Physics versus Mathematics and Logic.

Just to understand the current theories are dumb is quite a leap forward from where most scientists are now. Most theory in use today is not mush better than what was available a 1,000 years ago. The belief in nuclear theorys can only be justified by big bombs and a lot of big bucks. The day to day operations of a star are not operating on that dumb logic.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The question is - can mathematics and logic account for real world physics?
To me the answer is rather no.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is a very interesting subject to me. Take a look at my post
www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/FORUM.asp?FORUM_ID=2 (Creation of the Big Bang!)

I have read several of your posts, you are an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable individual. Let me know what you think.

Patrick,

The funny thing is that your ideas are in the starkest possible contradiction with my ideas stated above. You try basing a "model" on logic and deducing thereon.
Furthermore, your own logic makes your "nothing" more like "everything", which invalidates you deductions and makes your logic itself internally contradictory. Try patching that - you get a tautology.

But thanks for your kind words, anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Furthermore, your own logic makes your "nothing" more like "everything", which invalidates you deductions and makes your logic itself internally contradictory. Try patching that - you get a tautology.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Wow!, you are exactly right. My case and point from your original post, "everything" from a logical perspective is actually "nothing" in that everything, aside from "nothing" itself, is really just temporary therefore logic eventually won't or can't play a role. By having "something" exist then "nothing" exist but having "nothing" exist doesn't mean that anything else exists. Part of my theory is that "NOTHING" is the only thing that is infinite. The tautology is actually what started me thinking of this idea, that one is simply the same, part of, or reliant upon the other. Which is true with only the exception being "0" or "NOTHING" itself. Your statement is exactly right with the exception of "0" or "NOTHING". Would you be kind enough to give me an example of how you think "0" or "NOTHING" could be a tautology?

Quote:
Wow!, you are exactly right. My case and point from your original post, "everything" from a logical perspective is actually "nothing" in that everything, aside from "nothing" itself, is really just temporary therefore logic eventually won't or can't play a role. <Patrick

Patrick,

Your repeated use of the verb "is" leads one to discredit your notion of a "nothing" as replacing everything. Consider "0" as an asymptote, which harmoneously corresponds to the idea of a dimension of scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Your repeated use of the verb "is" leads one to discredit your notion of a "nothing" as replacing everything. Consider "0" as an asymptote, which harmoneously corresponds to the idea of a dimension of scale.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, you are correct. I need to stop using the verb in that context.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Consider "0" as an asymptote, which harmoneously corresponds to the idea of a dimension of scale. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Would you please elaborate on this?