New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5361 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: What is your explanation of "Virtual Particles" vs the 0

>(+1)+(-1) solution.?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

In truth, I do not understand the question. So I'll just make a few general remarks.

"Virtual particles" in MM are simply real particles such as gravitons that propagate faster than light and are too tiny for detection by existing instrumentation.

Zero is a mathematical concept, and we should not get confused by the difference between concepts and material, tangible entities. For example, if I have one apple, and take away one apple, I have a concept that zero apples are left. But that is a mathematical result in my mind. In reality, the apple still exists; it has just gone somewhere else. Or perhaps it has been eaten, yet all its atoms still exist somewhere else. The original apple has not turned into nothing. It or its constituents have simply relocated.

In summary, mathematical zero is a concept, not a material, tangible thing. No material, tangible thing can become nothing; it can only change form.

Does any of this touch on your question? -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5603 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: You defined "substance as the collection of all forms". But here you are saying that "substance is the stuff forms are made of". Is an integer made of "the collection" of all integers? What does this mean?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The correct analogies are these:
* substance is the collection of all forms --> the "set of all integers" is the collection of all integers.
* substance is the stuff that all forms are made from --> the "set of all integers" is the stuff that all integers come from.
I hope that clarifies the meaning.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

"Collection of all forms" means the whole set. How can the whole set be a "stuff" that something is made from? If you have a collection of stamps, are each of your stamps made from the a concept called the "collection of stamps"? No, the stamps are made from paper and ink. Are each individual form in the universe (under your definitions) made from the universe? That is pretty ambiguous to say the least.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5449 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: You're exhibiting a remarkable resistance in accepting well known mathemetical issues and their connection to your theory.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

And I exhibit this resistance by insisting that you name the issues and explain their relevance to this discussion. How unreasonably stubborn of me. <img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This is a very provocative stand. In the course of history, many have proposed models with reference to infinity but were honest and brave enough to admit the difficulties and paradoxes present in them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You do like to posture, don't you? As for me, I infer from your statement that I am either dishonest enough or cowardly enough not to admit the difficulties and paradoxes in MM. Naturally, it is inconceivable that I might have just deluded myself into thinking that my position was a reasonable one, much less that it could actually be a reasonable one.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Of course, the CH was never stated explicitely in any postulation of a cosmological model or its rebutal effort because in scientific and philosophy circles some things are considered obvious and no names are called.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I see. I ask for evidence to support your claim that CH has ever been used by any mainstream cosmologist, and your answer is that they never bothered to mention it out loud because it is so obvious. I wonder how many of our readers have even heard of the Continuum Hypothesis? Or even the two levels of infinity that it refers to, for that matter? Or how this might be applicable to cosmologies such as the Big Bang? But I gather you would shame them into silence about their ignorance by warning them that "in scientific and philosophy circles some things are considered obvious".

If it is so obvious, how about spending a moment to sketch the relevance for us dummies who don't get it? But if you try, it is best to heed the wise advice of a cosmologist I once heard: "Never speak more clearly than you understand yourself." <img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But if you spend the time and you are willing to learn you will find explicit references of the CH in many places, even in the works of Dr. Al.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

My goodness. Here we have a citation. Well, sort of. Almost. Hmmm. Maybe you could be just a wee bit more specific? Maybe you could drop a hint about in which decade Uncle Albert wrote something about this? I realize that a title, journal, publisher, volume, page number, year, and brief summary of the relevance would be things that only a dishonest or cowardly scientist would need; but what can I say? That's just me!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I will make another, final, effort to point out to you the extraordinary difficulties models incorporating infinity pose.
1. The MM models the universe
2. The universe according to the MM is infinite in ....
3. The universe includes the Meta Model, since there is nothing outside of it
4. Then, the MM must model itself
5. Then, the MM must model the model of itself
6. Then, the MM must model the model that must model the model of itself

ad absurdum<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Is JoeW a handle for Godel? IMO, much of this sort of "logic" (to use the word loosely) is analogous to arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

