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>That is, when you eat an apple, that specific apple, it's gone forever, asta la vista.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I've never heard that MetaModel claims that a specific form would become the same specific form in the future, but that the constituents of the form will exist forever under the kind of other forms (The energy that made up the apple will never pass out of existence, just be stored in a different form).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: There really is only one question that needs to resolved: WHERE DO THE ORIGINAL FORMS WHICH MAKE THE OTHER FORMS COME FROM?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Second verse: same as the first. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> Forms come from other forms, ad infinitum. There cannot be such a thing as "original" of "first" forms. See my response to Mac just above. Larry seems to get it too -- see his message again.

The notion that there needs to be a "First Form" comes from creationist thinking. The alternative is eternal existence. Even if you do not like, or even understand, the latter possibility, you must surely see that it is a logical possibility opposed to the other logical possibility of a creation event (a miracle).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>They cannot be eternal because they are "forms".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is a false statement, and you have been shown otherwise by example. Finite things such as integers can perfectly well belong to infinite sets. No matter how you count or combine integers, the results are still finite. Yet the set is infinite. The same applies to forms. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: I will explain the counterpart in reality.
"ENERGY(Existence)"

---

>(apple)+(no apple)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gobbledegook. I have no idea what that means. Do you?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><b>WHERE DO THE ORIGINAL FORMS, THE ONES WHICH MAKE UP THE OTHER FORMS, COME FROM?</b><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Oh, I didn't realize I needed to shout for the hearing impaired. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
<b>THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL FORMS. ALL FORMS COME FROM PREVIOUS FORMS, AD INFINITUM.</b>

You may not like this answer, but it <i>is</i> an answer to your question. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: So some forms are eternal and some are not? Are some forms finite and some infinite?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Forms are like integers. (You <i>must</i> use an analogy or a one-to-one correspondence to understand the meaning of infinity. I am using the integer analogy here.)

* All integers and all combinations of integers are finite. All forms and all combinations of forms are finite and temporary.

* No integers are infinite. No forms are infinite or eternal.

* When counting, integers come from previous integers, ad infinitum. Forms come from previous forms, ad infinitum.

* The "set of all integers" is infinite. The set of all forms is infinite and eternal. [The name of this latter set is "substance". But there is no significance in the choice of the name itself.]

Forms coming from other forms ad infinitum and having no Fisrt Form is an alternative to creation of a First Form <i>ex nihilo</i>. The latter requires a miracle. -|Tom|-

Tom,

So I assume that our disagreement is over whether mathematics or reason should govern our thinking. I have always argued that math is a simple tool lacking any intelligence, is frequently abused, and is a miserable guide to understanding nature because it usually has none of the constraints that reality has, such as the constraints embodied in the "principles of physics". You, OTOH, seem to use math as a guide to thinking. So it is no wonder that we reach opposed conclusions.[unquote]

Ans: I would hold in fact that Relavists attempt to use mathematics as a logical basis for an illigical conclusion of reality. so I don't hold math over logic but unless one understand the math then one has no basis to object to its ultimate meaning. I see no objection to accepting that we don't know everything and that this simple view is far more logical than assuming Gods, miracles, magic etc.

quote:

---

To me it is totally subjective and without any mathematical under pinning to suggest the universe has existed eternally and therefore was never created. That proposition is superficial on its surface.

---

I translate this claim as meaning "Mac values mathematical thinking over reasoning. TVF has the opposite values." They do lead to opposite conclusions about reality. But since when is math a guide to reality, except to the extent that we humans put it there?


Ans: So lets scrap Relativity since it is purely mathematical with a physical understanding. It is nice when one gets to pick and choose when to advocate mathematics and when one chooses to ignore them.



quote:

---

Let me request here that you respond to questions in "Broken Circle".

---

That whole discussion is gobbledegook to me. I have the same response there as I did here: "That is mathematics, a concept. Where is its counterpart in reality?"


Ans: I find this comment disappointing. It all seems very clearly stated. There is either an answer or there is not.



quote:

---

Not understanding the underlying mechanics of a mathematical proposition is entirely different than suggesting it requires a miracle. On that basis one can also say n/0 = infinity also requires a miracle...

