What is "miraculous"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />The difference is here. At the outset you see MIs + Logic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MM does not start with MIs, nor do MIs play any important role in MM's initial deductions. Gravitons, for example, are certainly not made of MIs. A matter ingredient (MI) is not a type of particle, and is certainly not fundamental in any sense. MI is just a generic description of the largest constituent inside any material body that cannot be penetrated by gravitons. As such, the role of MIs is analogous to the role of planets in the statement "a planet is the smallest material body that human life can evolve on." But neither planets nor MIs are important to the larger picture. They are simply accidental forms that arise when describing some local details of an infinite universe.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I see Abstract Logic and nothing else. <i>"Given no 'stuff' at all, how do I logically force out the observed universe as a unique and necessary result?".</i> Logic then subsumes matter, it is not an equal partner ... matter is only its embodiment.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I asked you to define "matter" and "logic" so I could understand your meaning. You didn't, and I still don't understand. How can logic exist except in a mind made of matter?

Your argument seems to demand that there be a beginning because you start with logic and deduce the first matter. Or rather, you say "matter is logic". So for you, logic must be independent of minds and pre-existing, which I do not understand. All your statements about this seem like vague allusions based on gut feelings, and would probably defy forming syllogisms if you defined your concepts and starting point.

By contrast, in MM, we start with no matter, arrive at an immediate logical contradiction (matter cannot be created ex nihilo), and abandon the possibility that there was ever a point where no matter existed because getting started then requires a miracle. So MM builds from nothing simply by excluding options requiring miracles. Matter does not "come into existence" at any step in MM. We simply reason to the conclusion that it must always have existed because that is the only path requiring no miracles.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Hence, we cannot construct a plenum with an infinite number of elements at the outset because an infinite number of observable units is logically posterior to any finite number.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Two logical errors are present in this sentence. (1) It presumes a beginning, which is contrary to "no creation ex nihilo". (2) It presumes that the finite could become infinite, which is contrary to the principle that "the finite cannot become infinite". This means no number of finite additions to a finite number of elements can ever become infinite.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If something is not logically kosher with MM (e.g. the "quasi-collisions" alluded to in the other thread) ... you will kill the objection by "defining" it away.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My definitions came from a standard dictionary. Nothing about them is invented to help save MM. These definitions may not be to your liking, but they are standard and already widely understood by those who have studied physics, which is why I felt no need to state the definitions at the outset.

By contrast, you use terms in non-standard and non-intuitive ways that beg for definitions to explain your meaning. A definition is mandatory when you do not use the standard meaning. For example:

Matter: the material substance of the universe that has mass, occupies space, and is convertible to energy.

Logic: (1) the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning. (2) any system of or an instance of reasoning and inference. (3) sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim.

Given these definitions, straight from the dictionary, it makes no sense to say "matter is logic". That is why I pressed you for an explanation. Without that explanation, your own logic appears to be a violation of logic definition #3.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you defined your position as true and the other false, by fiat. Then, when a competing theory offers an alternative explanation you say that it requires a "miracle" (again by fiat).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not by fiat, but by standard dictionary definition of these terms. For example, "Miracle: an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God." A First Cause, a beginning to matter, or something from nothing are all examples that meet this standard definition of "miracle".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I hope you don't take my objections personally.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not at all. Part of reality testing is determining how ideas are viewed by other minds. Neither of our ideas seem to communicate well between the two of us. We are each just asking for apparent holes in the other's logic to be filled in.

