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>[123...]: So now you are saying that forms are substance. Under this definition, different form = different substance.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Forms are made of substance. There are not "different substances". Substance is the generic term for what makes up everything that exists. Forms are the varying appearances and properties of the many ways that substance can assemble.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>: So, forms come from substance, what's wrong with that statement?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is like saying "wool sweaters come from sheep". Technically, it is true. But any implication of causality would be mistaken. Sheep do not cause wool sweaters even though they are a required ingredient, and substance does not cause forms in the same sense. Forms are the causes of other forms.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"forms come from pre-existing substance". That sentence may not sound so clear but that's what I meant.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

And wool sweaters come from pre-existing sheep. You are right about the sentence not being crystal clear. But I can't complain. As you pointed out, my attempt at an analogy suffered from similar defects.

The underlying problem is that we are speaking of concepts for which there is no pre-existing vocabulary, and we are forced to use analogies, none of which are perfect for either of our purposes. So we alternate picking on the analogies and picking on the words.

A mind meld may be the only answer. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It seems you are now using substance as an adjective and no longer as a noun. You have changed your definition of substance now to being a property of having existence than if it were a discrete and finite object.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Huh? Now that's an example of a total failure to communicate.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: How about this as the preamble:
1. Every integer is a member of the set of all integers.
2. Every integer is finite.
3. The set of all integers is infinite.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Again, I disagree with the number line analogy. #2 cannot be true if #3 is true for the number line. "The set of all integers" is just a count of all the elements in the set. If this count is infinite, that must mean that the integers become infinite in size since each successive integer increases in size by 1- i.e., the concept of infinity becomes part of the integer set.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is where we have a big problem with continuing this discussion. Much of what I have said is my personal view or refers to the Meta Model. But in this case, you are showing unfamiliarity with standard mathematics, recognized worldwide for centuries. You have it wrong, and have offered no good reason to question standard wisdom about the math of infinities.

Nothing in my preamble is even considered controversial by the rest of the world. A lot here is controversial, but not any of my three preamble statements above.

Because my preamble is the basis of my analogy, which in turn is the basis for my conclusions, I can't develop my argument if you deny my preamble. In a sense, this is a complement to your reasoning abilities. You have correctly deduced that, if the preamble is correct, my conclusions will inevitably follow. So you need to find a fault in my preamble. Yet the preamble is standard number theory.

Once in a while, I find myself defending the mainstream position against a challenge. This is such a case. There are indeed an infinite number of finite-size integers. Just go back to the definition of infinite -- the "unbounded" part. Where is there any bound on the number of integers?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: and its analog:
1. Every form is part of the universe.
2. Every form is finite in size and duration.
3. The universe is infinite in size and eternal in duration.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As for your analog, you are comparing apples and oranges. An integer is a representation of a quantity. Each successive integer becomes 1 bigger than the previous. A form does not grow in size. So unless you are comparing the size of the form to the integers, they don't compare.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The relationship between successive integers is not needed for my analogy. It would work equally well for every even integer, or every prime integer. All I need is that the count of integers is infinite.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How can a form be finite in duration? When you say finite, that means they come into and out of existence in the universe. But if forms are made of substance, or under your altered definition- has a quality of substance, which you also defined as an eternal quality- how can they also have a finite duration? That's a contradiction.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A sheep is a form. A sweater is another form. Each has a finite duration. Technically, they do not "come into and go out of existence". That is just a loose way of speaking. In reality, all the atoms in the sheep existed before it came into existence and before its wool became a sweater. So when these things "came into existence", really, they just changed form. Likewise, when they decay, they do not really go out of existence, but just change form (e.g., back into the soil, devoured by other animals, etc.) Every atom continued its existence throughout these many changes of form.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If forms are composed of substance, which you defined as eternal, how can something that is composed of something eternal have a finite duration?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Atoms are not the same as substance; they are just forms themselves. But atoms are of such long duration that they serve to show many generations of changing form. The forms all have finite duration, yet their atoms have very long (not quite eternal) existence compared to any of the forms.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>As for the universe, it is only a count of all the for

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Magoo]: please give your definition of "Nothing".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Empty of everything. No matter, no energy, no particles, no waves, no substance of any kind, no implied structure, no "vacuum" (which has energy), no forces, no fields. Synonymous with "non-existence". -|Tom|-

Dr. Flandern,

thanks for the reply. I think I was a little rude in my previous post- that's just the way I write. You know the old saying though- sticks and stones... so I disagree with the idea of censorship really. Especially when the process is a subjective one and not by a democratic vote- your idea of offensive may be different than mine. Thus, you could be writing something that I feel to be a personal attack but yet you censor something that I don't find offensive at all.

