New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 7 months ago #5455 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: I think you are misusing a terminology that is usually reserved for material objects, when you say that forms are "made from" substance, which you defined as the "collection of all forms". If our universe is the collection of all forms, is each form in it made from the universe? This syllogism is a little circular and highly ambiguous.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You pointed out that "made from" can be read in two different ways. So I changed the wording to:
* Forms are to substance as integers are to the "set of all integers".
* Forms come from substance in the same way that integers come from the "set of all integers".
* Both forms and integers are finite subsets of an infinite set.

So each form is "made from" a portion of the substance of the whole universe. In the future, I'll try to remember to say "comes from" instead of "is made from", because you say that "comes from" has the meaning for you that I intended to put into words.

Forms come from the substance of the universe in that they are a small, finite part of that unlimited substance. But I already said that above and before. So I don't see why we are not yet past this point. What is it that has you stuck? -|Tom|-

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

If forms are a "small, finite part of that unlimited substance", and substance is eternal, how can forms be finite in duration?

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5414 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: If forms are a "small, finite part of that unlimited substance", and substance is eternal, how can forms be finite in duration?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Forms have two aspects or properties relevant to your question. One is their appearance, which is always changing. The other is their essence (the stuff they come from), which is eternal.

Example: The essence of an apple is eternal. (Think of its atoms, although they too are temporary on a long-enough time scale.) The form or appearance of the apple changes visually on a time scale of months or weeks, if not shorter.

The substance or essence of material, tangible things is eternal because nothing can ever change from existence to non-existence. But the form or appearance of those same things is temporary because it is always changing through collisions with other forms, resulting in either accumulation or break-up. The apple might change by decomposing or by being eaten and becoming part of a human. Either way, all its atoms continue to exist in new forms. -|Tom|-

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

mechanic
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5779 by mechanic

Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from

I've been reading the posts in this topic also and I'd like to kindly ask TVF to clarify something I remember my graduate math professor kept streching in class. In the MM is the infinite universe:

(a) countable? (like the set of natural numbers)
(b) non countable or a higher order of infinity?
(c) a transinfite set? (like powers of infinite sets)

I wonder what's the justification for postulating a particle, the graviton, which is many order of magnitudes smaller than everything we know to exist. Is there anything in between and what? If the uniberse is infinite and isotropic, a big gap in forms must be justified. We can all notice that rocks have various shapes and sizes but there can be no gap in size, all sizes can be found. For TVF: what is the gap between the smallest known particle and the graviton in terms of size and mass?

The reason I'm asking this question is because I'm curious why a model assuming a continuous existence would need a discontinuity to justify particular cause and effects, specifically gravity. It appears like a contradiction from a philosophical viewpoint.

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

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 7 months ago #5842 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: If forms are a "small, finite part of that unlimited substance", and substance is eternal, how can forms be finite in duration?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Forms have two aspects or properties relevant to your question. One is their appearance, which is always changing. The other is their essence (the stuff they come from), which is eternal.

Example: The essence of an apple is eternal. (Think of its atoms, although they too are temporary on a long-enough time scale.) The form or appearance of the apple changes visually on a time scale of months or weeks, if not shorter.

The substance or essence of material, tangible things is eternal because nothing can ever change from existence to non-existence. But the form or appearance of those same things is temporary because it is always changing through collisions with other forms, resulting in either accumulation or break-up. The apple might change by decomposing or by being eaten and becoming part of a human. Either way, all its atoms continue to exist in new forms. -|Tom|-

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

Imagine an infinite cloth that is cut into infinite pieces of different shapes. Who cut this cloth? Did theses shapes spontaneously form from the cloth? Also, how can different pieces of cloth have different properties? Imagine an electron and a proton and a neutron are different "pieces" cut from this cloth. How can an electron be negative in charge, a proton be positive in charge, and a neutron have no charge?

Does substance not only have the property of spontaneous form generation but also spontaneous property generation? Are each finite piece of the cloth from which all forms are made omnipotent?

Another issue that is somehow related is: what about motion and interactions between the pieces? If the universe is the whole cloth and every piece is from the cloth, they are the same size. So, if each piece of cloth takes up a finite space, they can't move or interact at all since there is no space left to move. Unless the substance can change form, shape and property at will.

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

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 7 months ago #5607 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

>(+1)+(-1)

Think about what Tom is trying to say and consider "0" as what (supposedly)he calls "essence" then, -1 would be substance and +1 would be forms since he says that the "forms" come from the "substance". What the statement above says is that the "substance" came from the "essence" and therefore has in a sense been barrowed from "essence". The "substance" can do/create/construct/assemble/build whatever it wants to but it still owes "essence" "1". Whatever the "substance" does/creates/constructs/assembles/builds, the sum will never be greater then "1" since there is only a "finite" amount and now is in (-)form since it owes to "substance", hence the (-1). If someone is looking for a model to model the model to model the model of the Universe, this is it.

Perhaps you could consider this:
{E=mc^2}={0=0

>(+1)+(-1)}
If everything in the Universe consists of "Energy", or it's counter property mass, then all that exists is simply "Energy". There is no need to rename it "essence", "substance", "forms", or "stuff", it's simply "ENERGY" and anything that comes from it is "ENERGY" as well.

Simply put "Everything" is the same as "NOTHING".

Atko, by the way, this thread seems have become almost the same discussion you left this form over about 6 months ago, "ZERO" theory. The twist is that this time Tom, in the name of the Meta Model, seems to be trying to make claim to it's conception. Welcome back!<img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle> Now if we can just get Makis and Jimiproton back we might get this thing put to bed.

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

I think Dr. Flandern equates the word essence with substance so your definitions for the symbolic 0, 1 and -1 are different than his.

Also, your definition of "nothing" is "everything" and you are also calling it "energy". If you define them to be the same, don't be surprised to find no difference in them.

I'm not very clear on your theory as you explain it here. It seems that you are merely reitierating Einstein's Energy mass equivalence.

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

Patrick
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 7 months ago #5608 by Patrick

Replied by Patrick on topic Reply from P

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(123...)I think Dr. Flandern equates the word essence with substance so your definitions for the symbolic 0, 1 and -1 are different than his.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
From what I have read "His" own definitions are different than "his own definitions".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(123...)If you define them to be the same, don't be surprised to find no difference in them. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
EXACTLY CORRECT! See, I knew you had a good grasp on it. If E=mc^2 then what is the difference between "Energy" and "Mass" besides their properties?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(123...)I'm not very clear on your theory as you explain it here. It seems that you are merely reitierating Einstein's Energy mass equivalence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Einstein said that mass is equal to energy and vice versa but he didn't say that "EVERYTHING", including space itself, is made of "ENERGY", from "Energy".
"Energy is all that Exists"
"Energy is Eternal".
"Everything that exists is made of Energy FROM Energy".
"Existence is Eternal".

So you see, it doesn't matter if you have "Everything"(mass) or you have "Nothing"(energy) because they are one in the same thing.

Patrick<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

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

Time to create page: 0.227 seconds