22 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipYou seem to have misunderstood my criticism. Zenos paradox's highlight various problems with infinities. To be honest, I don't know whether Zeno resolved them, or if anyone has fully resolved them. But they remain important paradox's to study before you get too confident about infinity.
Why refer me to Zeno when Aristotle is way too old and out of date?
My objection to your Greek references were not that they were ancient, but that it was an argument from authority ie you quoted some ancient Greeks as making the same unfounded claims as you did, then said 'look there, some important respectable philosopher said it too.'
I thought it funny that you had to search back over 2000 years just to find someone with any reputation that agreed with you. I also think it is unreasonable to take seriously any statement about physics from a time prior to Newtons Laws, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics when those claims are directly impacted by these discoveries/theories.
For example, even if you quote Newton as saying that time is universally uniform for everyone, I will point out that he was wrong as shown by relativity.
Mathematics on the other hand is much more ancient, and does not, generally suffer from being superseded by discoveries. Pythagoras' theorem is as true today as it ever was and will never ever be wrong.
But if you can find an actual argument by an ancient Greek philosopher that supports your claim, I will listen to it. But so far, 90% of your posts have consisted of restating your claim that it is known fact rather than actually providing any validation for it. It reminds me of Game of Thrones, where some slave girls keep making claims then saying "It is known!" as if this somehow makes it indisputable fact.
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, I know that you know how to repeat claims over and over, but it gets boring after three or four times, especially when sonship is also repeating it over and over without justification. Besides, the argument from authority kind of flops when the authority is you.
Infinity is the idea of something that has no end. In our physical world we don't have any physical thing that is infinite. We only have concepts in our imaginations and ideas in our minds that we represent as infinite. All physical things in our physical world are finite. 😏
I am sure you can even add a few youtube videos of other people making the same claim, and sonship can find some more Greeks, but it will remain an unfounded claim whoever says it or however many times they say it, until someone actually produces an argument or evidence to support it.
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadPerhaps these will help you understand withoout Youtube videos:
Yes, I know that you know how to repeat claims over and over, but it gets boring after three or four times, especially when sonship is also repeating it over and over without justification. Besides, the argument from authority kind of flops when the authority is you.
I am sure you can even add a few youtube videos of other people making the same claim, a ...[text shortened]... r many times they say it, until someone actually produces an argument or evidence to support it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsInfinity.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsFinite.shtml
22 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDo any of them repeat give any reasoning to substantiate your claim?
Perhaps these will help you understand withoout Youtube videos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsInfinity.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsFinite.shtml
Edit: The first one doesn't even repeat your claim. Is it really worth reading the rest, or did you just search for infinity on Google and post the first few links that weren't youtube?
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, the second one is more simple and states it much like I did. So it backs up my claim for sure.
Do any of them repeat give any reasoning to substantiate your claim?
Edit: The first one doesn't even repeat your claim. Is it really worth reading the rest, or did you just search for infinity on Google and post the first few links that weren't youtube?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Mar 13
My objection to your Greek references were not that they were ancient, but that it was an argument from authority ie you quoted some ancient Greeks as making the same unfounded claims as you did, then said 'look there, some important respectable philosopher said it too.'
My reference to Aristotle was no more an appeal to authority than your reference to Zeno was.
You also said in essence "look some important respectable philosopher highlighted some problems with infinities."
I thought it funny that you had to search back over 2000 years just to find someone with any reputation that agreed with you.
Just as "funny" as you having to reach back the same amount of time to highlight problems with infinities.
I also think it is unreasonable to take seriously any statement about physics from a time prior to Newtons Laws, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics when those claims are directly impacted by these discoveries/theories.
For example, even if you quote Newton as saying that time is universally uniform for everyone, I will point out that he was wrong as shown by relativity.
If we are talking about something arising out of nothing and the Quantum Mechanic theorist from the Copenhagen interpretation claims it can happen, and his "nothing" is a void seething with something it is okay to remind them that "nothing" is what rocks dream of, like old Aristotle said.
The seething Quantum Void is not nothing.
Point is that what popped into existence from a Quantum Vacuum as is theorized did not arise out of nothing but out of something. And that agrees with my observation that everything came from something "previous."
Paul Davies theorizes Quantum uncaused ex nihilo creation. He said that Quantum Gravity as a theory -
"... would allow spacetime to be created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused in the same way that particles are created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused. The theory would entail a certain mathematically determined probability that, for instance, a blob of space would appear where none existed before. Thus, spacetime could pop out of nothingness as the result of a causeless quantum transition."31
Davies however admits that the theory "should not be taken too seriously,".
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1983 my emphasis ), p. 214.
Craig comments:
" As Davies admits, "The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre-existing energy into material form."
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1983), p. 31.
Carig continues:
Hence, Davies greatly misleads his reader when he claims that "Particles . . . can appear out of nowhere without specific causation" and again, "Yet the world of quantum physics routinely produces something for nothing."33 On the contrary, the world of quantum physics never produces something for nothing.
But to consider the case on its own merits: quantum gravity is so poorly understood that the period prior to 10[-43] sec, which this theory hopes to describe, has been compared by one wag to the regions on the maps of the ancient cartographers marked "Here there be dragons": it can easily be filled with all sorts of fantasies. "
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz2OIpFAR7X
But on closer examination of his own ideas writes that actually it is really not so.