I get the impression that you have probably not had a formal course in logic and the construction of syllogisms. This leads to a bit of frustration on my part because I prefer a more disciplined approach. But we can overcome this problem if you define your terms and outline your reasoning. I understand how that may prove frustrating to you if you are unaccustomed to this form of logical discipline. But it is the one "common language" we have available to all of us. I don't know of another viable option. So please keep giving it a try while we are still making progress. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So for you, logic must be independent of minds and pre-existing, which I do not understand.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, precisely.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">matter cannot be created ex nihilo<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is, of course, fiat and depends on what you see logic to be. If matter cannot be created from nothing in principle ... then ... you are accepting logic as prior to consciousness and ... well ... the entire conversation deteriorates here because there is nothing mutually agreed upon. This is why you cannot dismiss other alternatives out of hand. All positions at the outset are guided initially by fiat.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Two logical errors are present in this sentence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They are not "errors" except by your personal fiat.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My definitions came from a standard dictionary.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The dictionary is not an arbiter in this issue. Definitions of fundamental logic are at best hazy especially when turned in on themselves. You are on your own here ... no one can help at the outset of inquiry.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I get the impression that you have probably not had a formal course in logic and the construction of syllogisms.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, I would avoid that like the plague. There is nothing there for me to learn which would be of assistance in understanding existence ;o)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: I get the impression that you have probably not had a formal course in logic and the construction of syllogisms.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, I would avoid that like the plague. There is nothing there for me to learn which would be of assistance in understanding existence ;o)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Well, I think learning to think logically is a help in every area of life.[] But I raised the issue as one of communication. Your method of presenting ideas does not communicate well because I and others cannot translate your ideas into the one common language of all science -- logical syllogisms.

And when you decline to define the terms you are using to express those ideas, understanding what is in your mind becomes an impossible task.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: matter cannot be created ex nihilo<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is, of course, fiat and depends on what you see logic to be. ... All positions at the outset are guided initially by fiat.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Reasoning by excluding one of two mutually exclusive possibilities is not "fiat", but a recognized, logical path for arriving at truth. This is another instance where that course would have come in handy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Two logical errors are present in this sentence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They are not "errors" except by your personal fiat.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I am considering offering to pay your tuition for that course. [] -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And when you decline to define the terms you are using to express those ideas, understanding what is in your mind becomes an impossible task.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I for one am not having a problem understanding what EBTX is saying. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but if he made no mistakes .. I'd have to kill him for making me feel so inadequate. He doesn't need to spell it out for you ... Does he? Perhaps you should visit his site for greater understanding. His logic is quite compelling.

He has pointed out some flaws in your model. You continue to walk a tightrope.

{Yes ...There are collisions, but not really.}
{Yes ... All things are infinitely composed, but not really.}
{Yes ... There is empty space, but not really.}

BLA

BLA

BLA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />I for one am not having a problem understanding what EBTX is saying.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good. Then explain it to me and other readers. What does "matter is logic" mean? And if you are not using the dictionary definitions of these words I gave, then please say what definitions you are using. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is another instance where that course would have come in handy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Who would teach the course? I have approximately 30,000 hours of experience wrestling with elementary logic (particularly as it applies to the causal factors involved in the origin and machinations of physical existence) and another 30,000 invested in myriad other subjects. This consists of observing, reading, thinking independently, building conceptual models, demolishing them, rebuilding them again and again and again. A few dozen hours listening to a professor will be of no assistance to me unless he is able to tell me something I don't already know about (a good editor might be a bigger help ;o).

I have never found a single principle of logic which will not "drip through your fingers" when examined closely enough. This is asking the snake to eat its own tail. When it gets to its head there is necessarily some confusion. Everyone is on his own here.
_________________________

Philosophically I must have this as a starting point for my own investigations:

By fiat, the universe must be unique. There must be only one type logically possible. And it must be, at base, dirt simple.

The reason for this is that if the universe is like a chess game for which we must discern the rules ... it holds no philosophical interest. I do not care to know the rules of existence if they are entirely arbitrary like chess. Hence, I rule out (by fiat) any model of the universe which has other dimensions, universes, other possible types of imaginary forces and arbitrary constants, gods, etc.

Everything must be a function of every other thing. It's like looking under a street lamp for something lost because it's the only place where you can see. This is the only place I care to look. If it's not there (and it may not be) then to me the universe is worthless hacker crap ... unworthy of contemplation (except for technological considerations).
__________________

To me, this forum is for short, pointed observations that serve to elucidate your views about MM ... not particularly my ideas. So, I won't cut & psste huge tracts here explaining my personal views. I will try to explain if I think I can do so in a short paragraph or two ;o)