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>

The two possibilities are that that existence has a cause or that existence itself is eternal and unchanging. You assume the former, but without stating a reason, if any, behind that choice. -|Tom|-

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

I disagree. Using the axiom of the excluded middle, based on your premises these are the alternative:

A: existence has a cause XOR existence does not have a cause(P XOR ~P)

B: existence is eternal XOR existence is not eternal (Q XOR ~Q)


Your statement TVF is (P XOR Q) and it is just an operation of logic based on two unrelated premises. Your satement does not represent two mutually exclusive alternatives. That is:

Existence may be eternal but still require a cause. This is compatible with you postulate of time irreversibility. After existence is created is eternal. The definition of eternality cannot apply before creation, simply because it does not make sense.

There is no proof possible that for existence to exist, no cause is required, unless this is used as a postulate. In such a case, contradiction arises if one also includes the postulate that every effect requires a cause. In turn, if you claim the "existence" is the prime cause then you posing "occult" causes. In this later case you no better than fundamentalists, actually they say the same thing, i.e. that in the beggining there was the intelligent existence of a supreme Being.

You mus find a way to incorporate existence along with the set that it defines and every member of that set has cause. If a set it is not a member of itself it is a Russell antinomy. Every theory based on antinomies is flat rejected by science.

This is constructive criticism.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: You must find a way to incorporate existence along with the set that it defines and every member of that set has cause. If a set it is not a member of itself it is a Russell antinomy. Every theory based on antinomies is flat rejected by science.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I reject the assertion in your last sentence. Show us a good reason why it should be so. Infinity is not an integer, yet the number of integers is infinite. How is that <i>not</i> a counterexample to your asseretion? It exactly parallels the status of eternal existence with respect to forms. -|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>

The two possibilities are that that existence has a cause or that existence itself is eternal and unchanging. You assume the former, but without stating a reason, if any, behind that choice. -|Tom|-

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

I disagree. Using the axiom of the excluded middle, based on your premises these are the alternative:

A: existence has a cause XOR existence does not have a cause(P XOR ~P)

B: existence is eternal XOR existence is not eternal (Q XOR ~Q)


Your statement TVF is (P XOR Q) and it is just an operation of logic based on two unrelated premises. Your satement does not represent two mutually exclusive alternatives. That is:

Existence may be eternal but still require a cause. This is compatible with you postulate of time irreversibility. After existence is created is eternal. The definition of eternality cannot apply before creation, simply because it does not make sense.

There is no proof possible that for existence to exist, no cause is required, unless this is used as a postulate. In such a case, contradiction arises if one also includes the postulate that every effect requires a cause. In turn, if you claim the "existence" is the prime cause then you posing "occult" causes. In this later case you no better than fundamentalists, actually they say the same thing, i.e. that in the beggining there was the intelligent existence of a supreme Being.

You mus find a way to incorporate existence along with the set that it defines and every member of that set has cause. If a set it is not a member of itself it is a Russell antinomy. Every theory based on antinomies is flat rejected by science.

This is constructive criticism.






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


Very good stuff. I should have written this.

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

I reject the assertion in your last sentence. Show us a good reason why it should be so. Infinity is not an integer, yet the number of integers is infinite. How is that not a counterexample to your asseretion? It exactly parallels the status of eternal existence with respect to forms. -|Tom|-

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

You're making a puzzling analogy. I cannot see what infinity has to do with my statement. Are you trying to divert this discussion to a debate to Cantorian infinite sets?

1. If one defines as EXISTENCE the set of all things that exist, then EXISTENCE must be a member of that set, simply because it also exists. This is an obvious, common sense definition.

2. If all member of the set EXISTENCE must have a cause then EXISTENCE also must have a cause.

3. If all members of the set EXISTENCE have a cause except EXISTENCE then EXISTENCE is an antinomy. Simply it does not obey the rules of the set it defines.

Now, you got some choice here:

1. Abolish your causality principle
2. Accept that existence has a cause
3. Abolish your creation ex nihilo principle

One thing is for sure: you must do something, something other than diverting the discussion from REAL issues into IMAGINARY issues such as Cantorian infinite sets and mathematics of infinite. But even then, you are wrong. Infinite sets are not antinomies, just abstract concepts. In your case we're talking about a serious violation of the principles of logic by devicing self-contradictory statements and claiming they are slef-evident truths.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The only problem of reasoning that I see here is that some people cannot understand the distinction between talking about PART of something versus talking about the CONTINUUM of it. They continue to apply the methods used on parts to wholes and understandably derive errant conclusions. Why don't they argue that the number line is finite because any given section of it is finite? Causality as they conceive it only applies to finite sections of the infinite universe.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


I disagree with this assessment. Integers themselves act as continuum to smaller parts as they are part of the continuum of the number line. And the smaller parts that sum up to a single integer also follow the same rules of which are applied to the integers on the number line. There's no reason why the numberline itself can't be thought of as an "integer" of an even larger set of which similar methods are applied.

On a side note, I think the concept of infinity is flawed or at least is contradictory. If the numberline is infinitely long, infinity itself should be a finite integer. For the number line to be infinite, there has to be an infinitely large number. So a finite number can become infinite or infinity is a finite number- contradiction.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: 'existence' is not 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>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: 1. If one defines as EXISTENCE the set of all things that exist, then EXISTENCE must be a member of that set, simply because it also exists. This is an obvious, common sense definition.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It may be obvious and common sense to you, but it is neither to me. But the point of your message was that I had an invalid syllogism. However, your "proof" began with a premise that was the opposite of one of my own premises.

Although I've forgotten the fancy names that go with each type of logical fallacy, I've not forgotten the fallacies, and yours is one of them.

My reference to the set of all integers was an attempt to show by example that your premise did not apply to my syllogism. Infinity is to the set of all integers as existence is to the set of all things that exist. Neither of the antecedents is a member of the set described.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Infinite sets are not antinomies, just abstract concepts.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Infinities are indeed abstract concepts, but they are also measures of a property of real sets. The same can be said of existence. I see no evidence of any lack of valid parallelism between these two sets for the purpose at hand. -|Tom|-