New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 6 months ago #5329 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

TVF's position:
1. Forms are composed of substance.
2. New forms come from pre-existing substance.
3. Substance does not come from anything, it just is.

Using the alphabet as an analogy, this becomes:

1. Words are composed of letters.
2. New words come from pre-existing letters.
3. Letters do not come from anything, they just are.

"Comes from" and "does not come from" are logically opposite relationships- "comes from something" means has a cause, "doesn't come from anything" means without cause. But Without cause in
this context is synonymous with First Cause. So not only is the MM composed of logically opposite rules for the existence of forms and substances (even though forms are composed of substances), but it effectively assumes a First Cause for existence in general.

On a second look, I think there is a technical difference between MM's First Cause and existence ex-nihilo. An eternal existence without cause basically asserts that there was never "nothing" for substance to come from whereas existence ex-nihilo assumes there was "nothing" in which something came.

In other words, MM assumes substance is the cause of itself since it cannot have an outside cause since there never was an outside: existence is the cause of existence- if that is not a circular argument I don't know what is. At least in ex nihilo, one can perceive a cause outside of itself.

Going back to the alphabet analogy, it would be equivalent to saying the existence of letters is the cause of the existence of letters since there never was anything other than letters from which letters can come from. Sorry but I think it makes more sense to say that letters come from something other than letters. And more sense that substance comes from something other than substance. Call it coming from nothing if you must but at least this is preserving the causality argument.

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 6 months ago #5712 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: TVF's position:
1. Forms are composed of substance.
2. New forms come from pre-existing substance.
3. Substance does not come from anything, it just is.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

New forms come from old forms. Substance is simply the generic name for what everything is composed of, independent of its form. For example, at our scale, (hydrogen, helium, iron, uranium, ...) are to forms as elements are to substance.

Hydrogen doesn't "come from pre-existing elements"; it is an element. And forms don't come from pre-existing substance; they are substance.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Using the alphabet as an analogy, this becomes:
1. Words are composed of letters.
2. New words come from pre-existing letters.
3. Letters do not come from anything, they just are.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

But the alphabet is not infinite, so no valid analogy is possible. Both letters and words are forms.

How about this as the preamble:
1. Every integer is a member of the set of all integers.
2. Every integer is finite.
3. The set of all integers is infinite.

and its analog:
1. Every form is part of the universe.
2. Every form is finite in size and duration.
3. The universe is infinite in size and eternal in duration.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"Comes from" and "does not come from" are logically opposite relationships- "comes from something" means has a cause, "doesn't come from anything" means without cause. But without cause is synonymous with First Cause.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This last sentence is false. The last two phrases each equate something to "without cause". So those two things must equate to one another. This means "doesn't come from anything" and "comes from a First Cause" are supposed to be equated. But anyone can see that is self-contradictory. Your logic is flawed.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>An eternal existence without cause basically asserts that there was never "nothing" for substance to come from whereas existence ex-nihilo assumes there was "nothing" in which something came.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Good. Hold onto that distinction.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>existence is the cause of existence- if that is not a circular argument I don't know what is.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

We are agreed that is a circular argument. But you apparently don't realize it is uniquely yours. I've said repeatedly that existence is not something that exists. It is not an effect, so it cannot have a cause. [Dictionary definition of "effect": a change or changed state occurring as a direct result of action by somebody or something else. Existence experiences no change ever, so it cannot be an effect.]

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>At least in ex nihilo, one can perceive a cause outside of itself.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

True. That is the famous "First Cause", the subject of most religions.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Call it coming from nothing if you must but at least this is preserving the causality argument.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Causes apply to things that change. Things that never change, such as existence, are simply eternal. That's very different than coming from nothing, which is a change and requires a cause. -|Tom|-

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

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 6 months ago #5410 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...]: TVF's position:
1. Forms are composed of substance.
2. New forms come from pre-existing substance.
3. Substance does not come from anything, it just is.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

New forms come from old forms. Substance is simply the generic name for what everything is composed of, independent of its form.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That's what I said.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
For example, at our scale, (hydrogen, helium, iron, uranium, ...) are to forms as elements are to substance.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This example makes no sense. If substsance is what everything is composed of, are you saying that all the elements you just listed are composed of elements? That's a tautology or some other kind of mistake.

