New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

Your present definition of substance and form leads to contradiction. I don't think you have resolved that yet. You say substance is the collection of all forms. But you also say that forms are finite in duration. Now, what is the common meaning of finite? To me it means coming into and out of existence.

I gave you what imo more logically consistent definitions for form and substance. And my definitions are also superior in the fact that they clearly show the cause effect relationships between form and substance. In my definition, forms are a different class than substances, therefore they can have different properties than substance, such as the property of being temporal as opposed to being eternal. And existence exnihilo is not violated since the substances are still retained in the forms: eg. 1+3 = not 4 but [1+3] (a new form that is the aggregate of the substances 1 and 3 with the operator + showing the causal relationship.

But I do not claim that substances are the end of the story, like you. No, just as we can imagine a different class generated by the operation of integers, we can imagine different classes that through some operation produce the integer set. The integer set is only one possible class of rules just as our present universe is only one possible class of rules. Denying the possibility of other sets of rules, the MM model also limits itself to the knowledge of the integer set.

Intermission - A humorous story ...

Q) What is the one thing you can do that is worse than telling your wife she is wrong?

A) Prove it.

We now return to our regularly scheduled extremely interesting and highly educational discussion. (Just in case there is a question, I am sincere in this opinion, on both counts.)


At this time I have no suggestions,
LB

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

The problem I have is, because I'm not seeing any connection to the discussion, it looks like a diversion.

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

I'm simply amazed by this statement. What's the point for me making a diversion? To divert attention away from you contradictions?

From Zeno to Eintein and to Heisenberg, the continuoum hypothesis has played a key role in the development of cosmological models. Now you seem oblivious of this important fact of science but still attempting to present a cosmological model, lacking basic understanding of the central issues present in such models, which is best described by the continuoum hypothesis.

I won't even attempt to transform these boards into a tutorial about the continuoum hypothesis or mathematics and physics in general. You should at least be thankful that someone pointed you in the right direction and there is more work for you besides looking at the encyclopedia for answers or reading the well known false solution to the problem given by Gamow.

Let me finish by saying that you cosmological model is essentially a assertion of the continuoum hypothesis but the added axioms generate obvious contradictions. So obvious that first year graduates of math can easily spot. This is why the MM cannot be accepted in mainstream science. It is not because there is an establishment conspiring against new theories. People out there are eager for something new but it has to be consistent and clean of contradictions.

I hope I have succeeded in pointing out the contradictions as well as their source and the basis for eliminating them. Actually, you need another axiom, science needs another axiom, nobody knowns what is that axiom (almost nobody).

Good luck.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<b>I bow to your humble knowledge – oh look at what we have here at:
”www. www.howstuffworks.com/question85.htm ”

“In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote.

Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first..”

<b>Seems someone could be in the courts soon for plagiarism he he he.

You are correct in the above scenario, however it does depend on the phrasing of the question.
1. Which came first the chicken or the egg of a chicken?
OR
2. Which came first the chicken or the egg of a non-chicken?

We are therefore both right depending on the phrasing of the question. Since the case of No.1 the egg of a chicken can only come from a true chicken. Hence chicken came first.

No.2 the egg of a non-chicken which created the true chicken came from a “Red Jungle-fowl” – part of the pheasant family which laid a non-chicken egg and out came a true chicken.

Lol,

dave
</b>


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

If the mutations happened in the gametes and not at the zygote, the gametes themselves are already chicken-gametes and the fertilized egg is already a chicken egg. So, it is very likely that the fertilized egg that produced the first chicken is already a chicken egg. So the chicken egg was laid by a non-chicken, but it was already a chicken egg at the point of fertilization and even before fertilization, the "egg" was already a chicken "egg".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123…]: I even like calling people names. It's fun. I don't do it in the real world of course but in the virtual world, you are supposed to vent a little. Sticks and stones... As long as it doesn't get too nasty... I don't think I have been nasty. … Anyways, a little ad hominem is healthy, imo.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, that is certainly an interesting and refreshingly different perspective. The reason we made rules against name-calling and insults here is because, in other internet forums (especially USENET), more often than not it wrecks the discussion and changes it into a flame-throwing contest. It is hard for most people to keep their composure after being offended. I admit these flaming contests can be entertaining. But we wanted to keep this Board friendly and on topic, figuring there are plenty of other places for entertainment.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I think you are probably a very busy man and this matter probably isn't the focus of your life as it has been mine these few days so I do apologize for being rude at least.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Your surmise is correct. If several participants remain active in this discussion, I may have to curtail my participation this coming week because of the press of other matters. (I have a Meta Research Bulletin mailing, for one thing.) But I'll do what I can to hold up my end because this has certainly been interesting – unexpectedly so, for me. And I'm not surprised that often any more.

I also thank you for your apology. You weren't that rude, but it still indicates that behind the electrons is a considerate person recognizing that others have feelings too. And that always helps discussions go smoothly and stay friendly.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> You say substance is the collection of all forms. But you also say that forms are finite in duration. Now, what is the common meaning of finite? To me it means coming into and out of existence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

When you eat an apple, in common parlance the apple has gone out of existence. Yet none of its atoms have gone out of existence. So in this discussion, we say the apple has "changed form" rather than ceased to exist. We reserve "going out of existence" in this discussion for changing from something into nothing. Changing from something to something else is here called changing form.

So yes, all forms have finite duration before they change to some other form. But their essence ("substance"), the stuff that all forms are made from, has infinite duration.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I gave you what imo more logically consistent definitions for form and substance.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Okay, but please don't confuse your proposed definitions with mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>just as we can imagine a different class generated by the operation of integers, we can imagine different classes that through some operation produce the integer set.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Why do we care about operations on integers or forms, or different sets of "rules", in this discussion? The point I needed was that an unbridgeable gap exists between the finite and the infinite. Then physical forms are always finite or temporary, while concepts may be infinite or eternal. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
LOL - Which style are you referring to? Last time I had an argument on this board was months ago, and I learned my lesson back then that this type of debate just leads to flared tempers and name-calling; besides which, I don't remember you taking part - unless, God forbid, you're a resurrected version of Patrick just coming back to haunt me? (just kidding <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>)
I'd be fascinated to see where I ever used capitalization (never done that before), but I must confess I've only skimmed this thread (too deep for me), so whatever the style is you're referring to is a mystery; maybe you can link some of the old threads I previously posted on and I'll take a look to see if I can improve myself.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well I'm man enough to apologize for misidentifying someone. So I do so. The "style" I'm referring to is argueing to the point of insinuating or outright saying someone is a misguided fool and then stomping out in a huff as JoeW and I believe you did at one point. I seem to recall that you weren't coming back here because you wanted to go somewhere where true scientific discourse occurs. But my memory admittedly is not as good as it once was. Many people have come and gone here and if I pulled the wrong name out of the hat I sincerely apologize.

Note that as I predicted JoeW did come back for more. He said he wasn't checking this board anymore and that there was no need to respond to his post. We should be "thankful" that he is pointing us in the "right" direction and Tom doesn't know as much as a first year math student. Joe, just stick to your argument and leave this other stuff out and you will be taken more seriously.