But back to the issue.

Every integer is finite.
Every integer is in the set of all integers.
The set of all integers is infinite.

Every integer in the integer set is produced by adding 1 to 0 and then taking the sum and adding 1 to it, ad infinitum, for the positive integers and subtracting 1 from 0 and subtracting 1 from the difference, ad infinitum, do we agree with this process?

"The set of all integers" is an enumeration of the number of elements inside the set, do we agree? Thus, since the process of generating successive positive integers is the same enumeration process, if we knew the largest positive integer and multiplied it by 2 then add 1 for the number 0, we get the number of elements in the set of all integers.

Conversely, if we knew the number of elements in the integer set, we can deduce the size of the largest positive (or negative) integer. So, if the set of all integers is infinite, the largest positive integer is (infinity/2) - 1, exactly. So, what is infinity/2 - 1? From what I remember, it is infinity. Thus, if you knew the number of elements in the integer set is infinite, we can conclude that the finite integers become infinite in size.

Show me where the logic is wrong. If you can not then you can't use the concept of infinity in your analog.

How about this:

1. Substance is an irreducible form, much like the electron
is presently recognized as an irreducible particle(this is why I chose the alphabet analog earlier).
2. The assemblage of irreducible forms is itself a form.


From these definitions, some premises:

1. Substance exists.
2. Existence is eternal.
3. All forms which are reducible are finite in duration.

So the problem is proving an infinity in 2 and also how to include a finite set into a set that is composed of elements with an infinite quality in 3.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Magoo]: Tom, Very confusing! You stated that "Existence in MM means occupied by substance" and then you have also said "existence is not a thing that exists".

If "Existence", not the existing substance, is non-existent then how is "Existence" any different from "nothing"?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Okay, I agree this is confusing. Yes, existence means "occupied by substance", and existence is not a <i>thing</i> that exists. However, it does of course exist as a concept, just not as a material thing. So I can't agree that existence is non-existent.

The right words probably haven't been invented yet, so let me try my favorite analogy again.
1. Every integer is finite.
2. Every integer is a member of the set of all integers.
3. The set of all integers is infinite.

The "set of all integers" also does not exist as a material, tangible thing, but only as a concept. A geometric line is another concept because only line segments can be material or tangible. Material things cannot be infinite, but concepts can. The universe is another example. It is not a material thing, but is a concept and can be infinite. Infinity and eternity are both concepts. No material thing can be infinite or eternal, but a concept can.

Although they are not material things, concepts exist and can describe material things. The same can be said of properties of material things (size, mass, density, speed, etc.)

So when I said "existence is not a thing that exists" (emphasis on "thing"), I should better have said existence is not a material or tangible thing. It does exist as a concept.

Does that help get rid of the self-contradictory "existence is non-existent" path? -|Tom|-

Here's what TVF's logic boils down to:

1. A substance is an irreducible form and has eternal existence.
2. Assemblages of irreducible forms are also forms and are finite in existence.

So the assemblage of new forms from irreduceable forms is a result from properties within the irreduceable forms. (E.g. an alkali and a halogen can be thought of as irreduceable forms that assemble into a new form called a salt because of the properties of the alkali and the halogen).

From the chemical example, it's easy to see that the irreducible forms themselves did not ever come into or out of existence (e.g. the new form of salt is still composed of the irreducible forms
sodium and chlorine) but the new form did come into and will go out of existence. The set of reducible forms then is really a different set than the set of irreducible forms and is not an element in the set of irreducible forms. It belongs to a new set that is composed of the assemblages of irreducible forms. And this set can have a different quality, such as the quality of being finite in duration, since it is not inside the set of substance.

An illustration would be to consider the set of odd integers. Elements in this set has the property of being odd. But if we added elements within the set, e.g. 1 + 3, we obtain an integer that is even. The sum of elements then belong to a new set which can have different properties.

This seems ok so far until we consider the substances themselves. Reducible forms are a result of the properties of irreducible forms, but what are the irreducible forms the result of? The MM fails to address this question. Instead, it asserts an infinite number of irreducible forms. That's like if I were to ask you where the integers come from and you answer me, there are an infinite number of integers. It misses the point.