New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

Tom,

I too think we have run the gammot here. In conclusion this is where I also put perpetual existance without a creation (Infinity).

quote:
*****************
(I need no refresher on how it is possible in mathematics, but math is not physical reality.) -|Tom|-
*****************

TVF has managed to divert the attention of the participants of this discussion aways from his OBVIOUS contradictions in the MM to a discussion about infinity and the mathematics of it. This is really disturbing to me. But, the EXISTENCE of an infinite set is based on the AXIOM of Infinity:

Axiom of infinity: An inductive(infinite) set exists (Introduction to set Theory by Hrbacek and Jech, p. 44)

Therefore, there is no point for anyone to argue axioms. However, notice that infinite sets are called inductive. This is because the existence of infinity in any sense can be justified only by induction, as Cantor did by the introduction of the symbol "Aleph nought" and his definition that Aleph nought + 1 = Aleph nough.

In this context, any theory such as the MM using an inductive argument as a part of a deductive model has the following shortcomings:

1. Premises cannot be proved
2. Conclusions of any deductions use implicit inductions
3. Circularity of reasoning
4. Contradictions (presented already)

Everything else is a waste of time. Infinity exists only axiomatically. No one has seen or feel anything infinite except those seeing oracles of God in their dreams.

The standard model has survived scrutiny because it offers an explanation of existence while avoiding axioms of infinity. Recent studies confirm the age of our universe to be 13.7 billion years within an acurracy of 1%.

A suggestion to TVF: you must try to avoid any use of the term "infinity" in any context possible. Rigorous natural philosophy scrutinizes all theories involving infinity because it is well understood that infinity poses unresolved paradoxes.

To conclude this discussion from my part, I'd like to mention to those using arguments involving infinite sets, such as the set of integers, that their common name in mathematics is "miraculous jars". This is due to a common sense realization than existence of those sets requires a miracle. This is exactly the contradiction, the miracle, which TVF is trying to avoid but essentialy uses to support his own miraculous jar of gravitons and ellysiums.

Galileo's paradox of the integer numbers was never solved but "regularized" by claiming that infinite arithmetic is not the same as finite arithmetic. Obviously, the Cantorian definition N+1=N is axiomatically a true equation where finite arithmetic does not apply, otherwise by subtracting N from both sides, 1=0. Then:

1. either 1=0, i.e. everything came from nothing
2. someone supplies energy from outside (as Mac nicely pointed out) so that N+1=N

Pick your choice. TVF has already picked (2) but he felt into an obvious contradiction: what is outside in the MM? His attempt to persuade of a perpetual cycle hasn't been any succesful. The result: MM is not considered a serious cosmological model.

My involvement into this was limited into pinpointing the serious contradiction the MM is committing. Some missed this point totally.

Cheers.

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

That is not obvious. Better, that is wrong. The Universe is not a "thing" simply because it is everything that DOES exist. Since there can not be anything "outside" the Universe, by definition, the Universe has no limits. Hence, it was not "created" and it will exist forever.

Also, an infinite Universe does not require a miracle, as some people have said here. It doesn't because the causality principle can only be applied to things, not to the Universe (it makes no sense, if you follow the definitions correctly).

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

One can only consider such an absurd if one does not understand what "nothing" means. If there was no matter and therefore neither time nor space, then nothing can happen (change). Yet we observe changing in the Universe, so changing has always been happening.

Has there been a break in the action here? What infinity is or isn't has little to do with the universe. The models don't have anything to do with the universe either. All this verbage has nothing to do with the universe. So, can we now get back to astronomy and related topics like models and data?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Magoo]: Does anyone know what has happened to the posts by George?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The only persons who can delete George's posts are George and a Moderator, and the latter did not do it. So George deleted his own posts. If anything important was lost, the whole Message Board is backed up daily. But we have no plan to restore those deleted posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Tom, did you kick out another one?<img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Same story as before. Two warnings and out. We're sticking to science on this MB. There are plenty of other boards for entertainment.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You better be careful, you might not have anyone left to argue with. ... The ironic thing is that George is the one who started this thread.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

"George" had so many character traits in common with the previous party meeting the same fate that it is not clear we have booted more than one person yet.

George did indeed start the thread, but was apparently not sincere. He asked for discussion and responses, but apparently already had only one acceptable response in mind, and gave grief to anyone (not just me) who argued against his own position on his own question. Getting frustrated is no excuse for that kind of behavior.

Magoo, I am disturbed at your implication -- especially because this came up before. No one is in danger of getting booted for disagreeing with anyone, as long as they are respectful and maintain mature, reasonable, non-person-attacking behavior. I am inclined to add that anyone cheering or promoting disrespectful behavior would also be unwelcome.

Such unacceptable behavior is certainly distinct from approving or disapproving of someone's intellectual point of view for cause, whether that point of view agrees or disagrees with Meta Research's point of view. It is the behavior, not the intellectual position, that is objectionable. Changing the discussion from the merits of the subject matter to the motives, competence, or other characteristics of the personalities involved is unacceptable here. All other participants in this discussion have done a very good job of defending their positions, even if I don't happen to agree with some of them for the reasons I stated. But the best discussions come from having strong proponents on both sides.

Your own post treads on thin ice in these regards. -|Tom|-

Now, hopefully, back to the subject.