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>[George]: you just said "existence is a thing that doesn't exist" therefore if it doesn't exist it could not have <u>always</u> existed.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Bad boy, George. I said no such thing. My words were: "'existence' is not a thing that exists". The emphasis was on "not a thing" (e.g., a form). You changed my words around, and changed their meaning in doing so. In fact, you made them self-contradictory.

I'll assume you did not understand my meaning, and were not just being a troll. Please reread my message with the correct meaning in mind. Hint: Don't concentrate on my choice of words and try to find fault with specific words. That is what <i>I</i> meant by "playing with words". Concentrate on the idea behind the words, even if it is expressed badly. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Bad boy, George. I said no such thing. My words were: "'existence' is not a thing that exists". The emphasis was on "not a thing" (e.g., a form). You changed my words around, and changed their meaning in doing so. In fact, you made them self-contradictory.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I didn't change any of your words around.

So let's see if I have this right...Existence isn't a "<u>thing</u> that exists", it's a "CONCEPT". An intellectual one mind you. But Gods are concepts and they aren't allowed in science so why would your "concept" be any different? Wait, perhaps <u>YOU</u> have mathematical proof and that proof is "0".

"Creation of Any <u>thing</u> without a cause would be a miracle" because a <u>"thing"</u> must mean "with form" and "existence" itself is exempt from this because it doesn't actually exist "with form" but only in "essence" which is a concept and concepts don't exist and therefore is seperate and different.

(From Tom)
Premise1: "Creation ex nihilo" requires a miracle.
Premise2: Miracles are excluded from physics.
Conclusion A: "Creation ex nihilo" is excluded from physics.

<b>Premise3: <u>The essence from which forms are composed exists.</u></b>
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.
<b><u>Premise5: That essence always existed.</u></b>
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 <u>Premise 5 must be true.</u>

<b>Perhaps you would like to go back and change your Premises since these no longer make much sense now.</b> I imagine that from your point "miracles" are not allowed in physics but the "concept" of a miracle is.


Oh yeah, were not playing word games here either.

If something doesn't exist then isn't it "NOTHING". (Whoops, I guess I am playing a word game now since I said something is "nothing" which is not possible...Is it?<img src=icon_smile_blush.gif border=0 align=middle>

Tom, I think you should admit confusion, wipe the egg off your face, and try to see how you can find the good that is available from this post. It's quite obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.


Sincerely,

George Moore

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Any thing without a cause would be a miracle. But "existence" is not a thing that exists. It is an intellectual concept. We have only two possibilities to explain the origin of existence (as distinct from the changing of forms):
(a) Nothing became something.
(b) Existence always was and always will be.

(a) requires a miracle. (b) does not. So (b) is the choice mandated by the principles of physics.

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

I take (a). Recent studies by NASA prove that our "existence" is only 4% of the "nothing" material in the universe. In our world, nothing is "0" but our world came form "nothing" and that was "something" some place else.


Of course, a philosophical debate of this kind may never end since premises cannot be verified and the parties commiting contradictions never admit to that. In this particular case, both TVF's premises and opposing side's premises cannot be verified, however TVF has the disatvantage of the contradiction:

existence without creation AND no creation ex-nihilo

I hope TVF you can see the contradiction you are committing. You must add another principle to your long (and wrong already) list that:

existence without creation is possible

but then you are in a serious problem. You violate causality, your other principle. By failing to add this fundamental principle of your model you are not being very honest. You are not folling anyone by hidding the implied principle and using it in debades. These are your principles:

every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause
no process backwards in time
no true instantaneous action at a distance
no creation ex nihilo
no demise ad nihil
the finite cannot become infinite
existence without creation is possible


In other words, you are in a total mess TVF. Admit it. It isn't bad to admit you're wrong. Actually, it shows courage and intelligence.

Or you may want to change your model...again...

But if you do, we'll be watching you and find the new contradiction. You bet on it...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Any thing without a cause would be a miracle. But "existence" is not a thing that exists. It is an intellectual concept. We have only two possibilities to explain the origin of existence (as distinct from the changing of forms):
(a) Nothing became something.
(b) Existence always was and always will be.

(a) requires a miracle. (b) does not. So (b) is the choice mandated by the principles of physics.

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

In your model, any form is caused by a pre-existing form. So, you think a form is a thing but the very substance that makes up the form isn't? A substance can be said to be caused by a pre-existing substance just as a form is caused by a form preextant. If not, a miracle is required for the substance to exist by your own definition of a miracle.

So, in essence, my argument is only extending the causality principle to that of substance while the MM limits the causality
principle to that of forms.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: In your model, any form is caused by a pre-existing form. So, you think a form is a thing but the very substance that makes up the form isn't?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Where did that idea come from? Of course substance is a thing and exists. Forms are made of substance, and substances are themselves forms on a smaller scale. -|Tom|-

Tom,

quote:
****************
I don't know what to say to those who cannot imagine something existing forever, and who therefore insist that an initial miracle must have occurred. The miracle and finite existence scenario is the opposite of "existing forever". And "unimaginable" (a limitation of our thought processes) is very different from "miraculous" (requiring something incapable of being produced by nature, or the impossible, or a supernatural being).

While this discussion has been interesting, and I complement all who participated in it, we now seem to be going in circles and repeating ourselves. The conclusion seems to be that some of us are more comfortable with a First Cause and a miracle, while others of us are more comfortable with existence being eternal
****************

By what stretch of imagination do you propose that 0

---

>(+n)+(-n)
is a miracle? While I cannot yet explain the detail workings, I see no miracle what-so-ever indicated. I see a lack of knowledge, like the worms in the rain barrel. It seems a bit of panic to class a mathematical expression as being a miracle.

(-n)in quantum mechanics can very easily be "borrowed" energy.

Beyond that I tend to agree with you that neither side here seems willing to convert. But I would like to hear your reply regarding the expression being a miracle as opposed to just being an expression for which we currently lack knowledge to explain.