Reply to original post by tvanflandern on - 11 Jan 2006 : 04:49:01
Thank you Tom, for a most excellent response. Down to earth so to speak. Not being a scientist and all it would seem that I best go back to my think tank. But before I make the coffee and close the door there are, as you may have guessed, a couple of small issues to address. The first of which is the following exchange, which is two part;
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">tbg... it is foreverism that needs an explanation not creationism; the question being; when did forever begin?
tvf... And how square is a circle? In both cases, the question contains a contradiction. In your question, "forever" (I usually say "eternal" to avoid ambiguity) has no beginning; i.e., eternal means forever in both directions, forward and backward in time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Before I answer, let me refer back to a previous statement of yours in which you made it clear that the question of origin is only addressed with logic;
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">tvf...Whether the universe had an origin or always existed is not one that can be answered with data. It can only be addressed with logic...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As to the first part, actually, neither of our questions are contradictory but rather a study in logic which is acceptable according to your previous statement. How square is a circle?...A! not very! And then, when you consider that the area of a circle is defined in square inches and its circumference is defined in linear inches the apparent contradiction is not so far fetched.
As to the second part, “(I usually say “eternal”...)”. Not so, in a previous post of yours of 04, Jan. 2006: at 12:46:31 you made the statement; “Fortunately, there is a logical alternative to creation <i>ex nihilo</i>, which is that the universe has existed forever.” Interchanging those words does create ambiguity because, although similar, Webster’s does define each differently; “Eternal” is defined as, “continued without intermission, perpetual.” which does not allow for the cyclic conditions that are inherent with the known universe. “Forever” however, does not carry that, continued without intermission, perpetual, requirement.
In the following exchange I do take some exception;
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">tbg... I mean, if you have a belief in the foreverism of the universe then I would think you would have a plausible causation for your belief, seems logical to me.
tvf... First, I never allow a belief to creep in when I'm thinking about science. Your phraseology tends to put science and religion on comparable levels by refering to scientific conclusions as "beliefs", meaning something accepted on faith. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You twist my words to define my “phraseology” so I will again refer to Webster’s;
“belief:
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence” And;
“tenet:
a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially: one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession ”
Belief then, means somewhat more than acceptance on faith. Now, I agree that when preparing for an experiment beliefs have to be put to the side yet, when the experiment is done a belief in the results is permissible without affecting the original experiment. Your statement was to the effect that the deep thinking physicists held, endorsed and proposed, after the experiment, that since nothing could be created nor destroyed everything that exists therefor, exists forever so; is that, or is it not, a tenet or belief? There is no reading or rereading of my statement that would imply that the belief that I referenced was based on anything but an evaluation of the facts that were available the deep thinkers at the time they drew their conclusion(s).
Now, having stated all of that and with the being coffee is ready I am ready to go in the tank, figuratively speaking, and ponder. And here is what I will ponder; I was not aware of a Law of physics that states that nothing could be created nor destroyed and at first blush I have generated two possibilities, 1.) Nothing can be created therefor, everything that exists must exist forever. Or, 2.) Nothing can be created, therefor, everything only appears to exist giving your hologram deck idea some credibility. I will also ponder if there might be a third possibility. Now, where is that sugar bowl. Thank you for your time.
thebobgy
