New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

n/a4
Offline
New Member

21 years 8 months ago #5220 by n/a4

Replied by n/a4 on topic Reply from George

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I do not recognize this view as "mine". Moreover, it looks self-contradictory to me. -|Tom|-<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Perhaps it looks contradictory because it is. However, I thought since you said it earlier that it was your view.

Let me see...
If something NEW cannot be created then "CREATION" is impossible.
If something cannot be DESTROYED into nothing then "DEMISE" is impossible.
If nothing can be created or destroyed then all you can have is "NOTHING".

If this holds true, which I challenge its disproof, then all there can be is "NOTHING" and "CREATION from NOTHING".

I can't see how "It has always existed" could be a possibility since in order for it to exist it would require its creation yet, "CREATION" is impossible.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5221 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It seems to me that you are saying that a "Chicken" has been created from an egg but that the egg wasn’t a chicken egg, it was the contents of two other forms which now created a "Chicken".

Is the "Chicken" anything new? Let’s say "Everything in the Universe" is made up of (1’s and 0’s) and that (1’s) are the same as (0’s) but just in a different form. (0=1)
Now, let’s say that a Donkey is made up of all (1’s) and a Horse is made up of all (0’s).
We breed the two and come up with a Mule/(or we can call it a chicken if you like) and it is made up of alternating 1’s and 0’s.(1010101010)

Here is my point, 1’s and 0’s are the same thing. The Donkey is the same as the Horse and Both are the same as the Mule. You now have something you call a "Mule" but it is nothing new, just a new name for what already exists, a true name game.

If nothing NEW can be created then "CREATION" is impossible. If nothing can be DESTROYED then "DEMISE" is impossible. If nothing can be created or destroyed then all you can have is "NOTHING". If all you have is "NOTHING" then "EVERYTHING" would have to have came from it. If this "nothing" is actually "something" then the "nothing" can actually ONLY be "EVERYTHING" which is what we refer to as "The Universe".

The real name game here is the focus on creation and demise from and into NOTHING. There is no such thing as absolute nothingness/nonexistence and therefore is meaningless. I think this is what Tom is calling "The Essence of Existence". Am I right Tom, is this the Logic behind "your" claim to the "Essence of Existence?

Sincerely,

George Moore

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Yes, if we consider the "essence" of the chicken, the egg, and the
pre-chicken species that gave rise to it, they are one and the same- only their forms are different. E.g., they are all composed of matter and energy. This riddle doesn't address the ex-nihilo question directly but rather leads to a debate over creation vs evolution. But if we looked at it as a paradox, the apparent impossibility of the existence of the chicken (an egg has to be produced by a chicken but a chicken has to be produced by the egg) is quite similar to the paradox of the universe where
existence seems impossible since something can't come from nothing,
and yet the universe exists.

So I brought it up as a response to Mac and also to give an example of how another apparent impossible situation (but one that exists) ends up having a real solution.

As for your generalization that "nothing" is "everything", that sounds more like a word game to me. Have you switched positions now or is this some new way of restating your paradox? I have already given you my answer to your "paradox" : eternal existence = creation ex nihilo since they both carry a tacit assumption: existence without a cause.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5222 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[George]: If something NEW cannot be created then "CREATION" is impossible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

True. (This assumes you meant creation from nothing.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If something cannot be DESTROYED into nothing then "DEMISE" is impossible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

True.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If nothing can be created or destroyed then all you can have is "NOTHING".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

False. This is an assertion that does not follow from anything said before. Can you justify it?

Our experience of the world is that everything that "comes into existence" comes from something that already existed, and everything that "goes out of existence" reverts to other forms. It is therefore tempting, based on experience, to think that long, long ago something came from nothing. However, that is merely a conditioned bias. There is no logically compelling reason why that must be true. And there is a logically compelling reason why it must not be true. (Specifically, it requires a miracle.)

The only logical alternative to the miracle-requiring path is the "everything that exists always existed" path. No miracle required. If no miracle is needed for the universe to exist here and now, then no miracle was ever required because the universe was always in the same condition as it is here and now. No matter how far into the past you look, the universe was just as mature and evolved as it is today. You can't get back to a time when a "First Cause" is needed because all times are equivalent to "now".

