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>[Magoo]: Actually I think you have confused the issue even further. I am still confused, even more so, because you keep ADDING stuff and changing your definitions.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, as I explain below, you might be reading things into my words that aren't really there.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>i.e. [Substance is "essence of matter or energy", is eternal, and exists as a concept](Before you said essence was substance and now you say substance is essence.)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is your confusion. I did recently say that substance is essence of matter or energy. But I did not say that essence was substance or substance is essence at any point.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>1. You have already said "essence" isn't a thing that exists.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I did not say that either. I said that about "existence", and explained that existence is not a material, tangible thing, but rather a concept. So it is not a "thing that exists", but a concept that exists. I've already clarified that more than once.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>2. You have said that concepts are not something that exist.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I did not say that either. On the contrary, concepts do exist. They are just not material, tangible, physical things. They are more like valid ideas that accurately describe reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>3. You said "Substance is the collection of all forms".(Do you mean forms are a collection of substance?)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Guilty! I admitted using the word "substance" earlier where I really meant "forms", and clarified by saying that substance is the collection of all forms.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>4. "essence" is the substance of the universe.(I thought Essence was a non-existent concept, how can it be substance?)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I have no idea where that came from, but it wasn't from me.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>5. the substance (or atoms) from which it is composed are eternal(I thought it was only the essence which was eternal? Isn't substance made of material(atoms)?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Substance is eternal. (Atoms are not, but I just used them as an example of something long-lasting. But individual atoms are forms made from substance; they are not the same as substance.) Existence is eternal. One small point: Matter is made <i>from</i> substance, not <i>of</i> substance. The analogy is that integers are from the set of all integers, but are not made of that set.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>if the MM is based on "imaginary concepts" then how does it add any value to the understanding of the physical universe?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

How do black holes, tachyons, dark matter, dark energy, string theory, duality, or dozens of other imaginary concepts add any value to the understanding of the physical universe?

Oh, but I see you were just trolling. Luckily, I didn't take the bait! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

Tom,

I do still have a problem with the following:



quote:
**************************
"Existence" is a concept, not a material, tangible thing. So yes, in that sense, it is not something "physical".
**************************

To me that is saying that we are merely hallucinations created by our own minds. Existance to me means physical, tangiable things.


quote:

---

Infinity = (Infinity/2 - 1) and doesn't that resolve to Infinity = -2?

---

Infinity has a whole different set of rules in mathematics that you might be interested in studying. I mentioned a few of the rules for arithmetic in my post of 18 March at 17:53:51 ET. -|Tom|-
****************************

I just love it when they change the rules to make it work. That is like Relativity. Using the same set of conditions viewed from different perspectives and then apply a different mathematical formula to compute an affect (which results in different effects for the same set of conditions) and then argue thats ok the math shows you how.


I just don't buy it. I just know that is really going to ruin your day<img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: Existence to me means physical, tangible things.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'm thinking of an apple. The apple is a physical, tangible thing. But what about my thought? It is not very physical or tangible. Yet surely it exists, doesn't it?

I would say it exists as a concept. That does not make it imaginary. It is real, just not physical. Moreover, the thought concept is a valid description of reality (the real apple).

About the arithmetic of infinities: There are reasons for the rules being what they are. The rules were not simply made up. I understand your skepticism. But how about reserving judgment until you have at least studied the subject matter?

You might find it more interesting than you now think. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

Mac,

The problem with philosophical discussions like these is that everyone assumes that the definitions of what they are talking about are clear. Ensuing discussion usually shows that people have innate differences in their opinion on the meaning of terms. Ancient philosophers spent a lot of time arguing about "virtue" and after you read six books on it you only become convinced that it is ill-defined. To my mind "existence" is an ill-defined concept, it has no independant scientific value outside of ones own head. What does it mean to say that I, you or the universe exist except as my personal claim that I experience something? Non-existence then becomes what I don't experience.

Similarly, the discussion of what is material and what is conceptual can often become ill-defined also. We are pretty confident cars are "material" and "exist". But do X-rays exist? I can't see or smell them. As things require more trust in inference we personally at different points finally declare something to be a "concept" or "nonmaterial". That point is different for each of us. I'm guessing Tom might regard love as a concept even though I would argue that it might be as "physical" as X-rays in the sense that love has tangible and demonstrable "physical" results in the behavior of people.

The infinite aspects of the MM are not scientifically provable because no one can make an infinite measurement to show that the universe is truly infinite. All we can do is say we have found nothing that contradicts the assumption. As larger telescopes are built and we get definitive proof that the universe is larger than what the standard model allows, the argument against infinity will become increasingly strained. But it will never constitute proof because a little bit farther out might lie finiteness.

Jeremy,

I appreciate you taking the time to write a fine post on such a minor point.

I agree our definitions can vary but I find it impossible to view existance as non-physical. To me we are (as your examole) talking cars. That is what we consider as physical reality, that which is tangiable is what I call existing.

It's difficult to hold a reasoned argument with someone who keeps changing their definitions to suit their arguments. If I do that, I will be right no matter what the subject or argument is.

Today, you are calling substance "the collection of all forms". Yesterday, you said "substance are forms". And in some other post, you analoged substance as what forms are made of. It is definitely not I who is struggling to understand some concept. No, rather, you either have a failing memory (in which case I apologize for my outbirst), or you are only interested in being right, even if it is achieved through confusion or other tactics.

Well, your present definition, that substance is "the collection of all forms", and that "forms are finite in duration", leads to creation ex-nihilo, I'm afraid. If forms are finite in duration, then they came from nothing and disappeared into nothing. Sure, maybe you can get away with saying that the collection of all durations of forms will add to eternity (since infinity can neither be proven nor disproven) but you cannot eradicate the problem of coming into and out of existence of the forms.

So, I think you have to change your definition of substance again.

I think this is what you are trying to say: Substances are eternal and there are an infinite number of different substances. But the interaction between substances lead to forms which are finite in duration. Or using the integer analogy, it is like saying that substances are the integers themselves and all elements in the integer set are eternal. But the interaction (operation) between integers, say 1 + 2, yields something other than an integer. You are basically creating a new set that has finite properties out of the operation. This set is composed of elements produced from operation between integers (substances).

Of course, you would be satisfied at this point and call it a model of the universe. Here is where we part views. I think it is possible to ask what came before substance. Or in terms of the integer set, what operations from which set that is as yet discovered leads to the existence of the integer set? Ad infinitum.