Broken Circle

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />Tom if you don't pull in jrich's reigns I will.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gentlemen, we have an interesting discussion going on an important topic in cosmology and philosophy. Let's avoid denigrating one another's character, and be more tolerant of criticisms specific to one's position.

Jrich and Mac -- It should be evident from my last message to Mac that I take his position seriously, even if I do not agree with it. Mac is making a positive contribution to the discussion. And it should be recognized that people who have had a position on an issue for any length of time normally do not change their minds overnight, no matter how powerful the arguments. One needs time to re-examine all the consequences of having held a different position and made decisions based on that position.

There are people in the world who do not even have the mental skill of being able to unlearn something once learned wrongly. But that should not be cause for disrespecting them. The people here bring many different perspectives and backgrounds to the discussion, and these help all of us assess the strengths and weaknesses of our own positions.

Pretend this discussion will be reprinted in the NY Times next week, and act with the dignity you would want the world to see. After all, anything is possible. [}] -|Tom|-

Tom,

I'd like to better understand your objection. We all agree that all physical things (forms) must always have a beginning and an end.

<font color="yellow">I would agree all physical things including (forms) must have a beginning. I would say that all things must have an end, although I suspect that is the case. </font id="yellow">

<b>That is what reason tells us, and is our experience with no exceptions. What is unclear is how you justify applying this to the set of all forms.</b>

<font color="yellow">From my prior post.

Webster:

Create: To cause to come into existance.
Creation: 1 - A creating or being created.
2 - The Universe and everything in it, all the world.

The true meaning of the words are clear here. If it exists it was created. It specifically applies to the universe. If something is non-existant and has never existed you would agree that it was never created. </font id="yellow">


<b>We all know that all integers are finite, but the set of all integers is not. The same is true for everything that is unbounded. So the mere fact that every single member of a set, without exception, is finite (or has finite duration) does not limit the entire set from being infinite (or eternal). Do we agree on that point?</b>

<font color="yellow">No. I would only agree that it is unclear if there is an infinite future but I hold there is no existance without creation and claiming eternal existance violates more than logic it requires an accumulation of infinite time to have been eternal until now. Since nothing physical (and I assume you view time as a phusical reality) can become infinite that seems to say the eternal view is flawed.</font id="yellow">

<b>To me, the key is that we never observe any form either coming into existence or passing out of existence. Instead, forms are assembled from other smaller forms, and forms decay or explode into other smaller forms. But every single bit of every form remains accounted for, with no creation ex nihilo or demise ad nihil. The universe contains so many forms that we would expect to see these processes operating today if they were possible; but we do not see them despite the fact that we do see the continual appearance of new forms and the continual loss of old ones.</b>

<font color="yellow">I'll not cite virtual particles since I don't see them as creation ex nihilo although they may be. They come from the the quantum foam but we cannot see it, touch it or detect it directly such that it may infact be creation ex nihilo but I would hold that that is the case.

However, it does seem to me the the expansion of space is ex nihilo.</font id="yellow">

<b>Therefore, in the time span allotted to us, we observe that all forms are finite in duration, but the set of all forms shows no evolution one way or the other.

To account for this, there are two and only two logical possibilities: (1) creation of a vast, probably infinite amount of substance out of nothing in the past, with the ever-present threat of everything returning to nothing, perhaps suddenly, in the future; or (2) the past and future have the same assortment of finite-duration forms as the present, to eternity.</b>

<font color="yellow">I would agree that these would appear to be the only two extreme possibility. But I take exception to the introduction of "infinite substance".

Of the two choices #1 appears at least viable. #2 does not.</font id="yellow">

<b>Because (1) requires a miracle or miracles, it is excluded from consideration in physics.</b>

<font color="yellow">This is an erroneous assumption. Failure to understand a process does not make it a miracle. Your statement that creation is excluded from consideration in physics is simply false. Although you personally disagree with it the Big Bang is just such an example which happens to be the mainstream acceptanced view; which is #1 not #2. At least in the BB view that starts with a singularity which is one view.</font id="yellow">


<b>Because (2) requires no miracles, it is the only logical option remaining to us.</b>

<font color="yellow">I for one would say that to exist without ever having come into existance requires the miracle.</font id="yellow">

<b> Understanding eternity as a concept appears to be no more logically difficult than understanding infinity as a concept. We need infinity to resolve Zeno's paradoxes, without which change would be impossible; and we need infinity because we cannot conceive of an end to space where nothing can ever go. By analogy, we need eternity to understand existence too.</b>

<font color="yellow">Infinity and eternity are linked at the hip and are inseperable. Infinity is not a physical possability, it is only valid mathematically, eternity too then becomes a mere concept and is not a physical quality or quantity.</font id="yellow">


quote:

---

On the other hand the view that something has existed for eternity and hence never "came" into existence simply doesn't logically seem to provide any answer but merely casts aside any attempt to ever learn anything further about our origins.

