- Thank you received: 0
Broken Circle
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
20 years 9 months ago #7358
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Tom,
<b>Reason carefully, not with fallacies. The meaning of the words is that, if it was created, it exists. The converse that you cite is not implied by these definitions except the last, which is the definition used in religions that have adopted a "creation" event for the universe. So that definition has no relevance to this discussion.</b>
<font color="yellow">I'm afraid I don't accept your rejection of definitions from Webster as being a religous document. It is the standard by which the mainstream veiw existance and creation. That has nothing to do with religion. Your own admission below is that the mainstream does view the Big Bang as the point of origin and that it is creation ex nihilo. I am satisfied with that. that is that you (and some others here) have a different view. that is your perogative but in contrast to the enuendos that were starting to fly mine at least is within the mainstream on this issue (not all my views are)[
]</font id="yellow">
<b>It is therefore still unclear how you justify applying the finite duration of all individual forms to the set of all forms. All integers are finite, but the set of all integers is infinite. The duraction of all forms is finite, but the duration of the set of all forms is infinite. This point by itself does not exclude creationism, but does show a viable alternative. Do you see any logical error in drawing this parallelism? Be specific. Logical errors must consist of invalid reasoning or incorrect premises. State which and why.</b>
<font color="yellow">No real disagreement here. But only because you have carefully left your infinite duration out of the concept of origin and have said creationism could be valid but that infinite duration could still be indicated. I would only caution that only means there is no projected end; which physically never actually reaches eternity. So I am puzzled a bit as to why one would even want to invoke the term since it can never be reached and hence is and can never be a physical reality.</font id="yellow">
<b>Again you mix physical entities with concepts. These must be separated or we cannot reason without getting muddled. Time is a concept, not a physical entity. Time, space, and scale are all dimensions, which are concepts. Reasoning such as that in Dark Matter... concludes that these five dimensions must all be infinite, which is fine because they are not physical entities. Existence consists of both physical entities and concepts.</b>
<font color="yellow">I feel it is you that mix philosophy with science here. Infinity and Eternity are not physical terms.</font id="yellow">
<b>By contrast, time intervals are the physical entities accessible to us, that we can measure, and that must always be finite. Time intervals are like integers -- all are finite. Time is like the set of all integers -- infinite. Because time itself is not a physical entity but rather is a concept, your reason for excluding the possibility of time being infinite (the erroneous assumption that it is a physical entity rather than a concept) is invalidated.</b>
<font color="yellow">Personally I don't believe you can seperate time measurement as being physical and time itself being non-physical. You can't physically measure something that is nothing.</font id="yellow">
<b>A note about concepts: Webster defines "concept" as a broad abstract idea or a guiding general principle, such as one that determines how ... nature, reality, or events are perceived; e.g., the concept of time. This might leave the impression that concepts exist only in our minds. But as I use the word, the set of all integers is a concept, yet is infinite in an objective way that does not depend on our minds. So as I've said before in trying to tighten up definitions, we can call these "concepts" or "sets" or "properties" or "counts" or "measures" or whatever. The important points are that these exist outside our minds, and are part of any description of reality, even though they are not themselves "physical entities".</b>
<font color="red">But as I use the word":</font id="red"><font color="yellow">You are using your own modified definitons to support your out of the ordinary concept. that is your perogative. I don't accept it.</font id="yellow">
<b>In the Big Bang, it is indeed ex nihilo. However, there is no reliable evidence that space is in fact expanding, much less that there ever was a Big Bang event. But I understand why it is an attractive theory for those who hold to a creation event.</b>
<font color="yellow">I am not specifically a Big Bang advocate. Especially in terms of singularities, etc. But I do believe (and did believe) the universe ws not only expanding but undergoing an accelerated expansion. My bases however are far from solid or supported by anything other than it being a logical conclusion of UniKEF (Pushing Gravity) concept. The expansion can only be avoided if ones assume an infinite universe, which I do not. </font id="yellow">
<b>I said miracles were excluded from physics. Creation is excluded only to the extent that it requires something arising from truly nothing, which is a miracle by definition. [Webster: "an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God."]<b>
<font color="yellow">Your statement is not substantiated for three reasons.
