What is "miraculous"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">HINT - Unless you and EBTX and North and (maybe a few others?) start posting in english, we will continue to not communicate<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Just to let you know - That from past experience. I have chosen in general ... not to reply to you, for reasons known to me, (and maybe a few others).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: What does "matter is logic" mean?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">EBTXs model has fundamental entities. A fundamental entity is something you apparently cannot fathom. It is free of foreign contamination or corruption. On the conceptual level it is the quintessence of one. {The flagpole of logic}. The connection between matter and logic cannot be broken.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">First, that does not answer the question. I might have little difficulty understanding a hypothetical connection between matter and logic if something specific were proposed. But that is not what was claimed. The claim was that matter <i>is</i> logic. Do you understand that claim, and can you explain it?

Second, if these "fundamental entities" are beyond our abilities to fathom, how do they differ from postulating a Supernatural Being?

Third, if these postulated particles are "the quintessence of one" (which I take to mean "indivisible"), then how are the following instant paradoxes for unit particles resolved? (This material is from <i>Dark Matter...</i>.)

1. Does the unit particle have a surface? Would another unit particle placed on this surface stick or drift away? Is there any sort of force associated with this particle?
2. Can the unit particle spin? With or without a limit to how fast it can spin? If not, what prevents this? If so, what determines its spin axis and pole locations? Aren’t these “special places” on the unit particle? And surely its shape must bulge with spin. But elastic deformation is a property of bodies composed of smaller entities.
3. Can the unit particle collide? If so, are these elastic or inelastic collisions? How can another particle either stick or elastically rebound without shape changes, which is a property of composed entities? With what speed would another particle rebound, and in what direction? What about for the slightest of grazing collisions? And would momentum be exchanged in collisions? How would the two unit particles share this momentum?
4. What density does the unit particle have? Indeed, will there be anything inside it at all, or will it be hollow? With what thickness of shell? Or else how can the substance in the particle’s interior ever contribute in any way to anything in the universe outside the particle, since it can never interact with anything outside? Is most of the mass of the universe hidden inside such unit particles, never to contribute or make its existence known?
5. Would the unit particles be spherical in shape? Or cubical so they can fit together without leaving empty space? What determines this shape, and what maintains it?
6. Can a unit particle come into or go out of existence? How, where, when?

Such paradoxes are so far unresolvable in most models, yet must be resolved to remove "fuzzy think" from models that postulate them. They are the reason that the extended Zeno paradox for matter leads to the conclusion that matter must be infinitely divisible in MM. -|Tom|-

Skarp,

I don't blame you a bit. I wouldn't want to have to try to explain myself to me, either.

It's funny, though. I used that same tactic against you for quite a while. But ultimately I found it to be not very productive, and thus not very satisfying.

Time has a habit of changing our perspecitve on things.

Regards,
LB

<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">First, that does not answer the question.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I submit that it most definitely does. I was stating that from EBTXs perspective. I could be wrong. I don't own his brain. From my perspective I would have a different definition for matter than EBTX, and in that definition Matter is logic. The answer gave for EBTX would still essentially be the same from my standpoint.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Second, if these "fundamental entities" are beyond our abilities to fathom, how do they differ from postulating a Supernatural Being?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I never said they are beyond our abilities to fathom. I said they are beyond your ability to phathom. MM has no fudamental entities. So why would you give them any consideration? You simply reject them. Your ability to understand them is unlikely at best.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">how do they differ from postulating a Supernatural Being?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is entirely possible they don't differ all that much.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Third, if these postulated particles are "the quintessence of one" (which I take to mean "indivisible"), then how are the following instant paradoxes for unit particles resolved? (This material is from Dark Matter....)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I shall answer them all to the best of my abilities. My new models conception occurred about 9 months ago, so needless to say ... there are plenty of blanks.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What density does the unit particle have? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A unit would have zero density.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Indeed, will there be anything inside it at all?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No - there won't be anything inside it at all.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">or will it be hollow? With what thickness of shell?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not sure I would call it hollow if the shell has no thickness.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Or else how can the substance in the particle’s interior ever contribute in any way to anything in the universe outside the particle, since it can never interact with anything outside?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


First off there is no substance in a fundamental units interior. The key words here are interior and exterior.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is most of the mass of the universe hidden inside such unit particles, never to contribute or make its existence known?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Mass to me is more like an event than something you can lay your hands on (so to speak). One might term mass as a resistance to acceleration due to self interaction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Would the unit particles be spherical in shape?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> At creation ... I would say yes. Although that shape would change drastically almost immediately mostly through self interaction and interaction with other units.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Or cubical so they can fit together without leaving empty space?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Thats all there is.... empty in a physical sense. There is no need to fill it if it is represented without filling it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What determines this shape, and what maintains it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I can't answer that. I chose spherical as a logical alternative to square, triagle, and whatnot. The Spherical shape is not maintained.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can a unit particle come into or go out of existence?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Yes units can come into Existence all the time, and they do on a regular basis. It's part of the purpose of the universe. They don't go out of Existence. This would null the purpose.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Does the unit particle have a surface?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I would prefer to call this a location - Such as where the unit begins or ends depending on which side of the fence you are on.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Would another unit particle placed on this surface stick or drift away?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no substance to stick to. This location (surface) has a plus or minus depending on which side of the fence you are on. Plus to minus would be an attraction. Plus to plus, Minus to minus would be a repel.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is there any sort of force associated with this particle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would hesitate to call it a force, more like a law.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can the unit particle spin? With or without a limit to how fast it can spin? If not, what prevents this? If so, what determines its spin axis and pole locations? Aren’t these “special places” on the unit particle? And surely its shape must bulge with spin. But elastic deformation is a property of bodies composed of smaller entities.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I would say no - A fundamental unit will not spin. Orbit? Yes.

Pole locations would be determined should said unit be in an orbital, and yes there would be special locations. Such as front, back, right, left, up, down. All units that move in a direction will have these locations.

Elastic deformations can also be a property nothing at all. You can bend or stretch the p i s s out of it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can the unit particle collide?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Summary of some recent posts in this thread:

[EBTX to tvf]
"You believe that logic and matter are two different things ... that matter is somehow a "concrete" at the most visceral level ... and ... independent of abstract logic.

For me, matter is the embodiment of a total abstraction. It is logic itself ... and absolutely nothing more."

[tvf]
"What does 'matter is logic' mean?"

[Skarp]
"EBTXs model has fundamental entities. A fundamental entity is something you apparently cannot fathom. It is free of foreign contamination or corruption. On the conceptual level it is the quintessence of one. {The flagpole of logic}. The connection between matter and logic cannot be broken."

[tvf]
" ... that does not answer the question."

[Skarp]
"I submit that it most definitely does ... from EBTXs perspective."

&lt;and&gt;
"I would have a different definition for matter than EBTX, and in that definition Matter is logic."

===

Skarp,

I really don't blame you for ignoring me. I have a nasty habit of rubbing people's noses in the messes they make here on this message board.

It can't be a very pleasant experience.

===

Care to try again? (You can pretend I'm not here, and that you realized all by yourself that your answer was, ahem, incomplete, if it helps.)

LB

Skarp,

From time to time a "stupid" idea turns out to have significant value. It would be a shame if your idea was like that, but mankind lost it because you were afraid to explain it well enough for others to understand it.

I know, I know. If you explain it that well it is almost certain a fatal flaw will be revealed. But if you don't we'll just keep laughing at it every time you bring it up.


Your turn,
LB