New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

Correctly anticipating that his posting privileges are now suspended for ignoring warnings about off-topic, ad hominem remarks, George says he is "done here" anyway. -|Tom|-

Counting the number of elements in the number set is like using a meterstick to measure a yardstick. If your yardstick is infinitely long already, how can you have a longer meterstick?

So the numberline and integers don't really measure up as an analogy
to substances and existence. I think this was what I was objecting to.

But it's probably time to move past this analogy and go back to the real issues. You define existence as the state of substance occupying space. And you assert that this state is fundamental and need not have a cause. To me that is no less of a miracle than when Creationists assert that this state was achieved by an omnipotent God. I am only extending your own causality argument to that of the state of existence.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I am only extending your own causality argument to that of the state of existence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Not my "causality argument", but your own. The causality principle states that "Every effect must have a proximate, antecedent cause". But existence is not an effect, and neither "proximate" nor "antecedent" has any meaning in connection with eternal existence.

Okay, the "antecedent" part of the above begs the question, but the rest stands. I repeat the essence of this point:

** From nothing, nothing comes.
** To initiate existence, something must already exist and act as a First Cause.
** The "something" or "First Cause" must always have existed.

So whether you get there the scientific way or via the religious route, something must have eternal existence, or else nothing can ever come into existence. Our choice is therefore between eternal existence of all substance or a miracle.

Do you see a third possibility? -|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>I am only extending your own causality argument to that of the state of existence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Not my "causality argument", but your own. The causality principle states that "Every effect must have a proximate, antecedent cause". But existence is not an effect, and neither "proximate" nor "antecedent" has any meaning in connection with eternal existence.

Okay, the "antecedent" part of the above begs the question, but the rest stands. I repeat the essence of this point:

** From nothing, nothing comes.
** To initiate existence, something must already exist and act as a First Cause.
** The "something" or "First Cause" must always have existed.

So whether you get there the scientific way or via the religious route, something must have eternal existence, or else nothing can ever come into existence. Our choice is therefore between eternal existence of all substance or a miracle.

Do you see a third possibility? -|Tom|-


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

Yes, from nothing, something comes, that is the third possibility.
It is like a condition that is irreversible. Or a change in rules after the something comes.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: Do you see a third possibility?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Yes, from nothing, something comes, that is the third possibility. It is like a condition that is irreversible. Or a change in rules after the something comes.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Do you take that possibility seriously? That something could come from nothing? No matter, no energy, no space, no time, not even a Supreme Being to work a miracle? Please explain how you conceive of such a thing as possible in physical reality. (I need no refresher on how it is possible in mathematics, but math is not physical reality.) -|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>[tvf]: Do you see a third possibility?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Yes, from nothing, something comes, that is the third possibility. It is like a condition that is irreversible. Or a change in rules after the something comes.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Do you take that possibility seriously? That something could come from nothing? No matter, no energy, no space, no time, not even a Supreme Being to work a miracle? Please explain how you conceive of such a thing as possible in physical reality. (I need no refresher on how it is possible in mathematics, but math is not physical reality.) -|Tom|-


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

THis seems to be where a path of least paradox leads to. Anarchy evolved into law. Before law, substance can come from nothing.

Well, this has been an interesting exchange. I think I need a break. Have a good one Dr. Flandern, Jeremy, Mac, JoeW, et al.