1 - It is only your assumption that creation ex nihilo is against the laws of nature because as of this time you have no understanding of how nature can account for it.
2 - N
>(+s)+(-s)requires no miracle. As is plain to see it is within a valid mathematical proposition which is less extreme than infinity or eternity.
3 - For the formula to represent origin invokes no act of God, or at least no more so than infinity or eternity. </font id="yellow">
<b>I agree that the Big Bang is the mainstream-accepted view, and is #1 not #2. But it is still based on a miracle and is therefore excluded as a physical possibility. Some cosmologists try to get around this internal contradiction by positing cyclic Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches, or by positing that the BB is an explosion OF time and space, not an explosion of matter INTO pre-existing time and space. But ultimately, these all require "an act of God", which is just fine with the religious portion of society.</b>
<font color="yellow">I simply do not agree. You are making absolute statements for which you have no actual evidence. It is only in thought that any of these scenarios can be considered and it is only in your thoughts that such a function is a miracle and requires an act of God.
I see it just the opposite. the formula provides a mechanisim for creation ex nihilo that is devoid of the need of a God.</font id="yellow">
<b>Here, we are trying to apply reason to the problem ab initio, so the fact that x% of society and y% of scientists accept miracles is not relevant. Here, if it requires a miracle, it is excluded. To the extent that #1 requires creation of something from truly nothing, that is a miracle and #1 is excluded. I see no valid grounds for the exclusion of possibility #2.</b>
<font color="yellow">I agree that miracles are not physics but I most certainly disagree that creation ex nihilo is known to be a miracle. You are merely assuming it is a miracle and hence prohibited because you fail to see that it is permissable mathematically into the laws of physics, even though we have no immediate understanding of the process. The moral would be that according to you ignorance is a miracle. It is only our ignorance of the process that makes you believe it is a miracle. </font id="yellow">
<b>The problem here seems to be that you think of the universe as mostly empty with matter occasionally existing in it. I agree that view makes no sense. But in MM, where we make no assumptions but apply pure logic, a different view arises using deductive reasoning from
<b>Reason carefully, not with fallacies. The meaning of the words is that, if it was created, it exists. The converse that you cite is not implied by these definitions except the last, which is the definition used in religions that have adopted a "creation" event for the universe. So that definition has no relevance to this discussion.</b>
<font color="yellow">I'm afraid I don't accept your rejection of definitions from Webster as being a religous document. It is the standard by which the mainstream veiw existance and creation. That has nothing to do with religion. Your own admission below is that the mainstream does view the Big Bang as the point of origin and that it is creation ex nihilo. I am satisfied with that. that is that you (and some others here) have a different view. that is your perogative but in contrast to the enuendos that were starting to fly mine at least is within the mainstream on this issue (not all my views are)[
]</font id="yellow"><b>It is therefore still unclear how you justify applying the finite duration of all individual forms to the set of all forms. All integers are finite, but the set of all integers is infinite. The duraction of all forms is finite, but the duration of the set of all forms is infinite. This point by itself does not exclude creationism, but does show a viable alternative. Do you see any logical error in drawing this parallelism? Be specific. Logical errors must consist of invalid reasoning or incorrect premises. State which and why.</b>
<font color="yellow">No real disagreement here. But only because you have carefully left your infinite duration out of the concept of origin and have said creationism could be valid but that infinite duration could still be indicated. I would only caution that only means there is no projected end; which physically never actually reaches eternity. So I am puzzled a bit as to why one would even want to invoke the term since it can never be reached and hence is and can never be a physical reality.</font id="yellow">
<b>Again you mix physical entities with concepts. These must be separated or we cannot reason without getting muddled. Time is a concept, not a physical entity. Time, space, and scale are all dimensions, which are concepts. Reasoning such as that in Dark Matter... concludes that these five dimensions must all be infinite, which is fine because they are not physical entities. Existence consists of both physical entities and concepts.</b>
<font color="yellow">I feel it is you that mix philosophy with science here. Infinity and Eternity are not physical terms.</font id="yellow">
