assimilated by or disintegrate into other forms. But in none of these cases does any substance come into existence or go out of existence. Every bit of substance can be accounted for at all times, whatever form it has taken.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, this is playing a definition game. What about virtual particles? The standard explanation is that they can pop up from nothing only if they can pop back down before Heisenberg sees them. I think the problem I am having with this paragraph is the word "substance". Is the ZPE a substance? Are atoms even a substance? Schroedinger said that atoms are not made of a substance, but form, "pure shape" he said. So in one sense there is not such thing as "matter" Matter is just a name we give to the systemic organiztions of EM fields.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your chicken-egg dilemma is resolved. You don't have to decide whether the whole preceded the parts or vice versa because there were other "wholes" and "parts" that preceded them ad infinitum into the past. And the same will be true into the infinite future. Would it not be a miracle to have all the substance of the universe pass out of existence? If that were possible, surely the next nanosecond is just as vulnerable as the next eon, because you don't need time for substance to cease to exist; you just need a miracle. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I had no question about which came first the whole or the parts, I started out by making an assumption of starting with the whole instead of making the assumption of starting with the parts. I don't know what came before the Whole, and it is difficult to explain what we know about much less what is beyond what we do not know about.
Like I said, I am only trying to help, if I am not helping, good luck and so long.
tommy
Topic Author