Broken Circle

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: Instead of saying "0" doesn't exist, try saying: "Absolute Nothingness" is not something which can exist.

Instead of saying "Infinity cannot be created or exist", try saying: "Infinity can only be created or exist as a mathematical concept" and is a point in which it's existence in reality is impossible.

Instead of saying ["0" must always be something], try saying: In physics there is never something which can come INTO existence or go OUT of exisitence and therefore the mathematical expression for "0" being equal to "nothingness" does not apply in physics.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Please be careful, Patrick. If you phrase things that way, we will find ourselves in agreement, and that will kill the great debate! <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

Check your calendar, Dr. Van Flandern,

LB

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: Infinity can only be created or exist as a mathematical concept" and existence in reality is impossible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Good job. You resurrected the debate!

As worded, your sentence seems to imply that mathematical concepts do not exist in reality. Mathematicians would be surprised to learn this. Anyone with a thought or idea would be surprised to learn that the thought or idea or concept does not exist in reality.

But perhaps you could live with the alternative terminology, wherein the mathematical concept of infinity exists but is simply not part of the material, tangible universe. So we have:

* Integers are part of reality, and can have material, tangible counterparts, such as numbers on a mathematical line.

* No integer is infinite; all are finite. Yet the total number of integers is infinite; i.e., it is unbounded. (No "largest integer" can ever be set.)

* Analogously, forms are part of reality, and are material and tangible. No form is infinite; all are finite. Yet the total number of forms is infinite; i.e., it is unbounded. (No "largest form" can ever be found.)

Applying the same concept to time, infinity --> eternity. Then we have:

* Forms are part of reality, and are material and tangible. No form is eternal; all are temporary. Yet the set of all forms is eternal; i.e., it had no beginning or end. (No "First Form" can ever be found.)

I sure hope that doesn't work for you because we would then be back to a collapsed debate. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

I suggest we reject Cantor, Reimann and all those amateurs and use the wisdom of Buzz Lightyear:

Infinity.....and beyond!!

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

[Tom]So calculus and celestial mechanics are now "metaphysical ideas"? That's a strange world you live in, JoeW.

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

You're making progress TVF. I can feel it. That's exactly what Dr. Al said. The master of illusion. For celestial mechanics I can't say anything. I let its inventor, another master of illusion, Newton, who called it himself metaphysical. Now, if you don't know that or insist otherwise, yes, I concede, I live in a strange world.

Anyone talking about infinity, forms, eternallity, existence or anything related to that crap is doing metaphysics. Physics is the science of logical analysis of observations and conclusions from that. Under this well accepted definition, any theory based on non-observable or non-empirically proved hypotheses is metaphysical. It becomes physical if it's demonstrated but until then Harry Potter and gravitons are in the same realm of fantasy of the metaphysical literature.

When you realise the meaning of what I'm saying you may be in a better position to reformulate your ideas in a way that it will be accepted by metaphysicians. Because at this point, your are swimming in between, in the gray area between physics and metaphysics, an eclectic stand but neverthless not looked upon with any respect.

I say all these because I've read many postings of yours and I've never seen the word "postulate", which you ought to be using constantly. If you do that, it will be a good start for you to join the ranks of metaphysicians.

I just hope you perceive all the above in a positive way.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: Anyone talking about infinity, forms, eternallity, existence or anything related to that crap is doing metaphysics.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

So all engineers are metaphysicians? I don't think so.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I've read many postings of yours and I've never seen the word "postulate", which you ought to be using constantly.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Chapter one of <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i> begins a 5-chapter exposition of the Meta Model by showing how we do away with all postulates. This was done because experience (mine and everyone's) shows that any postulate made about the universe soon leads deductively to a contradiction with observations. That is why all inductive cosmologies so far have failed.

Chapter 20 of the same book goes into "truth and reality", and shows how we break the circularity intrinsic to starting with no postulates.

I didn't "invent" any of this. Reasoning, observation, and experiment without an overlay of postulates drives one uniquely along a particular path. I just followed the path.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I just hope you perceive all the above in a positive way.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I understand you have good intentions. But you insist on postulates. I have two problems with that:
(1) Some of your postulates require miracles.
(2) Any postulates eventually lead to contradictions.

I realize the approach I described is both audacious (by suggesting deductive reasoning without postulates) and at the same time semantic (by "assuming nothing" except the rules for logic and math, which can all be regarded as a postulates unless one is careful with definitions). But the model that pops out keeps paying dividends by already having explanations for new observations built into the model, while other cosmologies must resort to ad hoc helper hypotheses. Why sell a stock that is still increasing in value? -|Tom|-