New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5205 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

George,

I agree with your interpretation of what Tom is saying. But what I am saying is just the opposite of your interpretation of what I meant.

+1 and -1 indeed by reverse mathematical processes can come from "0" or nothing. Like I said don't ask beyond that but that is my view.

It even goes to what we now refer to as the Chiral Condensate once considered the "Vacuum or Void" (Nothing space) where virtual particles appear and vanish all the time.

By energy density calculations and E = mc^2 it should be a very dense solid but it is not only around us be we are in it and yet do not feel it, move freely through it, etc. So to me the virtual particles are the product of 0

> +1, -1.

As I said I don't have a good handle on the ultimate explanation for it all but that view seems to overcome the "It has always existed, therefore was never created" view. That view is unteanable to me.

For a larger picture of this view let me suggest my home page. Click on my profile. Thanks.

Mac

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

n/a4
Offline
New Member

21 years 8 months ago #5395 by n/a4

Replied by n/a4 on topic Reply from George

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This premise is arguably false. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

For mine and others benefit, please provide a logical arguement based on fact. I will define "IN" as: Within the limits, bounds, or area of. And "OUT" as: Beyond or outside the limits, bounds, or area of.

Sincerely,

George Moore

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

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 8 months ago #5206 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

...if something never came into existence, it cannot exist. There is another possibility: That it always existed. -|Tom|-

You both are saying:

If something exists, then it either came into existence or it always existed.

One can demonstrate easily that a thing that never came into existence does not exist. An example is the white raven. One may also be able to demonstrate that a thing that never came into existence, cannot actually exist at all. An example is a also a white raven. But no one has ever demonstrated that there is such a thing that can always exist without ever coming into existence.

Then, using such a premise (always existed) in any logical inference simply results in conclusions that cannot be demonstrated.

Historically, there hasn't been much respect for theories based on non-provable premises. At least in the spirit of logical positivism but even beyond and long before that. Actually, it has been shown that axioms of infinity and perpetual existence are equivalent (logically) to religious doctrines.

Joe

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5504 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[George]:For mine and others benefit, please provide a logical argument based on fact. I will define "IN" as: Within the limits, bounds, or area of. And "OUT" as: Beyond or outside the limits, bounds, or area of.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That's a bit vague, but I'll assume you mean spatial limits, spatial bounds, and spatial volumes.

Then we agree that nothing can ever come into or go out of the universe, because the universe has no spatial limits, bounds, or volume in either cosmology under consideration (MM and BB).

But what about things coming "into existence" (from nothing)? Does the same definition apply? That would make such a thing impossible. Or perhaps you have not yet defined "into" in that sense, in which case I still need a definition. -|Tom|-

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

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 8 months ago #5569 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
One can demonstrate easily that a thing that never came into existence does not exist.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I'd like to know how that is done. The existence of the universe NOW is not the least affected by whether it had a finite or infinite origin.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
An example is the white raven.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
But no one has ever demonstrated that there is such a thing that can always exist without ever coming into existence.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

One does not have to. Every system accepts certain premises as axioms. The axioms are never provable. Occam's razor likes premises that involve the least baggage. An eternal existence eliminates the need to explain an origin.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Historically, there hasn't been much respect for theories based on non-provable premises.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Like logic itself?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Actually, it has been shown that axioms of infinity and perpetual existence are equivalent (logically) to religious doctrines.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

In what sense, demanding the existence of a creator? That's a sweeping conclusion, can you narrow it down a bit?

[/quote]

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5570 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: If something exists, then it either came into existence or it always existed.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

True.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>One can demonstrate easily that a thing that never came into existence does not exist. An example is the white raven.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I do not care for word games. Above, I defined white ravens and all such things as "forms", and stipulated that all forms come into and go out of existence because every form in the universe (every specific thing that exists) necessarily has finite extent and existence.

And I carefully tried to draw a distinction in the use of the words "comes into existence" and "goes out of existence" for forms and for essence. I said that forms "come into existence" only in the sense that their parts come together and assemble for a finite time from smaller forms, then eventually either merge with still larger forms or decompose back into smaller forms. That is the sense in which any form's existence is finite.

That was explicitly contrasted with "coming into existence" from nothing, or passing out of existence back into nothing, which clearly requires magic, a miracle, or a supernatural act. That is a logical impossibility by definition of "nothing", meaning non-existence or the total absence of forms at any scale.

So your example of a white raven is not relevant to my argument because it is a form, and it can either come into existence from other forms or not, but in either case does not represent coming into existence from nothing.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>One may also be able to demonstrate that a thing that never came into existence, cannot actually exist at all. An example is a also a white raven. But no one has ever demonstrated that there is such a thing that can always exist without ever coming into existence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No one has ever "demonstrated" something coming into existence from nothing either. We are not here discussing physical hypotheses (such as white ravens), but logical syllogisms. Demonstrations are irrelevant. Only the truth of the premises and validity of the reasoning is relevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Then, using such a premise (always existed) in any logical inference simply results in conclusions that cannot be demonstrated. Historically, there hasn't been much respect for theories based on non-provable premises. At least in the spirit of logical positivism but even beyond and long before that.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is an irrelevant argument, because we are now speaking of logical syllogisms, not testable hypotheses.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Actually, it has been shown that axioms of infinity and perpetual existence are equivalent (logically) to religious doctrines.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Premise1: "Creation ex nihilo" requires a miracle.
Premise2: Miracles are excluded from physics.
Conclusion A: "Creation ex nihilo" is excluded from physics.

Premise3: The essence from which forms are composed exists.
Premise4: That essence came into existence from nothing.
Conclusion B: Premise 4 is excluded by Conclusion A.

Premise3: The essence from which forms are composed exists.
Premise5: That essence always existed.
Conclusion C: Premise 5 is allowed because nothing excludes it.

Premise6: Premises 4 & 5 are the only two possibilities.
Premise7: Premise 4 is excluded and Premise 5 is not.
Conclusion

Premise 5 must be true.

-|Tom|-

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

Time to create page: 0.442 seconds