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>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: In your model, any form is caused by a pre-existing form. So, you think a form is a thing but the very substance that makes up the form isn't?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Where did that idea come from? Of course substance is a thing and exists. Forms are made of substance, and substances are themselves forms on a smaller scale. -|Tom|-



<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Sorry for the confusion in words. I think I was trying to equate existence with substance. I was trying to say that existence is a state of being and this state is a "thing" that can be said to have a cause as a change in form in substance can be looked at as a change in the state of a substance of which we know to have cause-effect relationship (e.g. a change in the state of momentum of a particle is caused by transfer of momentum from another particle).

Thus, in your terminology, I was looking at existence as a form of "substance" and should also retain the relationship of being caused by a pre-existing form. This pre-existing form would be a state of being in which substance doesn't occupy space as we know it or follow the rules as we know it.

The only problem of reasoning that I see here is that some people cannot understand the distinction between talking about PART of something versus talking about the CONTINUUM of it. They continue to apply the methods used on parts to wholes and understandably derive errant conclusions. Why don't they argue that the number line is finite because any given section of it is finite? Causality as they conceive it only applies to finite sections of the infinite universe.

I also notice that the naysayers have nothing to offer that is less shaky than what they are criticizing. Some seem more bent on saying GOTCHA than they are on having reasonable discussion. If the universe had a distinct origin at some point I challenge them to explain how the substance suddenly popped into existence and what keeps it from just as easily popping out of existence at any moment. If one can happen without reason then so can the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: By what stretch of imagination do you propose that 0

---

>(+n)+(-n) is a miracle?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I proposed no such thing. What I said was that something (forms) cannot become nothing (non-existence). That is a statement about physical things. I have always distinguished between mathematical concepts (which include zero and infinity and do not have physical constraints) versus physical objects (which cannot become either infinite or non-existent, but can only change form, and must obey the physical principles).

It seems to me that you and a few others don't like the conclusion, and try to pick out some intermediate step in the syllogism and twist the meaning. I get the impression that some of them feel that their personal beliefs are being challenged. I don't see that. A Supreme Being, if one exists, has always kept His existence unverifiable, which is why religions attach such value to faith. So it seems to me that any religion can live with either conclusion here -- an eternal and infinite universe or a created, finite universe. I see no logic to the notion that a Supreme Being could not have created a universe with either appearance. Fundamentalists already argue that the universe was created just 6000 years ago, with light from galaxies billions of light-years away created already en route so that the universe just <i>appeared</i> billions of years old.

It is our job as physicists to see if we can explain reality without miracles. So far, everything seems to have a possible explanation consistent with the physical principles. I don't read anything into that other than that our understanding of the universe is improving. -|Tom|-

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

The only problem of reasoning that I see here is that some people cannot understand the distinction between talking about PART of something versus talking about the CONTINUUM of it.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The problem I see with your comment is that you critisizing the resoning used here and not offering an alternative view. In other words, although you posted something, actually you failled to become a part of the debate. It's easy to critisize other's reasoning but it's hard to provide answers to the fundamental problems we're discussing here. Both positions in this debate are very well understood. You effort to undermine one versus the other on the basis of misinterpretation is based on a fallacious logic.

TVF's postulates are clear, so are George's, Mac's and mine. I, and others, claim TVF is making contradictory statements. Do you have a concise, clear and deductive argument against one or the other?

You may start by saying:

I agree with X because:

premise 1
premise 2
premise 2
..........
premise n

---

Conclusion(s)

Otherwise I might have to look whether these boards have an "ignore" feature.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: I was trying to say that existence is a state of being and this state is a "thing" that can be said to have a cause as a change in form in substance...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The two possibilities are that that existence has a cause or that existence itself is eternal and unchanging. You assume the former, but without stating a reason, if any, behind that choice. -|Tom|-

This debate has become intense, and is interesting to many. Let me take this occasion for a reminder that all participants should direct their postings to the subject matter here, and avoid making any characterizations of other participants, their intelligence, motives, ancestory, or any other personal attributes. If any post is inappropriate, that is for the Moderator to say. Please keep your passions in check and stick to the subject. Remember: turning ad hominem is usually an indicator that the poster feels his side is losing on the merits. -|Tom|-