I can understand someone saying they don't like that line of reasoning. Dealing with infinities has always been uncomfortable for us finite beings. But a logical argument that it can't be so I do not see. Rather the contrary. It's the only choice we have except the one offered by religions. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

n/a4
Offline
New Member

21 years 8 months ago #5223 by n/a4

Replied by n/a4 on topic Reply from George

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>That point was a non sequitur argument in your previous "syllogism". Plaese address yourself to that step in your own argument and show how it follows from the premises. If it does not follow from the premises, then your argument is invalidated. -|Tom|-<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Premise1: "Creation ex nihilo" requires a miracle.
Premise2: Miracles are excluded from physics.
Conclusion A: "Creation ex nihilo" is excluded from physics.

Premise3: The essence from which forms are composed exists.
Premise4: That essence came into existence from nothing.
Conclusion B: Premise 4 is excluded by Conclusion A.

Premise3: The essence from which forms are composed exists.
Premise5: That essence always existed.
Conclusion C: Premise 5 is allowed because nothing excludes it.

Premise6: Premises 4 & 5 are the only two possibilities.
Premise7: Premise 4 is excluded and Premise 5 is not.
Conclusion

Premise 5 must be true.

-|Tom|-<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Tom, I'm not sure how JoeW is wrong here. It seems to me that some of your premsise are weak/false/wrong/invalid. Your conclusion of "That essence always existed" seems false from premise #1. Are you perhaps trying to play a word game and say no "CREATION" ex nihilo but yes to "EXISTENCE" ex nihilo? If so, please define the difference.

Sincerely,

George Moore

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5224 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[George]: If something NEW cannot be created then "CREATION" is impossible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

True. (This assumes you meant creation from nothing.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If something cannot be DESTROYED into nothing then "DEMISE" is impossible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

True.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If nothing can be created or destroyed then all you can have is "NOTHING".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

False. This is an assertion that does not follow from anything said before. Can you justify it?

Our experience of the world is that everything that "comes into existence" comes from something that already existed, and everything that "goes out of existence" reverts to other forms. It is therefore tempting, based on experience, to think that long, long ago something came from nothing. However, that is merely a conditioned bias. There is no logically compelling reason why that must be true. And there is a logically compelling reason why it must not be true. (Specifically, it requires a miracle.)

The only logical alternative to the miracle-requiring path is the "everything that exists always existed" path. No miracle required. If no miracle is needed for the universe to exist here and now, then no miracle was ever required because the universe was always in the same condition as it is here and now. No matter how far into the past you look, the universe was just as mature and evolved as it is today. You can't get back to a time when a "First Cause" is needed because all times are equivalent to "now".

I can understand someone saying they don't like that line of reasoning. Dealing with infinities has always been uncomfortable for us finite beings. But a logical argument that it can't be so I do not see. Rather the contrary. It's the only choice we have except the one offered by religions. -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

A universe that has always existed is no different than one that appeared out of nowhere since both models deny cause of existence. So, as far as miracles are concerned, if your definition of a miracle is that of existence without a cause aka "something out of nothing", eternal existence requires just as much of a miracle as creation ex-nihilo. The only difference between these two models is that one prefers a time of origin and the other doesn't.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5578 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[George]: Tom, I'm not sure how JoeW is wrong here.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You did not address yourself to JoeW's argument or supply any justification for the step I cited as a non sequitur.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Your conclusion of "That essence always existed" seems false from premise #1. Are you perhaps trying to play a word game and say no "CREATION" ex nihilo but yes to "EXISTENCE" ex nihilo? If so, please define the difference.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I see no difference between "creation ex nihilo" and "existence ex nihilo". You seem to have a block to the concept of something always existing. Always existing is the opposite of existing from nothing, but you keep trying to merge the two concepts. They don't merge. "Always existing" means every moment of time is the equivalent of every other moment of time. Specifically, every moment is just like "now".

"Existence from nothing" means there was a time when things were different, an evolution or aging of the universe, a change from one state to a fundamentally different state. That is the idea that requires a miracle. Are you so accustomed to thinking in terms of origins that require miracles that it has become alien to you to consider seriously the one possibility that requires no miracle? -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.335 seconds