---

<b>This is incorrect because the fact that the set of all forms is eternal does not change the fact that all forms have finite duration. We are finite-duration forms, as are all forms. So we will continue to seek to learn our origins and history and place in the universe.</b>

<font color="yellow">This is invalid based on the false allegation that forms are eternal. It is a circular arguement.</font id="yellow">


quote:

---

It simply makes no sense to me to suggest something that is physically tangible was never created.

---

<b>We cannot think clearly if we use words with double or ambiguous meanings. Everything physically tangible is of finite duration, and we loosely speak of everything as having been "created" at some point. But when we use that mode of speaking, we do not mean creation ex nihilo, and we do not imply any miracle. We mean that everything physically tangible was "created" by assembly or disassembly from other forms. Every physically tangible form was created in that sense. In physics, nothing was ever created in the sense of a miracle, from nothing.</b>

<font color="yellow">Once again you make the error of assuming a lack of understanding implies a miracle. Creation ex nihilo is not a miracle. Existing without ever having been created initially, not just a form, is a miracle.</font id="yellow">


quote:

---

This question must go beyond forms. That is, I am addressing physical existence vs. any specific form of existence.

---

<b>You know it is true for integers, so why can't it be true for forms? Every single integer, without exception, is finite. The set of all integers is infinite. The duration of every single form, without exception, is finite. But the duration of the set of all forms is infinite.</b>

<font color="yellow">Mathematics can, when jpropely applied and limited, describe reality. It can never create reality.</font id="yellow">


quote:

---

N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) (the latest revision of the origin formula); where "N" is "Nothingness",

---

&gt; is bifurcating into, and +/- "s" are equal but opposite "something". This simple expression shows that creation ex nihilo can indeed occur without violating conservation. How that can happen is another matter. Mathematically it can.
--

123.....,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>If we can imagine time reversal, acausality, and negative existence to speak
of it, even in negative terms, the universe has to be larger than that. I think
it's too early to preclude such "irrational" forms.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Are you stradeling the fence or do you have a preferance. I really couldn't be sure. You are being to diplomatic.[]</font id="yellow">

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>When will it not be "too early" to preclude things that are not subject to reason, observation, or experiment? -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">Great. Under these terms we must eliminate #2 from the list of possibilites.

1 - It is not reasonable.
2 - We cannot observe it.
3 - It cannot be tested.

You may not like my origin formula. You can even call it unreasonable (actually I believe you have []). We cannot observe it but by golly we at least can do testing and studies. We don't need infinite time to possibily come to an understanding of creation ex nihilo.</font id="yellow">

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

jrich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Perfect!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


<font color="yellow">I agree. See my response. Oh BTW, you give me the impression of being a bit like some GI's in the army. We called them brown nosers. I really hope you have sound basis other than agreeing with Tom because he is the chief here. I have a lot of respect for Tom and I'm sure he knows it.

I would hope he feels the same. We don't have to agree, we merely need to respect other opinions. A quality which you seem to be a bit shy on.</font id="yellow">


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Tom,

<b>The causality principle and the prohibition against creation ex nihilo are examples of physical principles derived from logic alone.</b>

<font color="yellow">Creation ex nihilo is logically created, not logically prohibited. Further you have to assume your assumptions are valid when applying logic to such an issue. It is by far from being absolute as you suggest. Only in a most theoretical sense is your statement true, your assumptions must be valid for your logic to produce truth.</font id="yellow">

<b>But you will not be able to appreciate why unless you learn the power of logic. To those without the constraints offered by logic, "anything is possible". But logic shows, without any room for doubt, that reality is considerably more constrained than imagination.</b>

<font color="yellow">Here we agree. We just don't agree on the application and proclaimed results of such logic.</font id="yellow">

<b>BTW, all of Meta Model cosmology is built on the principles of physics, and hence on logic. No assumptions were allowed as premises.</b>

<font color="yellow">I can't believe you have said this. Since when is it not an assumption that scales are infinite and things continue to scale down well below our ability to observe, detect or test. Explain please how this is not an assumption.

Since gravitons have never been detected, explain how building a theory on their existance is not an assumption. Please remember I happen to agree with the Pushing Gravity concept. I just disagree strongly with your assertion that you have used no assumptions. Your theory (as well as mine) are full of assumptions.</font id="yellow">



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien