What is "miraculous"?

Jim,

You can always ingore a tangent like this and ask a question/make a statement that is back on topic.

LB

LB, It is the old chicken and egg thing-what comes first. I don't know the questions to ask. The topic is about weather or not anything can be so small it cannot be divided and that is one of the I don't know details that keep me puzzled.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Skarp's last post seemed to end that discussion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hold your horses here - You asked the questions.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Either miracles are going to be allowed into physics, in which case the whole universe can be explained as an "act of God" and we're done; or they are not, in which case Skarp's fundamental particles are not allowed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Aint nobody talking miracles here. The model is essentially a geometric, and each and every geometric form is fundamental (no exceptions). There is no need at all for materials and still end up with an Existence such as ours.

The question was - What is maraculous? Certainly from Toms point of view a fundamental unit is miraculous. I am most definitely on topic, or perhaps we should only do what Jim wants, which is also on topic.


Per Jim
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The topic is about weather or not anything can be so small it cannot be divided and that is one of the I don't know details that keep me puzzled.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> From Toms point of view - The universe is infinitely composed, and it was not created. There was never a time when the universe did not exist. He is saying the infinite composition is complete. I.E. It is not in the process of being composed. The question might be - Is a complete infinite composition an implication of an end to composition in a reductionist approach? If so - This implies a fundamental entity, or nothing at all ( A miricle for both by his standard). If not - The universe is incomplete which would imply ongoing creation (another miracle by his standard).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Either miracles are going to be allowed into physics, in which case the whole universe can be explained as an "act of God" and we're done
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> What needs to be explained is the "choices" nature [or universe, god, logic] has made when confronted with an alternative. For instance, gravity is attractive so why not repulsive or why any gravity at all. Three possibilities ... one is observed ... why? Or the fine-structure constant is 1/137 ... why not 1/10 or any other quantity. There are obviously any number of such choices we must account for.

We should wish to account for them with the least number of "miracles".

Postulating God accounts for the existence vs non-existence of the universe ... but little else. We cannot, in principle, derive the pure number values of constants from the god proposition. It has too few parts which might interact to get "more stuff" out, i.e. explanations.

I believe that Tom's universe is too simple to delimit the known parameters of existence and thus account for all the choices. I believe, based on my experience, that 1 or 2 irreducible primaries will not do the trick. Perhaps 4 or 5 will. 10 or 12 is way, way, way too many. The universe is complicated ... but it's not that complicated.

Wherever possible, the choices that nature has made should not be accounted for by "chance" and that other possibilities are "checked off" in alternate universes or at different scales. We should always assume that we are in the only possible universe unless we are logically forced to take that other route.

So far, I have seen nothing in my life to make me worry that I should abandon the idea of "one possible universe". However, I reserve, as always, the right to be wrong. My model absolutely requires that all the constants of physics change with time at predictable rates and that all begin at equality. This is not seen by present astronomers and physicists. But they have no sufficient temporal baseline as yet to make any definitive statements.

And I have concluded that if at length I am wrong ... it will be OK with me. I have done my best with the materials at hand and regret nothing. It has been all worthwhile as a pure intellectual exercize.

<D0ABFC>

It seems to me all you guys are at the edge of the known universe in your modeling much as the guys in 1200AD were. What's the difference between your stuff and their stuff way back other than what TVF notes in another thread?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I believe, based on my experience, that 1 or 2 irreducible primaries will not do the trick. Perhaps 4 or 5 will.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You obviously have a different idea for the word primary in this particular sense. Surely one will be sufficient.