Broken Circle

1234567890
Visitor

20 years 11 months ago #7343 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

[TVF] However, knowledge derived from reason requires only two conditions: correct premises amd valid reasoning. When both are present, the conclusions are "absolute truth", to use your grandiose phrase. The causality principle and the prohibition against creation ex nihilo are examples of physical principles derived from logic alone. To use the often quoted words of Isaac Newton referring to a proposed violation of the causality principle...

[123] Yes, the universe seems very rational, but if the universe includes
all , irrationality is included. Your idea of the universe is
not one that contains all but one with a couple of stipulations- you call it the causal principle and no creation ex nihilo.
Can you specify your definition of the "causal principle"? If every
effect has a cause, how can something exist without a cause?
By making the further stipulation that existence need not have
a cause, no doubt. And here we go in circles again.

I don't think the causality principle can be a logical principle if it
ends in an argument in circles or an infinite regression. And I don't think the universe
can be considered infinite if it is not also infinite in possibilities.

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 11 months ago #7513 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

JR,

Posted - 17 Dec 2003 : 12:09:48

Mac,

quote:

Originally posted by Mac
Nothing personal here but you do seem to have a problem with understanding the meaning of words. You did not see me say I rejected eternal existance. I said I found it totally illogical, there is and most likely will never be proof against it since one would have to have existed forever and out live eternity (impossible) to prove otherwise. But there is a matter of continuity.

It was your logical disproof that I was refering to. If you find it totally illogical, you should have no trouble providing a logical disproof.

It follows.

quote:

It does not follow that something may have existed forever without having come into existance. By definition something that exists has been created. If it was never created then it does not exist. You have to alter the meanings of our language to suggest differently.

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
ex·ist
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: “Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category” (Thomas G. Exter).

I think it is you that has a problem with language. I see nothing about creation in these definitions. Yours is a classic example of the logical fallacy of petitio principii - your conclusion is contained in your starting assumption.

Another nice try but no cigar.

Webster:

Create: To cause to come into existance.
Creation: 1 - A creating or being created.
2 - The Universe and everything in it, all the world. 

The true meaning of the words are clear here. If it exists it was created. It specifically applies to the universe. If something is non-existant and has never existed you would agree that it was never created. YOur spin on the usage of the word in absence of its true meaning is nothing more than desperation in an attempt to salvage your over-simplified answer to existance.

quote:

You will never find a physical explaination for something that is physically impossible.

Now you have shifted the burden of "Proof" upon yourself. Lets see your proof. Your are good at making absolute statements. Back them up.

Touche. I'll save us both some time and effort. There are logical disproofs of both creation and eternal existence. To summarize them: the disproof of creation boils down to the violation of cause and effect, the disproof of eternal existence to the impossibility of counting infinity. There is considerable debate about the correctness of the eternal existence disproof, but the causality violation of creation is unavoidable.

There is no causality violation. The only violation is to exist without having been created.

quote:

Even if I am wrong and creation ex nihilo occurs, you will never know it and all attempts to explain and predict phenomena will be for naught.

I totally disagree here. I think we may well learn to mimic nature and achieve our own creation ex nihilo. that is if one studies it. If one assume (without any evidence, something is impossible and does not study it then it is most likely never going to happen. 

What you simply do not seem to grasp is that creation ex nihilo renders learning about the world impossible.

I couldn't disagree more. But assuming that were the case how do you propose that eternal existence without being created is better?

If creation ex nihilo occurs in reality, then there will be effects without causes. But how will you know that. How will you be able to differentiate these from the effects with causes? How will you know whether the cause is absent or simply hidden? What value is experimentation under these conditions? How will knowledge advance from that which can be readily observed to that which can be observed only indirectly?

I do believe that for the most part physics today opeerates and tests concepts "INDIRECTLY". I have heard of anyone going to the distant quasars for a hands on test. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are ad hoc hypothecical soutions being used indirectly. So it would be your position if we can see it we shouldn't study the process. That would seem to eliminate virtually most of the physicists in the world.

I would be interested in what techniques you would use in place of the scientific method in the absence of causality.

The very study of phenomena is to determine the causes. Understanding or not understanding a cause does not prohibit useful knowledge and utility of a phenomena. MOst adults don't know how their TV or XCar works but we all have TV's and drive cars.

