Broken Circle

1234567890
Visitor

20 years 9 months ago #7634 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

If we can imagine time reversal, acausality, and negative existence to speak
of it, even in negative terms, the universe has to be larger than that. I think
it's too early to preclude such "irrational" forms.

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

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 9 months ago #7338 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by 1234567890
 I think it's too early to preclude such "irrational" forms.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">When will it not be "too early" to preclude things that are not subject to reason, observation, or experiment? -|Tom|-

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

jrich
Offline
Elite Member

20 years 9 months ago #7340 by jrich

Replied by jrich on topic Reply from

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

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 9 months ago #7635 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by 1234567890
 Where is the rest of the universe?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It starts just beyond the universe that we can now see. Because light can only travel a finite distance before losing all its energy and becoming invisible, how do you propose that we "see" what is beyond that distance? We must await improved instrumentation that can detect distant matter by means other than light.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If there is something at every imaginable scale, where is the infinitely large form?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">You are looking at a tiny part of its internal structure whenever you look into space. You don't have the means to see parts of it that are outside the range of light.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And why are the composition particles all at around the atomic scale? Why aren't there any composition particles on our scale, or anywhere in between?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It exists in abundance at every scale. We call it "sand" and "dirt" and "rocks" and "water" and every substance man uses. In space, the composition particles are meteoroids, comets, asteroids, moons, planets, and stars. On the largest scales we can see, the composition particles are galaxies, clusters of galaxies, superclusters of galaxies, and "great walls". That is as far as we can presently see, but some have already noted that we always seem to see structures as large as whatever scale we can observe.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Human reason can hardly be considered an absolute truth. It was reasonable to consider the Earth as stationary with the Sun revolving around it not too long ago.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I recommend you pick up a book on logic at your local library. Knowledge we acquire through observation and experiment (or experience) is incomplete and subject to error, interpretation, and improvements in the future. That even includes the laws of physics.

However, knowledge derived from reason requires only two conditions: correct premises amd valid reasoning. When both are present, the conclusions are "absolute truth", to use your grandiose phrase. The causality principle and the prohibition against creation ex nihilo are examples of physical principles derived from logic alone. To use the often quoted words of Isaac Newton referring to a proposed violation of the causality principle:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[I. Newton]: "It is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But you will not be able to appreciate why unless you learn the power of logic. To those without the constraints offered by logic, "anything is possible". But logic shows, without any room for doubt, that reality is considerably more constrained than imagination.

BTW, all of Meta Model cosmology is built on the principles of physics, and hence on logic. No assumptions were allowed as premises.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Observation and experiments to determine knowledge is limited by our instruments. If we were not electromagnetic in nature, would we be able to "see" anything that is? Conversely, would we be able to see anything that isn't electromagnetic in nature? How about if we were fish? Our knowledge of the universe would be forever limited then. Just because we can't observe it or aren't smart enough to reason it doesn't preclude something's existence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">You were doing well when describing limitations of our senses and instruments. But then you included reason, which is incorrect. Valid reasoning based on correct premises has absolute certainty. Put another way, valid reasoning assures that the conclusions drawn will be as reliable as the premises.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But clearly, if one assumes the universe as infinite in forms, the existence of forms that are acausal cannot be precluded.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Yes, they can, because acuasal forms are excluded by logic. This is covered in Dark Matter.... If we ever discovered an uncaused effect or violation of any physical principle, that would prove that our "reality" was a holodeck illusion in some outside reality inaccessible to us, where the causality principle does apply, even to the illusions created in the holodeck.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Using your math analogy, that would be like a mathematician stating that the set of all integers is infinite, but that's it- the entire universe of mathematics IS the set of all integers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">A correct analogy would have to involve a violation of logic. For example, if I,J, and K are ordinary integers, then the proposition "if I > J and J > K, then K > I" contains a contradiction, which makes it physically impossible. -|Tom|-

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

1234567890
Visitor

20 years 9 months ago #7755 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by 1234567890
 I think it's too early to preclude such "irrational" forms.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">When will it not be "too early" to preclude things that are not subject to reason, observation, or experiment? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dr. Flandern, you posit that the universe is infinite,
that there are forms at every scale imaginable. You
endow the forms with two qualities: they
obey the cause and effect principle and are finite
in duration.

I have a couple of problems with this. First, where
are the forms at every scale? You've been quite
liberal in your usage of the word "form" it seems.
You consider sodium chloride as a form being an
assemblage of smaller forms (electrons, protons,
and neutrons), then extrapolate this to generalize
that there are forms on every imaginable scale.
The fact is, above the atomic scale of the electrons,
protons, et al, all that is observed are an assemblage
of these "forms". A molecule of sodium chloride
or a mountain of salt are all composed of the
same "forms", they are not different forms on different
scales. Forms do not really exist then on all scales,
using your criteria for existence, unless you wanted
to be pedantic.

Even more, if we were to use your loose notion of "forms" in conjunction with the causal principle and also assumed
no limit to the smallness of forms in which the
larger "forms" are assembled, we would have to
conclude that everything is
made of and caused by nothing since presently, math
concludes that y/m as m approaches infinity = 0. So,
even as you loudly declare no creation ex nihilo
in physics, you assume it tacitly.

It's obvious from the above that your conclusions are
not based on reason, observation nor experiment so
I would at least await for a clarification before any
preclusion of irrational elements in the universe.

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 9 months ago #7342 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Larry Buford,

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would appear that Mac is one of those math guys that we have such a dim opinion of,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You trying to hurt my feelings. HeHeHe. [

]

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">although he does seem to be more aware of the need for physical justification (when talking about reality as opposed to math) than most of them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Actually I detest mathematical theories that don't have a sound physical underpinning. That is my primary objection to Relativity. It is purely mathematical with no "Cause and Affect". It also ignores other more likely alternative explanations that would give the same observations that do have a physically understandable basis. But in this case while it appears mathematically viable there are no viable (in my opinion) alternatives.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is interesting how he sees no logic in eternal existance, while we see no logic in creation from nothing. I blame it on the math blinders. I hope we can eventually gain some insight into that sort of thinking process by continued discussions with him.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You might start by realizing that the finite cannot become infinite. Declaring an eternal existance requires that time (assuming you view time as something real) become infinite.

Then you must also explain, not just say it is, how domething, anything, can exist without having come into existance. Eternal exististance without an enception violates the very issue of saying something exits. Invoking that view is simply a matter of trying to gag the question and requires that you not ask the obvious "How does it exist if it was never created. To me it is tose that propose this that are wearing blinders.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

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

Time to create page: 0.787 seconds