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

Hydrogen doesn't "come from pre-existing elements"; it is an element. And forms don't come from pre-existing substance; they are substance.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Yes, and there are different elements so this is where your analogy fails. So now you are saying that forms are substance. Under this definition, different form = different substance.

Let's go back to your first definition: substance is what forms are composed of. So, forms come from substance, what's wrong with that statement? I think the above analogy should go like this: hydrogen, helium, and oxygen are different forms that are all composed of substance. If there were no substance, there would be no forms of substance, so the existence of hydrogen, helium, and oxygen come from the existence of substance. Or, "forms come from pre-existing substance". That sentence may not sound so clear but that's what I meant.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Using the alphabet as an analogy, this becomes:
1. Words are composed of letters.
2. New words come from pre-existing letters.
3. Letters do not come from anything, they just are.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

But the alphabet is not infinite, so no valid analogy is possible. Both letters and words are forms.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It seems you are now using substance as an adjective and no longer as a noun. You have changed your definition of substance now to being a property of having existence than if it were a discrete and finite object.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
How about this as the preamble:
1. Every integer is a member of the set of all integers.
2. Every integer is finite.
3. The set of all integers is infinite.

and its analog:
1. Every form is part of the universe.
2. Every form is finite in size and duration.
3. The universe is infinite in size and eternal in duration.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Again, I disagree with the number line analogy. #2 cannot be true if #3 is true for the number line. "The set of all integers" is just a count of all the elements in the set. If this count is infinite, that must mean that the integers become infinite in size since each successive integer increases in size by 1- i.e., the concept of infinity becomes part of the integer set.

As for your analog, you are comparing apples and oranges. An integer is a representation of a quantity. Each successive integer becomes 1 bigger than the previous. A form does not grow in size. So unless you are comparing the size of the form to the integers, they don't compare. No, your analog is more like having a set containing only 1 integer and counting how many of these same integers there are in the set. So, your 3rd statement, the universe is infinite in size and duration, becomes merely an assertion and did not follow from any premise.

I also see a couple other contradictions. How can a form be finite in duration? When you say finite, that means they come into and out of existence in the universe. But if forms are made of substance, or under your altered definition- has a quality of substance, which you also defined as an eternal quality- how can they also have a finite duration? That's a contradiction.

If forms are composed of substance, which you defined as eternal, how can something that is composed of something eternal have a finite duration?

As for the universe, it is only a count of all the forms in it. Are you saying that this count is infinite in duration? Ok, if there are an infinite number of forms then it might take an infinite amount of time to count them I guess, depending on how fast you count. But this statement says nothing of the duration of existence of the universe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"Comes from" and "does not come from" are logically opposite relationships- "comes from something" means has a cause, "doesn't come from anything" means without cause. But without cause is synonymous with First Cause.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This last sentence is false. The last two phrases each equate something to "without cause". So those two things must equate to one another. This means "doesn't come from anything" and "comes from a First Cause" are supposed to be equated. But anyone can see that is self-contradictory. Your logic is flawed.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

If an effect has no cause then it causes itself. If there were no causes before it, it is the first cause.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>existence is the cause of existence- if that is not a circular argument I don't know what is.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

We are agreed that is a circular argument. But you apparently don't realize it is uniquely yours. I've said repeatedly that existence is not something that exists. It is not an effect, so it cannot have a cause. [Dictionary definition of "effect": a change or changed state occurring as a direct result of action by somebody or something else. Existence experiences no change ever, so it cannot be an effect.]

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

Well, you repeatedly say that f

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

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 6 months ago #5330 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

Ok, let's see if this is correct.

All forms are composed of substance. Substance is the state of existence. Do you agree with this definition?

If not, please provide a clear distinction between substance and form.

Here is the flaw in the logic:

1. Existence is a set.
2. Forms are elements in the set of existence.
3. Existence is itself an element in the superset of "Eternal States" (all states that are eternal).

***warning**** "Eternal States" is a superset that includes all forms. Thus, forms cannot be finite in duration.

Interestingly enough, this "logic" appears identical with the philosophy of the Eleatic school, the school of Zeno. "The All is one". Every form that ever was, is, and will be are eternal. There is no change, no motion, no time, multiplicity, etc.

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

kingdavid
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 6 months ago #5589 by kingdavid

Replied by kingdavid on topic Reply from David King

<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

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

Atko
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 6 months ago #5650 by Atko

Replied by Atko on topic Reply from Paul Atkinson

<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.

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

Time to create page: 0.464 seconds