<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: I think it goes without saying that I not only disagree but that we have completely opposite views of what requires a miracle.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I don't think we could disagree about "something coming from nothing" requiring a miracle, which the dictionary defines as "an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God". It also defines "nothing" as "an indefinite pronoun indicating that there is not anything, not a single thing, or not a single part of a thing; a state of non-existence". The truth of "something coming from nothing" requiring a miracle is self-evident by the definitions of "nothing" and "miracle".
So I assume that our disagreement is over whether mathematics or reason should govern our thinking. I have always argued that math is a simple tool lacking any intelligence, is frequently abused, and is a miserable guide to understanding nature because it usually has none of the constraints that reality has, such as the constraints embodied in the "principles of physics". You, OTOH, seem to use math as a guide to thinking. So it is no wonder that we reach opposed conclusions.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>To me it is totally subjective and without any mathematical under pinning to suggest the universe has existed eternally and therefore was never created. That proposition is superficial on its surface.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I translate this claim as meaning "Mac values mathematical thinking over reasoning. TVF has the opposite values." They do lead to opposite conclusions about reality. But since when is math a guide to reality, except to the extent that we humans put it there?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Let me request here that you respond to questions in "Broken Circle".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
That whole discussion is gobbledegook to me. I have the same response there as I did here: "That is mathematics, a concept. Where is its counterpart in reality?"
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Not understanding the underlying mechanics of a mathematical proposition is entirely different than suggesting it requires a miracle. On that basis one can also say n/0 = infinity also requires a miracle...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I have great difficulty answering questions that are couched in confusing, ambiguous terms and make implicit, unacceptable assumptions. Your question assumes some connection between n/0 and reality. Where did that come from? n/0 is a math concept, and requires no miracle. n/0 = <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>. Infinity has certain rules demanded by logic, such as <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>+<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>=<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>. However, any correspondence between math and reality must involve either an analogy or a one-to-one correspondence. I don't see either applicable to your usages.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>... since I don't believe you or even Einstein could describe how infinity becomes reality.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
This betrays the block in your own thinking. You are so accustomed to thinking that everything was created in a miracle that you do not even recognize the opposite viewpoint as a possibility. Your "infinity becomes reality" implies a beginning. But in eternity, there is no beginning, and hence no "becoming". If every moment of time is the logical equivalent of every other, then there could not possibly have been a moment of time that was fundamentally different. Every such moment, no matter how far back, had an eternity of moments before and after it; just as every integer, no matter how large, has an infinity of integers behind and ahead of it. If the universe had a beginning, then it has an age and is evolving. If it had no beginning, then it has no age and is not evolving, just changing. In the latter case, all fundamental quantities (e.g., matter, energy, entropy) are conserved. By contrast, in Big Bang cosmology, none of these quantities is preserved.
I'm not claiming that observations provide a unique resolution of this choice -- evolving or non-evolving universe. However, logic provides a clear choice -- miracle at the beginning needed or not needed. On that basis, I opt for the latter. -|Tom|-
Topic Author