As Davies admits, "The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre-existing energy into material form."
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1983), p.31.
Craig continues:
Hence, Davies greatly misleads his reader when he claims that "Particles . . . can appear out of nowhere without specific causation" and again, "Yet the world of quantum physics routinely produces something for nothing." 33 On the contrary, the world of quantum physics never produces something for nothing.
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1983), p. 215,216.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz2OIqXveJZ
twhitehead:
Mathematics on the other hand is much more ancient, and does not, generally suffer from being superseded by discoveries. Pythagoras' theorem is as true today as it ever was and will never ever be wrong.
But if you can find an actual argument by an ancient Greek philosopher that supports your claim, I will listen to it. But so far, 90% of your posts have consisted of restating your claim that it is known fact rather than actually providing any validation for it.
That's all the time I have to write now.
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipNot so at all. I only called it Zeno's paradox because that is the traditional name for it, and presumably he deserves recognition for coming up with it. In no way at all was it an appeal to authority, and you are welcome to study the paradox without considering who came up with it, though I am not sure how you will find a reference site without using the word Zeno in your search terms.
My reference to Aristotle was no more an appeal to authority than your reference to Zeno was.
You also said in essence "look some important respectable philosopher highlighted some problems with infinities."
Point is that what popped into existence from a Quantum Vacuum as is theorized did [b]not arise out of nothing but out of something. And that agrees with my observation that everything came from something "previous."[/b]
No, it doesn't agree with your observation. The fact that a quantum vacuum existed in the exact same spot prior to the appearance of the particle does not imply that the particle came from that prior quantum vacuum. The particle came from the rocks dream.
If all you mean by your claim is that there was time and space prior to any given particle, then your whole argument is a tautology ie you are saying because there is always time and space prior to any particle then there must always be time and space prior to any particle. But of course this then leads to the conclusion that time is infinite contradicting your other claims.
23 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSpeaking from a completely logical and scientific point of view.
Discuss. 😏
If something exists, that means it was created. A creation is an effect. There must be a cause, in order to have an effect. The necessary cause involves effort and energy expense. The thing that expended the effort and energy in order to cause something to be created, is properly described as the Creator.
WHO or WHAT that Creator is, It's properties, and It's personality, intelligence, and plan--if they exist--are the only things really worth debating.
Otherwise, the conversation must center around the universe not being created, therefore always existing which is completely speculative with no supportive evidence in existence.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 13
1 edit
Not so at all. I only called it Zeno's paradox because that is the traditional name for it, and presumably he deserves recognition for coming up with it. In no way at all was it an appeal to authority, and you are welcome to study the paradox without considering who came up with it, though I am not sure how you will find a reference site without using the word Zeno in your search terms.
Special pleading, not convincing.
I refered to Aristotle in the discussion.
You refered to Zeno in the discussion.
Not much difference in motivation explained by your face savng special pleading.
ss:
Point is that what popped into existence from a Quantum Vacuum as is theorized did not arise out of nothing but out of something. And that agrees with my observation that everything came from something "previous."
tw:
No, it doesn't agree with your observation. The fact that a quantum vacuum existed in the exact same spot prior to the appearance of the particle does not imply that the particle came from that prior quantum vacuum. The particle came from the rocks dream.
There was no rock to begin with to do any dreaming.
But on a more serious note, the whole proposed theory (Paul Davies) was that the particles come out of the quantum vacuum.
From an abstract discribing Davies' ideas from
Quantum Vaccum Friction - Paul Davies (an abstract)
http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVF
The quantum vacuum may in certain circumstances be regarded as a type of fluid medium, or aether, exhibiting energy density, pressure, stress and friction. Vacuum friction may be thought of as being responsible for the spontaneous creation of particles from the vacuum state when the system is non-stationary. Examples include the expanding universe, rotating black holes, moving mirrors, atoms passing close to surfaces, and the activities of sub-cellular biosystems. The concept of vacuum friction will be reviewed and illustrated, and some suggestions for future experiments made.
If all you mean by your claim is that there was time and space prior to any given particle, then your whole argument is a tautology ie you are saying because there is always time and space prior to any particle then there must always be time and space prior to any particle. But of course this then leads to the conclusion that time is infinite contradicting your other claims.
My claim is that the theorized Quantum Vacuum is not nothing.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 13
6 edits
Why does something exist instead of nothing ?
I believe an uncaused, uncreated Creator transcending space and time with great power willed the universe into existence.
And J P Moreland in a Q & A explains why he believes this has to be a willing and personal Cause. His explanation seems reasonable to me.
Anyone enfluenced by the false accusation that I hold J P Moreland to be infallible - I think the video has no infallible explanation. I think it has a good explanation.
Roughly at 25:24 and onward he explains about the Cause having to have been personal, ie. a living Creator with will power (identity unknown at this point).
The specific question of why this Cause has to be personal is asked at 34:02 in the Q&A.
Now for an infallible answer, I do personally hold that the following is an infallible answer:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth " (Genesis 1:1)
That I would believe is an infallible statement of truth.