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>If there is no way OUT then there can be no way IN.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This premise is arguably false. Many possible counter-examples exist. One can be dropped into a well with smooth walls. One can push an umbrella through a narrow corridor before it pops open. Etc. Your axiom is contradictory to the law of entropy, whereby increasing disorder is a one-way process.

You might argue this by tightening up the meanings of your words by adding new premises. But your whole syllogism is a word game. If you make it semantically rigorous, the logic no longer flows.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If there is no way IN then occupancy/existence is impossible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The "way out" of this circular reasoning is the one invoked by the Meta Model. Nothing comes into or goes out of existence. We exist, but we are not "in" anything, and our constituents always existed in some form or other. They just assemble and disassemble on occasion.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In an "infinite" universe there obviously is no way "OUT" and no way "IN", how is existence possible? I look forward to any response.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

"Universe" is defined as "everything that exists". The answer to your dilemma is that everything that exists has always existed, just in different forms. Only something coming into or going out of existence requires a miracle. You are using that correct prohibition to falsely dichotomize that, if something never came into existence, it cannot exist. There is another possibility: That it always existed. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>One can be dropped into a well with smooth walls. One can push an umbrella through a narrow corridor before it pops open. Etc. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Still, there is a way out. One just needs to figure out how to access it. The well for example...If it rains hard enough and long enough you could swim out. If you contract the umbrella it could be removed. Etc...


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But your whole syllogism is a word game. If you make it semantically rigorous, the logic no longer flows.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Do you have a handy example of how the logic doesn't flow?


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>We exist, but we are not "in" anything<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Surely most would disagree with you here, I certainly do. Are we not "in" an atmosphere? Are we not "in" a physical body? Are we not "in" the universe which surrounds us?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>if something never came into existence, it cannot exist. There is another possibility: That it always existed. -|Tom|-<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You make an excellent point! <b>If something never came into existence, it cannot exist.</b> How could it be possible to have always existed if it did not come into existence? You just said it couldn't exist unless it came INTO existence. If it has "ALWAYS" existed then it would have required coming "INTO" existence or it couldn't exist.

I appreciate your response and would enjoy hearing any additional thoughts you or anyone else may have.

Sincerely,

George Moore

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Do you have a handy example of how the logic doesn't flow?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That was the rest of my last message. You didn't consider the case where the universe has always existed.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Are we not "in" the universe which surrounds us?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No. How can we be "in" something that has no boundaries? Define "in". Moreover, what could "out" possibly mean in connection with the universe, which is everything?

This is what I meant by your argument being fluid and depending on definitions.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If something never came into existence, it cannot exist.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Coming into and going out of existence are the logical opposites to "always existing". It's one or the other -- you can't have both conditions simultaneously.

Your reasoning is not separating "form" and "essence". Everything we sense in the universe is a form with a finite lifetime that "came into existence" (meaning formed from constituents) at some time, and will "pass out of existence" (meaning return to constituents) at some other time. The same can be said of the constituents themselves. But this is a very different matter from essence, which means that the substance comprising any form must have always existed in some form for the same reason that it must continue to exist in some form into the future forever. It is logically impossible to make something existing pass out of existence into nothingness, in contrast with decomposing into constituents so tiny that we lose the ability to detect them.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How could it be possible to have always existed if it did not come into existence?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The question must be posed the other way around. How could something possibly come into existence from nothing? Inasmuch as that would clearly require a miracle, we are left with the logical alternative that substance defines existence, and the essence of substance must therefore be eternal. That requires no miracles.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You just said it couldn't exist unless it came INTO existence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, I said just the opposite of that. A form can't exist now unless its essence has always existed.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If it has "ALWAYS" existed then it would have required coming "INTO" existence or it couldn't exist.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You are judging by your experience with various forms, all of which come into and go out of "existence" in the limited sense I described. But logically, the only way that can happen is if something can never truly become nothing in either the future or the past.

I'll let you ponder that and wait to see what others want to say on the subject. -|Tom|-

Its the old what came first game,the chicken or the egg? Why go on and on with these kind of questions? They are all alike and none can be answered correctly.

My two cents.

It fits well with Jim's point but here it is anyway.


I have no detailed decription other than a general view that things do come into existance from nothing and it has mathematical premisis.

0 = (+1+(-1))

Two opposites can become nothing. Don't ask for more because I ain't got more. But it does seem more logical than "Nothing ever came into existance because it has always existed"

Sorry Tom but that view just doesn't register with me.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I have no detailed decription other than a general view that things do come into existance from nothing and it has mathematical premisis.

0 = (+1+(-1))

Two opposites can become nothing. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Very interesting Mac! but where did the (1) come from and how did it come into existence? You have invoked/created (+1) but it is offset by your creation of (-1) and you still have nothing. I don't understand your logic here.

It appears to me as though Tom is saying there is no such thing as "nothing" and that no matter how small the constituents become there is always some sort of "essence" present therefor you can never truely have "nothing", which I don't really understand. If I have an apple and I give it to you I have "nothing" so enough with this nonsense. I'm not really sure how all of this talk of "nothing" has anything to do with my original paradox which was the subject of this post.

Sincerely,

George Moore