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>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[George]: <b>If something NEW cannot be created then "CREATION" is impossible.</b><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

True. (This assumes you meant creation from nothing.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><b>If something cannot be DESTROYED into nothing then "DEMISE" is impossible.</b><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

True.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><b>If nothing can be created or destroyed then all you can have is "NOTHING".</b><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

False. This is an assertion that does not follow from anything said before. <b>Can you justify it?</b><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If creation is impossible then there can never be anything.

Here is an interesting quote:
"existence seems impossible since something can't come from nothing,
and yet the universe exists." So it does!?


How can you be sure "Something" and "Nothing" aren't just one-in-the-same thing just in different forms? (1's and 0's)(energy and mass)(everything and nothing)
Perhaps you have never looked at it that way before, it's rather profound.

Sincerely,

George Moore

<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>That point was a non sequitur argument in your previous "syllogism". Plaese address yourself to that step in your own argument and show how it follows from the premises. If it does not follow from the premises, then your argument is invalidated. -|Tom|-<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Premise1: "Creation ex nihilo" requires a miracle.
Premise2: Miracles are excluded from physics.
Conclusion A: "Creation ex nihilo" is excluded from physics.

Premise3: The essence from which forms are composed exists.
Premise4: That essence came into existence from nothing.
Conclusion B: Premise 4 is excluded by Conclusion A.

Premise3: The essence from which forms are composed exists.
Premise5: That essence always existed.
Conclusion C: Premise 5 is allowed because nothing excludes it.

Premise6: Premises 4 & 5 are the only two possibilities.
Premise7: Premise 4 is excluded and Premise 5 is not.
Conclusion Premise 5 must be true.

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

Tom, I'm not sure how JoeW is wrong here. It seems to me that some of your premsise are weak/false/wrong/invalid. Your conclusion of "That essence always existed" seems false from premise #1. Are you perhaps trying to play a word game and say no "CREATION" ex nihilo but yes to "EXISTENCE" ex nihilo? If so, please define the difference.


Sincerely,

George Moore




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

Yes, thanks for elucidating my point: eternal existence is existence ex nihilo and this is no different than creation ex nihilo except that the word "creation" carries more of a religious undertone.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"Always existing" means every moment of time is the equivalent of every other moment of time. Specifically, every moment is just like "now".

"Existence from nothing" means there was a time when things were different, an evolution or aging of the universe, a change from one state to a fundamentally different state. That is the idea that requires a miracle. Are you so accustomed to thinking in terms of origins that require miracles that it has become alien to you to consider seriously the one possibility that requires no miracle? -|Tom|-<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Wow! Now this is really good stuff. So there is no change in time, no evolution or aging, every moment is always the same. It sure seems to me like you just discribed "NON-EXISTENCE"/"NOTHING" and according to your view anything coming from this would require a miracle.

I'm sorry Tom but my head is spinning a little from your statement. Do you want to rethink your position, take a couple asprin, and repost in the morning?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]A universe that has always existed is no different than one that appeared out of nowhere since both models deny cause of existence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I disagree. "Existence ex nihilo" assumes a miraculous cause. It is the theory of choice for religions. "Always existing" respects the causality principle because every form has a proximate, antecedent cause. But there is no need of a cause for everything separate from the cause of each form. And if there is no need for a separate "cause for everything" now, there never was such a need because every moment of time is just like now.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The only difference between these two models is that one prefers a time of origin and the other doesn't.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Again, I disagree, at least as this pertains to the Meta Model. In ordinary models that include creation ex nihilo, the universe consists of matter, space, and time. So places and times where there is literally "nothing" are a part of reality. That makes coming into existence from nothing at least meaningful, even if it requires a miracle to make it happen.

The MM consists of existence, substance, and momentum. "Existence" is synonymous with "occupied by substance". What is occupied, exists. What is not occupied is not merely empty; it does not exist. Because scale is infinite too, there is an infinite range of scale in which space can be occupied.

In such a model, the condition of "coming into existence" is without meaning. What exists, is. Time is not something that "also exists". It is simply the way we measure change in forms. Existence never changes.

I sure don't see these two ideas as anything alike. -|Tom|-

Tom,
Are you saying that you consider "Always Existed" completely different from "CREATION ex nihilo" and "EXISTENCE ex nihilo"?

Sincerely,

George Moore

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Existence ex-creation and no creation ex-nihilo:

If something always existed, then creation of that something never happened.

Then, there is a something that was never created.

If there is something that was never created, then a creation before existence is not nececessary.

Then, existence ex-creation is possible.

If existence ex-creation is possible, then no creation ex-nihilo of something that exists but was never created makes no sense.

Therefore, if something always existed, no creation ex-nihilo makes no sense.

If something that always existed is part of a world were no creation ex-nihilo is allowed, then

there is at least something for which no creation ex-nihilo makes no sense.

Therefore, no creation ex-nihilo cannot be a universal law if something always existed, since there is at least a something for which it does not make sense.




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

I agree- existence ex-creation is synonymous with creation ex-nihilo. It is a contradiction , non-sequitir, to assume the first but denying the second.