Broken Circle

123....,

Even more, if we were to use your loose notion of "forms" in conjunction with the causal principle and also assumed
no limit to the smallness of forms in which the
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>larger "forms" are assembled, 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. So,
even as you loudly declare no creation ex nihilo
in physics, you assume it tacitly.

It's obvious from the above that your conclusions are
not based on reason, observation nor experiment so
I would at least await for a clarification before any
preclusion of irrational elements in the universe.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


<font color="yellow">Excellent!</font id="yellow">


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

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> 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.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I cannot find the thread containing our previous discussion on this subject to provide the quote that I was thinking of. I withdraw my assertion with apologies.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.</font id="yellow"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I am not pedaling a pet theory. Though I think Tom's MM is promising, it is way too undeveloped for me to evaluate.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>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.</b>

[yellow]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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have made every effort to engage you on this subject. Flawed or not, I have tried to produce reasoned argument in support of my position. But I receive no such courtesy in return. Based on your posts in other threads you are obviously a very intelligent person, which makes your replies all the more puzzling. I'm unsure if you are being dismissive or if you are over your head. In any case it is quite frustrating.


JR

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />jrich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Perfect!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


<font color="yellow">I agree. See my response. Oh BTW, you give me the impression of being a bit like some GI's in the army. We called them brown nosers. I really hope you have sound basis other than agreeing with Tom because he is the chief here. I have a lot of respect for Tom and I'm sure he knows it.

I would hope he feels the same. We don't have to agree, we merely need to respect other opinions. A quality which you seem to be a bit shy on.</font id="yellow"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'm glad we agree on something. Until now we seemed to share no common ground whatsoever. I am an independent thinker and don't adhere to positions without my own careful analysis. My opinion on this particular subject predates my having ever heard of Tom or his theories. It is, after all, an old debate.


JR

jRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I'm glad we agree on something. Until now we seemed to share no common ground whatsoever. I am an independent thinker and don't adhere to positions without my own careful analysis. My opinion on this particular subject predates my having ever heard of Tom or his theories. It is, after all, an old debate.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">I accept your declaration.</font id="yellow">

<b>I cannot find the thread containing our previous discussion on this subject to provide the quote that I was thinking of. I withdraw my assertion with apologies.</b>

<font color="yellow">Accepted without predjudice</font id="yellow">

quote:

---

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.

---

<b>I am not pedaling a pet theory. Though I think Tom's MM is promising, it is way too undeveloped for me to evaluate.</b>

<font color="yellow">I wasn't referring to "Pushing Gravity" or Tom's work, I was referring to only the issue of creation vs eternal existance. I accept most of what Tom says for I have written a simular concept long before Tom. Tom however has greater mathematics and experience in his work. Mine is extremely lay in comparison but shares many common features of "Pushing Gravity".</font id="yellow">

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.

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.

---

<b>I have made every effort to engage you on this subject. Flawed or not, I have tried to produce reasoned argument in support of my position.</b>

<font color="yellow">I have no quams with your posts with respect to your beliefs. I do have a problem when those post repeatedly contain what can be seen as nothing short of slurs, mockery and enuendo. I have provided you with statements responding to the issue and only returned the favor in terms of personal proding.</font id="yellow">

<b>But I receive no such courtesy in return. Based on your posts in other threads you are obviously a very intelligent person, which makes your replies all the more puzzling. I'm unsure if you are being dismissive or if you are over your head. In any case it is quite frustrating.</b>

<font color="yellow">I find it amusing that you suggest that I may be in over my head, since the only basis you to have for making such a statement is the preconcieved conclusion that your view is absolute truth with no margin for any other view. If we were discussing something that had actual evidence or that there was a well founded general conclusion on then jperhaps one could say somebody was in over there head.

This discussion. There is no such basis. There is no data, no observation, it is nothing more than a mental exercise, your only objection can be that I disagree with you. I hardly think that qualifies to gage ones understandings. Well that I am afraid is life.

You treat me with respect and I'll treat you with respect. that doesn't mean we will always agree about something.

Care to discuss the issue of Webster definitions further?</font id="yellow">



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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" 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"></font id="quote">

[TVF]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.

[123] If you say the universe is infinite and forms are just aggregates of anything the world is made of, then , the whole universe is one infinite form. And if forms can be made smaller
and smaller they have to reach 0 size, according to calculus-i.e.
you can't assume both infinite regression and limits at the
same time.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" 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"></font id="quote">

[TVF]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.

[123] Why can't existence ever change? How can forms go into and
out of existence if existence is eternal?



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" 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"></font id="quote">

[TVF] 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|-




[123] I was speaking of infinite in the sense of different properties and laws. A fraction has different properties than an integer than a real than an imaginary... and each type has a different set of rules
of operation. So yes, the set of all integers does not contain
infinite properties nor infinite set of rules for operation, though it may have an infinite number of elements all with well defined properties.

Mac,

I do not accept your use of the dictionary in this instance, most dictionaries supply common conceptions and simplified definitions to be accessible to the public. They do not reflect a deeper examination of the issue. I believe Webster was influenced by the theological nature of his time which could not accept existence without God and simply threw the prejudice of his viewpoint into the definition. When I say that something "exists" I am not aware whatsoever that I am implying it was also created, I am simply asserting "I perceive something in my conciousness that is there". Perhaps the two conditions are inseparable for you and that is the core of the misunderstanding. Perhaps we eternalists need to coin a new word for "exist" that does not have that connotation?

Let us try this argument from another tack. Let us not speak of the beginning of the universe but of its end. You say the matter must pop out of nothing but is not required to go back to nothing. If that is the case than you tacitly accept that matter will exist eternally since it is not going to uncreate itself. And if you accept this in the forward direction of time you have no logical basis for denying it in the other direction. If the matter does spontaneously go back to nothing then you have two miracles to explain and not one.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
No. I would only agree that it is unclear if there is an infinite future but I hold there is no existance without creation and claiming eternal existance violates more than logic it requires an accumulation of infinite time to have been eternal until now. Since nothing physical (and I assume you view time as a phusical reality) can become infinite that seems to say the eternal view is flawed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Time is not water, it does not "accumulate". I think you suffer from forward blinders kind of a like a horse. You don't have a problem with forward time eternity but backward eludes you. Yes, time was eternal before us just as it is eternal ahead of us. Why do you accept one direction and not the other?