MM is not bothered by the might of your reasoning. MM freely admits to being incomplete in many ways, one of which is in not modeling itself. So that makes it, at best, a good model for the rest of the universe. Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to live with that hole in the model. <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Great mathematicians have shown that any model strong enough to include reference to infinity must have an infinite number of axioms in order for it to be complete and free of contradictions.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Good for them! Luckily, MM is admittedly incomplete and makes no pretense to having an infinite number of axioms yet. In fact, the poor model began with a hard nothing and made something of it, then concluded that nothing could ever become something, thereby contradicting itself again. Clearly, there is no hope for it, which probably explains why almost everyone who hasn't read about the basis for MM, and some fraction of those who have, hold out no hope for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Obviously, you are not aware of these great discoveries and why some cosmological models were swiftly abandoned are soon as these realizations were made.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Obviously. I can only know about the cosmologies in books, papers, talks, and web sites, both viable and abandoned. I have no way to know about a hypothetical cosmology that you didn't (can't) name?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Any reference to infinity introduces a higher degree of complexity and dimensionality known to pose unresolved paradoxes.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

So we can just forget about number theory? And mainstream cosmology? The Friedmann-Walker models? General relativity (e.g., infinite speed and force at the singularity in a "black hole")? Quantum Mechanics (e.g., the renormalization problem)? Differential and integral calculus and all those tables of definite integrals to infinity? Expansions of functions into infinite series? Whatever will be left? <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now you take the unreasonable stand that it's of no concern to you. However, one is led to believe that you're attempting to justify ignorance of the problem by claiming the problem does not exist.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I guess this is just punishment for my having the audacity to ask you about relevance. It must have been the last straw when I said in my last message: "Why should the level of infinity be relevant to this discussion? That is a simple, direct question that demands an equally simple and direct response."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The conclusion is that as long as you keep making any reference to any degree of infinity y

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5450 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: "Collection of all forms" means the whole set. How can the whole set be a "stuff" that something is made from?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Forms are to substance as integers are to the "set of all integers".

Forms come from substance in the same way that integers come from the "set of all integers". Both forms and integers are finite subsets of an infinite set. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5451 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"Collection of all forms" means the whole set. How can the whole set be a "stuff" that something is made from?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Forms are to substance as integers are to the "set of all integers".

Forms come from substance in the same way that integers come from the "set of all integers". Both forms and integers are finite subsets of an infinite set. -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

"comes from" and "made from" don't have the same meaning to me. Integers are not made from the integer set- they are part of the integer set. They make up the integer set. As you defined substance, forms are not "made from" substance but are part of the set of substance. Forms make up the set of substance.

If you have a ball of clay and you made an apple shape, that form is made from clay. So you can say that of all the different forms in the universe, every one is made from, or made of clay. But it makes no sense, at least to me, to say that each form is made from the collection of all the forms. If you have a collection of stamps, does that mean that each stamp is made from the collection? No, each stamp is made from ink and paper.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 8 months ago #5362 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

So unless you can throw me a few crumbs to satisfy my cravings to know the relevance of the CH to the MM, or the relevance of anything in this last pair of messages to the general discussion, I will have to make my excuses and slink off into the shadows until I get smarter, assuming I'm not too learning-resistant for that to be possible. -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I've never insisted you're no smart. On the contrary, you seems like a very smart and probably young man. So you have all the time you need to sink your teeth in a few good books and find out yourself. Unless you do that, nothing anyone else can tell you will help you in your quest, simply because you appear defiant and ignorant.

I repeat that I don't get involved in philosophical debates to tutor people. That's a hopless task. The issues are deep and a strong background is required. Bids and pieces through message posting will not help and even do more harm that resolve anything. You must open your mind and understand that every statement you make counts. You cannot come back and claim you were only using it as an analogy to support an argument but then you can drop the analogy and just keep the conclusion from it.

During the course of this debate, at no point I supported any specific model of cosmology nor I presented one. You did so. I only tried to help you understand that there are strong contradictions present in your model and those are evident to a trained eye. You have the defiant attitude that you see no contradictions, you have resolved them all. How can this be possible when most of your examples are based on analogies using the the set of natural numbers and when even a stupid logician knows that any axiomatic system strong enough to contain arithmetic (not even infinite) generates conclusions one can prove neither true or false, that is contradictions?

How can one take you seriously when anyone knows that models with a reference to infinity are subject to antinomies of infinity, the worse kind around?

As far as the connections of CH with cosmology, this is something you must discover yourself. Discovery of truth is an adventure and you are alone at it. Sometimes you're lucky to come arcoss a good Samaritan like me and this saves you energy and time. I see no other way for you and I see no benefit out of this debate for me for now or at least until you become familiar with the issues and terminology. I think you have all the mental capacity needed for that but you must first free yourself of any dogmatism due to sins of the past.

Then, you may discover the model that model the model that models the model that models the model.....ad infinitum

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.349 seconds