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>(-Tom-)I said that forms "come into existence" only in the sense that their parts come together and assemble for a finite time from smaller forms, then eventually either merge with still larger forms or decompose back into smaller forms. That is the sense in which any form's existence is finite.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I am unclear on your position. First, you say that everything with form is finite and has a finite lifespan. Next, you say every form is comprised of smaller forms however you seem to consider these smaller forms eternal. If the larger forms, which are made up of smaller forms, are finite in duration then how is it that the "essence" or smaller forms could somehow be eternal? Are they not all the same constituents just at different scale?

If everything that exists, exists of the same substance/essence in one form or another and is eternal then the cosmic value of the universe would equal 0 and both "Creation" and "Demise" are impossible. If there is no "creation" and no "demise" then existence is impossible which goes back to what "Mac" was saying earlier with 0 = (+1+(-1)). Isn't this exactly what my paradox said?

Tom's information seems to offer support of my paradox. I encourage any logical disproofs.

"This is an irrelevant argument, because we are now speaking of logical syllogisms, not testable hypotheses."

I guess you were speaking as such, I wasn't. I'm not interested in pure logical syllogisms when it comes to theories about physical reality. This isn't a sci.math newsgroup, right?

"We must distinguish two kinds of statements: those which say something about facts and those which express the way in which the rules which govern the application of words to facts depend upon each other. Let us call the statements of the later kind tautologies; they say nothing about objects and are for this reason certain, universally valid, irrefutable by observation; whereas the statements of the former kind are not certain and are refutable by observation. The logical laws of contradiction and of the excluded middle are tautologies., likewise, e.g., the statement 'nothing is both red and blue.'" Hans Hahn (1879-1934) from "Logic, Mathematics and Knowledge of Nature".

"Premise7: Premise 4 is excluded and Premise 5 is not.
Conclusion Premise 5 must be true."

The value of the conclusion of a deduction has nothing to do with the meaning attributed to its premises. It's just a tautology. There is no such a thing as "a premise must be true". A premise can be true or false. Conclusions are true or false depending on premises being true or false. In the field of natural sciences, the truth of premises must be verifiable and any verification process followed must be repeatable withing acceptable error. Otherwise, the deduction process isn't a scientific proof but just a logical tautology, see comment by Hahn above.

By making just syllogisms based on arbitrary premises carrying vague meaning you prove nothing about the world. Your syllogism worths a penny to me, sorry to say that. Unless you can show me something that "always existed". Of course, "essence" is excluded from that set. Then, you're the one who's playing games, not only with words but also with physics. This is just "returning the compliment".

Joe

You guys are playing a silly word games. Existence is a fact. Since the Universe is "everything that does exist", it is logically impossible to not conclude that the Universe has no temporal and spatial limits. Hence, it must be "infinity", which means that it always existed and will always exist. And if it is not, by definition of "Universe", it would had to come into existence from something that does not exist. Creation ex-nihilo!

Note this view has evolved from contributions by Patrick Moore.

---

I think we have a tendancy to over dramatize the unknown and immediately branch off to unsupported conclusions.

**********
That was explicitly contrasted with "coming into existence" from nothing, or passing out of existence back into nothing, which clearly requires magic, a miracle, or a supernatural act. That is a logical impossibility by definition of "nothing", meaning non-existence or the total absence of forms at any scale.
**********


0 = (+1)+(-1)is actually a beautiful expression. That accepted at face value says many things. Not that we can understand it yet.

1 - "0" is infintesimal.

2 - It is a mathematical foundation for our existance from nothing which does not invoke magic nor Gods.

3 - The recipocal of infintesimal is infinity but until "All" of nothing becomes "Someting, nothing will ever be physically infinite.

Taken as an unknown and perhaps unknowable it has a comfortable feel.

In UniKEF I propose a form of mobius where "0" and "Infinity" are one and the same and that White Holes are Black Holes. It is a place where non-existance and creation and time achieve a triple point.

You want proof. Got none But my view is mathematically supportable. That is one up on magic, Gods, miracles or physical infinity.

Well, one thing's for sure- the egg came before the chicken. The egg can be laid by some hypothetical interbreeding or interspecies but the first bonafide chicken was a result of that egg. It's like the situation with the mule- which is a product of a cross between a donkey and a horse. The zygote (analogous to the chicken egg) here that results in the mule (analogous to the chicken) definitely came before the mule.

As for the Universe? It seems pretty paradoxical to me. It's both the ying and the yang. It exists but doesn't come into existence. Or it came into existence out of nothing. Both axioms can be argued to the same conclusions (and they are both circular arguments if we tried to determine the truth of those axioms).

123....

You are of course absolutely right. But what other arguements can be forded?

I just like mine better as I'm sure Tom likes his better.

Whatever lets you sleep at night. And I sleep well.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>