Broken Circle

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 5 months ago #5622 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: So all engineers are metaphysicians? I don't think so.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
[JoeW]: I do not understand you statement. Engineers are pragmatists and make things that work and are far from infinite.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Modern engineers rely on diferential and integral calculus, both of which use infinities. Just finding the area under a curve requires an integral to infinity. You seem to be in denial about practical, everyday usages of infinity in math for applications to physics, engineering, and other fields. You seem to have no better reason for this stance than some personal aversion to infinity.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Isn't the eternality and infinitness of the universe in the MM a postulate?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Most definitely not. That was the whole point. MM makes no such postulates or assumptions. It is based on deductive reasoning from first principles (themselves based on logic alone). The MM exposition begins with a total void and notes the total absence of properties (such as location, speed, change, etc.) From there, it builds a model universe one unit of substance at a time, noting new properties that emerge at each level.

The properties of unboundedness (eternity and infinity) arise in a logically compelling way at an appropriate stage as deductions, not as starting premises.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>1. Isn't the infinitness of the universe in the MM postulated, yes or no?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>2. Isn't the graviton existence postulated in the MM, yes or no?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If you answer No to (1) or (2) above then please provide experimental or observational evidence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

(1) is a conclusion derived from logic, not based on experiment or observation. Even if we thought we observed a boundary to our universe (as a microbe in the ocean might think when oneday it discovers the surface of the ocean), there must still be something beyond the boundary. So "unboundedness" is a necessary property of the universe. It is also the definition of "infinite".

(2) Graviton existence and the nature of all forces are derived by logic from first principles. The particular properties of gravitons -- particles rather than waves, very high speed compared to light, etc. are derived from various observations and experiments cited in detail in Dark Matter....

You would go down far fewer blind allies this way if you merely read about the subject matter before speculating. You seem to have a personal conviction that infinity cannot be a valid description of reality, and are therefore sure, sight unseen, that the MM has not found a way to do that. You are mistaken, but cannot discover that until you read MM and see exactly how its approach to describing reality differs from all others. -|Tom|-

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

JoeW
Topic Author
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 5 months ago #5623 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

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

1)(infinity) is a conclusion derived from logic, not based on experiment or observation...

(2) Graviton existence and the nature of all forces are derived by logic from first principles...

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

You must be kidding TVF... You have a very distorted view regarding the subject of logic. Logic is the science of analysis of the truth of falsity of statements, mathematical or natural lnguage (predicate or propositional and has an axiomatic foundation. Logic cannot establish the truth of falsity of statements when "systematically misleading expression" dealing with the existence of "something", in general, are made. For many-many years, philosphers, logicians and mathematicians are trying hard to explain this but some do not seem to get it. You are one of those who do not get it...

To help you understand this better, the validity of statements like:

God exists
Gravitons exist
The universe is eternal
Love is a wonderful thing

cannot be established by logic. I'm suprised you are talking about deductions and logic while you're lacking basic knowledge of the principles of logical analysis.

Your reasoning involves an amazing degree of circularity, inconsistency and obsurity. As an example, you're claiming to have arrived at the conclusion that the universe must be infinity through a deductive process, where the existence of infinity itself is based on the axiom of induction. Axiom of infinity: an inductive (infinite) set exist.

Furthermore, you have blended logic and metaphysics, a act showing tremendoud misconception and failure in understanding the hard works of scores of natural philosophers and scientists.

For your own shake, before someone take you seriously and makes a clown out of you, I urge you to reconsider your faulty thinking and eclectic application of scientific principles. I'm trying to help you because I've been where you are many times before you and I've made the choice of preserving my own dignity rather than be exposed to the scientific community as an alchemist and a clown.

This is advice to you and contructive critisism. I'm only trying to help you.

I don't have to read any book of yours to understand that what you're doing is wrong. Of course, If I get a chance I will but nothing will come as a surprise. I can estimate a priori such a book will probably contain around 100 - 500 logical contradictions and circularities and maybe up to a dozen violations of the apllication of first principles. Libraries are full with such books and manuscripts.

But again, how hard is it for you to understand that the question is not whether gravitons or infinite sets really exist but whether one can use such notions to develop a theory, or even worse-- much worse--, claim that those are the conclusions derived from some logic, any kind of logic. I tried to make clear to you that you are allowed to make such postulation provided you accept you're doing metaphysics and only that.

However, there is another, simpler way out for you but to understand it you must first concede to your mistakes. In case you clearly staste that you admit you're doing metaphyscis, I'll be happy to offer you salvation.

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 5 months ago #4063 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Tom,

(1) is a conclusion derived from logic, not based on experiment or observation. Even if we thought we observed a boundary to our universe (as a microbe in the ocean might think when oneday it discovers the surface of the ocean), there must still be something beyond the boundary. So "unboundedness" is a necessary property of the universe. It is also the definition of "infinite".[unquote]

Ans: This is simply untrue and based on a lack of understanding such boundry. The complete absence of time-or spatial dimension is not an egg shell barrier, it is "Non-Existance". Non-existance is the boundry, there is and cannot be anything beyond such a boundry, yet it forms a finite universe.

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 5 months ago #5626 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Patrick,

Lets take a hypothetical case. We are going to assume that existance is anything over "0F" in a bucket of water(Universe). We cool a ball bearing to -60F and another equal size and density ball bearing to +60F. You dunk them into the bucket and they all equalize at 0F. They no longer exist. They cancelled, conservation is maintained. They are not stored as +/-F's they vanish and do not exist in the bucket of reality.[unquote]

To try and clarify what I have said let me restate the above case.

The bucket, water and ball bearings are "Something", they consist of a condensed form of pure energy by E=mc^2. But it is the scientific view that energy can not be created nor destroyed that is in error here.

The example clearly shows that energy contained in physical existance can and does vanish into "Nothingness". It is the simple act of conservation between +/-. When the ball bearings stablize at oF there is no trace of there +/-60F it has vanished and can only be recovered or re-created by the application of external energy (borrowing from nothing).

Existance is the mere reduction in entrophy, entrophy is an attempt to return to nothing. The energy contained (existance) in the pre-test temperature is not stored anywhere, it must be re-created from nothing.

You have your view and I at your request have given you appropriate credit for what you contribution but your view and my view do not match and I doubt that you will be able to get me to accept your view entirely.

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

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 5 months ago #5627 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: The complete absence of time-or spatial dimension is not an egg shell barrier, it is "Non-Existance". Non-existance is the boundry, there is and cannot be anything beyond such a boundry, yet it forms a finite universe.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Your imagination is far superior to mine. I can visualize empty space beyond some boundary, but I cannot even imagine "non-existence" beyond the boundary. What happens if I travel to the boundary? What prevents me from going past it? -|Tom|-