New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Magoo]: Here is where I think you are adding confusion for us common folk. My definition of substance, which I get from the dictionary, is: That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
A material of a particular kind or constitution.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I gave "substance" a quite different definition, the collection of all forms. I could have invented a new word, but dislike that practice. Instead, I used a familiar word with a new definition that has some similarities and some differences from the dictionary definition.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Dr. Tom is now trying to define substance as "not a tangible thing".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Substance as defined is not itself material or tangible, even though it describes material, tangible forms. This is just like the "set of all integers" not being material or tangible, but describes integers which can be material and tangible (as on a numbered ruler or line). -|Tom|-

Dr. Van Flandern,

Earlier you asked for suggestions to help this discussion break out of the loop in which it is stuck. It occurs to me that small differences in the way something is described can SOMETIMES make a big difference. Perhaps this is one of those cases.

To all - see if these small changes make a difference in your understanding of forms and substance:


==================================================
A minor rephrasing of The Integer Analogy:

An integer (any specific integer) is finite
The set of all integers is infinite
(we have a name for this set - "The Set of All Integers") [is there an actual name for this set?]

A form (any specific form) is finite
The set of all forms is infinite
(the MM has a name for this set - "Substance")

===============================================

Dr. Van Flandern - consider abandoning the statement:
*** Forms come from substance.

in favor of this statement:
*** An individual form (is made/comes) from various combinations of other individual forms.

---

Equivalent statements for integers:

abandon
*** Integers come from the set of all integers.

in favor of
*** An individual integer (is made/comes) from various combinations of other individual integers.

To me these changes seem unnecessarily detailed. But to others they may be just what is needed to grok the concept. Hope it helps.

Regards,
LB

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Larry]: consider abandoning the statement: *** Forms come from substance *** in favor of this statement: *** An individual form (is made/comes) from various combinations of other individual forms. ***<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Given that several people have had difficulty with my choice of words, I endorse this suggestion by Larry, and will adhere to it in the future.

Note that it represents no change in the concepts, but just in the choice of words to describe them. -|Tom|-

I have accepted an invitation from Patrick to come back but only for just one post. I understand certain issues regarding infinity and the MM are now present in this topic.

From what I'm able to see by scrolling through the various posts, TVF has changed his notion of infinity dramatically. During our past discussions six months ago, TVF's realism approach was that the universe is infinite in mass, scale dimension and time. Obviously, since several paradoxes dealing with infinity are well known in mathemetics since antiquity, TVF is trying to slowly push his needed infinity into verbalism than realism.

However, the graviton/elyson model requires infinite space and time due to Thermodynamic considerations. Therefore, any discussion about the verbalism of the term infinity is useless in the sense. The real issue is: is the universe infinite in dimensions and time or finite as in the standard model?

If the universe is finite and expanding then the graviton model collapses in a split second. Apparently, recent measurements by NASA satellites have confirmed the finite and expanding nature of the universe and other measurements made will soon prove the real nature of gravitation, which is not by any means pushing but pulling-pushing and dark matter plays an important role in that.

I always accept invitations from friends like Patrick, even to join them in a hostile environment, like this board. But I can't stay any longer since my experience with this board has been very bad, the least to say.

Obviously, TVF is now talking about "mental" infinity because he must salvage anything he can before data from NASA come in. Of course infinity will always exist in the minds of people, a proof is that I just wrote the word infinity.

Essense and existence were terms used by Patrick who was attacked by TVF for not being a realist by using these terms. At that time TVF was still under the impression that infinity could be justified in a realism way. When faced with the paradoxes of infinity he started the word games: forms, substance, essense and all this terminology. That was an attempt to confuse the opponents of the MM but in doing so he was essentially commiting to Patricks ideas and using his terminology, something he viciously attacked in the past.

Of course two people can have the same idea. A celebrated example is Newton and Leibniz. But it's a different story when one person attackes another for smoking a cigarete in a public place and then the same person is seen in another public place doing exactly what he accused the other of doing wrong. That's what TVF has done, he proclaimed "essence" as not real before and now he uses that to justify his terminally ill MM.

But again, no need to stay here and help, TVF knows everything (except reality of course).

So long everyone

P.S. For TVF: UFF stands for Universality of Free Fall. I hope you learn the term by now. If not, continuing education is available at a college near you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]

Larry,
Here is where the problem lies:
Accordong to Tom, and the Meta Model, "substance" does not exist as a thing, has no mass, and is infinite.
"Forms" exist, have mass, are the "things" which make up "substance", and are finite.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Close (probably), but change the last sentence to:
"Forms" exist, have mass, are the "things" which MM collectively refers to as "Substance".

Concepts like "the set of all integers" and "the set of all forms" are ways of thinking about certain aspects of things that cannot be physically realized. Aspects like their infinite count.

It might help just to think of the word "Substance" as nothing more than a label for "the set of all forms". I'm sure Dr. Van Flandern will argue that "Substance" is more than a label, but perhaps not so much more that this approach won't work.

Again it is a small change in the wording.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I guess the need would be in understanding where do the "forms" come from? I thought Tom said they came from substance but then he changed that. They didn't "Always" exist because then they would be infinite.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
According to MM, if we were to devote enough resources to the effort we would always be able to find a "particle" that was at least several orders of magnitude smaller than the currently recognized "smallest" particle.

Always.

There is no reason in logic to suppose an end to this process. And there are no observational or experimental data that suggest that it would ever end.

The only concepts from math that match this behavior are those relating to infinity. So even though each newest form we find is finite, we "know" by analogy and logic that there is no actual smallest thing. The process continues towards infinity, but obviously never gets there. Even if we keep trying forever.

Forms assemble from lesser forms, persist for a time, and disolve into lesser forms. This process occurs continuously at all scales. if you could peer deeply enough into a proton you would see something that looked a *little* like galaxies and solar systems. Peer deeper still, deep into the local equivalent of a grain of "sand" on a "beach" and you would come to the local equivalent of a proton.

Now repeat the process with this newly found "proton". And repeat it again and again. Billions, trillions, millions of trillions of billions of orders of magnitude. Or go the other direction, larger and larger.

(The first few chapters of "Dark Matter..." go into more detail and do a better job of describing this. Give it a try.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Why do you even need the term "substance"? It seems as though it is being injected into the concept in an attempt to validate something as "infinite".

Patrick<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I don't know. It always seemd like a reasonable thing to me to name stuff. Makes it easier to talk about it. And think about it.

Regards,
LB

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: Where did the "forms" which make up the other "forms" come from?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This point has come up at least half-a-dozen times already. There are only two possibilities. Either there were First Forms that came from nothing, or forms have come from other forms for eternity. MM opts for the latter because it requires no miracle. -|Tom|-