---

I have great difficulty answering questions that are couched in confusing, ambiguous terms and make implicit, unacceptable assumptions. Your question assumes some connection between n/0 and reality. Where did that come from? n/0 is a math concept, and requires no miracle. n/0 = . Infinity has certain rules demanded by logic, such as +=. However, any correspondence between math and reality must involve either an analogy or a one-to-one correspondence. I don't see either applicable to your usages.


Ans: Again please be specific in your objections. What are the implicit, unacceptable assumptions?




quote:

---

... since I don't believe you or even Einstein could describe how infinity becomes reality.

---

This betrays the block in your own thinking. You are so accustomed to thinking that everything was created in a miracle that you do not even recognize the opposite viewpoint as a possibility. Your "infinity becomes reality" implies a beginning. But in eternity, there is no beginning, and hence no "becoming". If every moment of time is the logical equivalent of every other, then there could not possibly have been a moment of time that was fundamentally different. Every such moment, no matter how far back, had an eternity of moments before and after it; just as every integer, no matter how large, has an infinity of integers behind and ahead of it. If the universe had a beginning, then it has an age and is evolving. If it had no beginning, then it has no age and is not evolving, just changing. In the latter case, all fundamental quantities (e.g., matter, energy, entropy) are conserved. By contrast, in Big Bang cosmology, none of these quantities is preserved.

I'm not claiming that observations provide a unique resolution of this choice -- evolving or non-evolving universe. However, logic provides a clear choice -- miracle at the beginning needed or not needed. On that basis, I opt for the latter. -|Tom|-


Ans:

:This betrays the block in your own thinking. You are so accustomed to thinking that everything was created in a miracle that you do not even recognize the opposite viewpoint as a possibility. Your "infinity becomes reality" implies a beginning. But in eternity, there is no beginning, and hence no "becoming". [unquote]

I think I have made it abundantly clear I reject magic, miracles or Gods. Where do you in turn then make such statements that my view is based on miracles.

In summary, indeed the choice is yours but before making such choices I would think one should consider statements like "Math lacks intelligence" when simulaneously making statements like "It has always existed hence was never formed".

I am also concerned here in as others have jpointed out I am seeing a sift in your use of words. Initially you insisted that the Universe had existed for "infinite" amount of time. Now you are say in "Eternity" and claim the meaning is different. The meaning at any jpractical application level is the same and you still have the same origin of the universe problem. You can't wish it away by trying to invoke infinity by whatever name you choose next to call it.

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

[TVF]: THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL FORMS. ALL FORMS COME FROM PREVIOUS FORMS, AD INFINITUM.

[Patrick]: WHERE DO THE ORIGINAL FORMS, THE ONES WHICH MAKE UP THE OTHER FORMS, COME FROM?

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

Patrick,

In TVF's model there is no such thing as "Original". The model proposed by TVF has already pronounced your questions invalid, a priori. Therefore, your question must be rephrased in a proper way to attack permises, rather than conclusions.

The obvious first question is:

1. What is your observational evidence TVF for making the hypothesis that there is no starting point or original forms? How can you validate your hypothesis other than stating it in an axiomatic way?

The burden of proof lies with TVF, not you or anyone else, especially when experimental evidence points concretely in the opposite direction of a universe with a finite life span.

Another question is:

2. What is the basis for TVF to include the mathematical concept of infinity (ad infinitum) in a statement regarding the real nature of the world while at the same time insisting (to Mac and others) that infinity exists only in math?

Another much more basic question is: (this one makes me laugh)

3. Ad infinitum and ad absurdum are qualifiers denoting paradoxes in science and historically the objective of science has been to remove them, while preserving the meaning of the underline statement. If I do that ad-hoc, then TVF's statement becomes:

THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL FORMS. ALL FORMS COME FROM PREVIOUS FORMS.

This statement, although seemingly contradictory at a first glance, is essentially what might be the case. It is missing an EITHER OR:

EITHER THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL FORMS OR ALL FORMS COME FROM PREVIOUS FORMS

which does not require the notion of infinity to be true. Either statement can be true in a finite universe. This shows that the form concept is not the central issue in TVF's theory, it's the use of the "ad infinitum" qualifier.