Eternal existence, no matter how incredible to your mind, does not violate causality[/]

No, it only violates basic principles of being in existance and failure to understand a cause does not inhibit further learning. You study to determine cause.

and undermine our ability to discover new knowledge about the universe. This is why it is better.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

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

jrich
Offline
Elite Member

20 years 11 months ago #7344 by jrich

Replied by jrich on topic Reply from

123..,
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by 1234567890
Yes, the universe seems very rational, but if the universe includes
all , irrationality is included. Your idea of the universe is
not one that contains all but one with a couple of stipulations- you call it the causal principle and no creation ex nihilo. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So the irrational delusions of a madman, since the universe includes all, may be manifested in reality? The conjecture that the fundamental building blocks of matter are pink unicorns named Windy somehow has any bearing on the validity of the Standard Model? The irrational trumps the rational? Are you smelling what you're shoveling?

JR

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

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 11 months ago #7345 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

Apparently, 123... revised his message while I was working on a reply. So my previous reply is to a message that no longer exists.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by 1234567890
 you posit that the universe is infinite, that there are forms at every scale imaginable. You endow the forms with two qualities: they
obey the cause and effect principle and are finite in duration.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Logic endows all that exists with those properties. I had nothing to do with it.[

]

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">where are the forms at every scale?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Just look at any scale and you see forms. There is nothing special about any of them at any scale.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A molecule of sodium chloride or a mountain of salt are all composed of the same "forms", they are not different forms on different scales.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">We used to think everything was made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Now we have a whole zoo of quantum particles. We think those are made of quarks. Now we see evidence of sub-structure to quarks. We found that chemical elements are simply atoms with different numbers of protons, neutrons, and electrons. On a much larger scale, how does that differ in principle from stars that may be single, double, triple, ... or have many components? Maybe those are the 'different elements" on some super scale. The relative abundances of multiple stars and complex elements do have some interesting similarities.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">we would have to conclude that everything is made of and caused by nothing since presently, math concludes that y/m as m approaches infinity = 0.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Read up on the math of infinities. Infinitesimal is not the same as nothing. Zero is simply an approximation for infinitesimal when things become immeasurably small. But just as no forms can ever become infinite, no forms can ever become zero either.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can you specify your definition of the "causal principle"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I can't claim any originality here.[

] But THE causality principle, as it has been known for centuries, states that "Every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause." You will find a full discussion of what this means and of other physical principles in "Physics has its principles", metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If every effect has a cause, how can something exist without a cause?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Remember the two meanings of "exist"? Forms come into and go out of "existence", meaning they change from other forms into other forms, but not that they are really created from nothing or destroyed into nothing. But substance exists in the sense of "occupying space", and that never changes. So the answer to your question is that existence (in the second sense) is not an effect because it can never change. However, every single form, without exception, had a cause -- forms before it -- and an effect -- forms after it.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">By making the further stipulation that existence need not have
a cause, no doubt. And here we go in circles again.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">You seem to be blocking the obvious. If existence cannot change, it cannot have a cause because a cause would be a change.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't think the universe can be considered infinite if it is not also infinite in possibilities.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So the set of all integers is not really infinite because it does not include fractions? That book on logic I recommended will help you greatly in your argumentation with others. -|Tom|-

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 11 months ago #7514 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

jrich,

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Mac is eager to express his opinion but will not participate in real debate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You do seem to have a problem adhering to the issue and are prone to sling arrows in unwarranted ways. Careful you don't bite off more than you can chew.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> He believes that anything is possible, because nothing may be proved or disproved. As such, he denegrates logic and reason, all the while espousing his own pet theory, yet sees no irony.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Saying I believe anything is possible is an outright fabrication with nothing more than the intent of trying todegrade my participation. Your making such unsupportable assertions infact degrades your credability.

You are the one pedaling a pet theory. I have only said creation is mathematically viable and that eternal existance violates logic.

Where I leave open the door to the alternatives you claim to have the answer. Which you do not and cannot. So button up.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The only value I have received from the "debate" is the exercise of developing my own thoughts on the matter. Unfortunately, due to the low quality of the responses I have no idea as to the quality my thoughts or the manner that they are expressed, though I'm sure Mac will be forthcoming with his opinion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

OK #44 posts on this site. Know it all. I will not follow you into your personal assaults. I don't have to you are making an ass out of yourself without my help. Do you really have this opinion of yourself or do you just think it is good debate technique to pretend to be above others. Sorry to bust your ballon fellow but you have a long way to go before you can look down your nose at me and I suspect the majority of the scientific community.

Tom if you don't pull in jrich's reigns I will. Thank you.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 11 months ago #7515 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Origin,

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">oh and by the way, i'm not necessarily talking about religion or anything in my previous response ;-)

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

ANS: I didn't assume that from your post. Also let me just say I hold out the possibility that you are correct. Although it does seem, in our currently limited vocabulary, come down to there either was or was not a point of creation.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

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

Time to create page: 0.280 seconds