<b>By contrast, time intervals are the physical entities accessible to us, that we can measure, and that must always be finite. Time intervals are like integers -- all are finite. Time is like the set of all integers -- infinite. Because time itself is not a physical entity but rather is a concept, your reason for excluding the possibility of time being infinite (the erroneous assumption that it is a physical entity rather than a concept) is invalidated.</b>
<font color="yellow">Personally I don't believe you can seperate time measurement as being physical and time itself being non-physical. You can't physically measure something that is nothing.</font id="yellow">
<b>A note about concepts: Webster defines "concept" as a broad abstract idea or a guiding general principle, such as one that determines how ... nature, reality, or events are perceived; e.g., the concept of time. This might leave the impression that concepts exist only in our minds. But as I use the word, the set of all integers is a concept, yet is infinite in an objective way that does not depend on our minds. So as I've said before in trying to tighten up definitions, we can call these "concepts" or "sets" or "properties" or "counts" or "measures" or whatever. The important points are that these exist outside our minds, and are part of any description of reality, even though they are not themselves "physical entities".</b>
<font color="red">But as I use the word":</font id="red"><font color="yellow">You are using your own modified definitons to support your out of the ordinary concept. that is your perogative. I don't accept it.</font id="yellow">
<b>In the Big Bang, it is indeed ex nihilo. However, there is no reliable evidence that space is in fact expanding, much less that there ever was a Big Bang event. But I understand why it is an attractive theory for those who hold to a creation event.</b>
<font color="yellow">I am not specifically a Big Bang advocate. Especially in terms of singularities, etc. But I do believe (and did believe) the universe ws not only expanding but undergoing an accelerated expansion. My bases however are far from solid or supported by anything other than it being a logical conclusion of UniKEF (Pushing Gravity) concept. The expansion can only be avoided if ones assume an infinite universe, which I do not. </font id="yellow">
<b>I said miracles were excluded from physics. Creation is excluded only to the extent that it requires something arising from truly nothing, which is a miracle by definition. [Webster: "an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God."]<b>
<font color="yellow">Your statement is not substantiated for three reasons.
1 - It is only your assumption that creation ex nihilo is against the laws of nature because as of this time you have no understanding of how nature can account for it.
2 - N
>(+s)+(-s)requires no miracle. As is plain to see it is within a valid mathematical proposition which is less extreme than infinity or eternity.
3 - For the formula to represent origin invokes no act of God, or at least no more so than infinity or eternity. </font id="yellow">
<b>I agree that the Big Bang is the mainstream-accepted view, and is #1 not #2. But it is still based on a miracle and is therefore excluded as a physical possibility. Some cosmologists try to get around this internal contradiction by positing cyclic Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches, or by positing that the BB is an explosion OF time and space, not an explosion of matter INTO pre-existing time and space. But ultimately, these all require "an act of God", which is just fine with the religious portion of society.</b>
<font color="yellow">I simply do not agree. You are making absolute statements for which you have no actual evidence. It is only in thought that any of these scenarios can be considered and it is only in your thoughts that such a function is a miracle and requires an act of God.
I see it just the opposite. the formula provides a mechanisim for creation ex nihilo that is devoid of the need of a God.</font id="yellow">
<b>Here, we are trying to apply reason to the problem ab initio, so the fact that x% of society and y% of scientists accept miracles is not relevant. Here, if it requires a miracle, it is excluded. To the extent that #1 requires creation of something from truly nothing, that is a miracle and #1 is excluded. I see no valid grounds for the exclusion of possibility #2.</b>
<font color="yellow">I agree that miracles are not physics but I most certainly disagree that creation ex nihilo is known to be a miracle. You are merely assuming it is a miracle and hence prohibited because you fail to see that it is permissable mathematically into the laws of physics, even though we have no immediate understanding of the process. The moral would be that according to you ignorance is a miracle. It is only our ignorance of the process that makes you believe it is a miracle. </font id="yellow">
<b>The problem here seems to be that you think of the universe as mostly empty with matter occasionally existing in it. I agree that view makes no sense. But in MM, where we make no assumptions but apply pure logic, a different view arises using deductive reasoning from
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 2.302 seconds