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 the chicken egg was laid by a non-chicken, but it was already a chicken egg at the point of fertilization and even before fertilization, the "egg" was already a chicken "egg".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Exactly. So Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Neither. An egg of a non-chicken came first. What a stupid question then, I'll never use the chicken-egg argument ever again as it seems redundant.

cheers

Tom,

Yes, Thank you. We don't agree entirely but I don't think either of us can convert the other. It is a matter of choice of beliefs that as of today are unproveable.

quote:"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.



I particularily like this response. But let me suggest my view of why they aren't detected. Due to Lorentz Contraction they no longer exist as physical enities to our Universe. Much as the way I am now starting to visualize the Chiral Condensate (Vacuum of space) from which they appear.

To all:

I have read this thread (at nearly 4 pages now it should now be called a rope). Let me state that you cannot buy this kind of entertainment. IMO, I have always felt that mathematics are malleable. Rather the metal being molded and the hammer are simulataneously malleable. Mathematical principles that interpret the real world are bent to fit and when bent, fit very well.

I have brought up this based on an example from thermochemistry.
The ideal gas law reasonably predicts the behavior of gases while the real gas law is undefined in our "normal" range of temp and pressure.

This shows how what we think of as concrete mathematical proofs are the be all and end all. IF the MM is correct, then eternities of scale are below and above ours if I may take the liberty of placing us at some interval in this infinite scale. The interactions of these "worlds" affect ours. We all can agree that at least 50% of science is misapplied due to the pernicious lack of knowledge. We are bombarded by the impression that everything has been discovered and that all is finished. I, and many others, will agree that reevaluation of past data into new constructs is the only way to sharpen and improve the model of truth we strive for.

Over the course of this rope, I have seen several circular arguments concerning ex nihilo creation, casuality, etc. This reminds me of our Earth. We assume some sentiment and emotion into these arguments that depend on our placement of ourselves in positions of importance. I referred to Earth because we assume ourselves to Matter to the Earth. The planet and life would continue even if we nuked the whole thing. Life would change for us to impossible perhaps; however, the Earth doesn't care. The universe as I define it is everything. The familiar arguments seek to place bounds on the universe begging the question, "what is beyond the bounds?"

READER BE PREPARED!!!
We cannot answer this question through logic, math, or segmented argument. Instead we model. The MM seeks to accomplish that using facts and not emotion. Now advocacy of this model is NOT required to participate in conversation, and I have never argued for that in the past. I do want to point out that as humans when deprived of fact we install faith. Questions of creation and existence have been argued before written history. For the first time, we can peer deeply into space and we have not found its boundaries yet. Are any of us prepared for the idea that the universe may have always existed? That time is only a measurement of the rate of universal happenings, happenings that dont necessarily depend on the rate?

Is any prepared for the possibility that we may never know?
or
In that knowing, it wont matter.

I mean in reading the following rope I feel like Dr. Who meets Thomas Aquinas. Ad hominem attacks and emotions run high. The debate is on. I say have a coke and a smile and enjoy the ride....


Mark Vitrone

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: "comes from" and "made from" don't have the same meaning to me.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As so often happens, words can have multiple meanings or be ambiguous. Hopefully, I have now cleared up this ambiguity by stating which is the complete set and which is the subset. Are we good to go on this point now? -|Tom|-

<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>[123...]: "comes from" and "made from" don't have the same meaning to me.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As so often happens, words can have multiple meanings or be ambiguous. Hopefully, I have now cleared up this ambiguity by stating which is the complete set and which is the subset. Are we good to go on this point now? -|Tom|-



<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, you have not cleared up the ambiguity.

I think you are misusing a terminology that is usually reserved for material objects, when you say that forms are "made from" substance, which you defined as the "collection of all forms". If our universe is the collection of all forms, is each form in it made from the universe?
This syllogism is a little circular and highly ambiguous.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: I think you are misusing a terminology that is usually reserved for material objects, when you say that forms are "made from" substance, which you defined as the "collection of all forms". If our universe is the collection of all forms, is each form in it made from the universe? This syllogism is a little circular and highly ambiguous.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You pointed out that "made from" can be read in two different ways. So I changed the wording to:
* 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.

So each form is "made from" a portion of the substance of the whole universe. In the future, I'll try to remember to say "comes from" instead of "is made from", because you say that "comes from" has the meaning for you that I intended to put into words.

Forms come from the substance of the universe in that they are a small, finite part of that unlimited substance. But I already said that above and before. So I don't see why we are not yet past this point. What is it that has you stuck? -|Tom|-