Why does something exist instead of nothing?

Concerning an actual infinite number of things, you wrote:

You've said it many times, but you haven't proved it. You are free to believe it all you like, but you are in error if you claim that you have proved it, or that it is a known fact, or that it is a logical necessity.

Then name something you know there are an actual infinite number of.

If either of us cannot name something then can you see why that argues that possibly no actual infinite number of things exists ? Doesn't that evidence that we may be on the right track to assume an actual infinite number of things does not exist ? It is not unreasonable.

You laid hold of set theory and conceptual infinite points on the number line, I think. You proposed those. I looked into it and at least one source said "Nada."

Those do not represent actual infinite number of things.

Yes, there is a whole lot to infinities. There is quite a lot to the subject and even different kinds of infinities.

What exactly do you demand I repent for that J P Moreland said about the Borrowing Lender and the Owning Lender analogy ?

I admit that not everyone agrees. I don't admit that he was wrong about the essential matter of it. And I do not admit any error about the theory that today would never be arrived at if actual infinite time existed in the past.

I do not admit that there is an error in that observation.
I admit that counter arguments which have no persuaded me (at least yet) are out there.

Originally posted by sonship
As to me being infallible or Dr. Moreland. Of course neither of us is.
And you are not either.[/b]

I never claimed to be, but I admit when I am wrong.

I am not admitting any error until I detect an error.
You are not admitting any error even when I prove, without a doubt, that you have made an error.

Right now I only admit that other opinions exist.
Therefore you admit that your earlier claim that other options did not exist was in error. Why cant you simply say so? Why all the dodging and weaving and refusals to admit error?

I don't demand that you admit error simply because other arguments in the debate do exist.
It appears that you are deliberately not following. When have I asked you to admit error simply because other options exist? I have only asked you to admit error when you claim no other options exist.

Off the top of my head I think I recall you demanding an admission of error because I said something like all things are derived from previous things.
Correct.

I think you pressed the word "previous" in order to object that sub-atomic particles made up of other smaller particles does not match that axiom.
I admit that maybe the word "previous" is not the best word for what I mean.
I am not sure.
So what do you mean?
You and J P Moreland were arguing that it is a known fact that all existent things owe their existence to something else. You then used this in your 'borrower' argument.
I explained that it is not a known fact that all existent things owe their existence to something else. You will not admit that you were in error. You instead have tried several times to deflect the accusation by stating that you will not admit error in something else. Now you are pretending you don't really understand what you claimed in the first place.
The fact is that you were wrong, I know it, you know it, but you won't admit it.

Now I have one question for you. Who is your most enfluential thinker leading you to believe that quantum fluctuations prove matter can arise into existence from nothing?
I don't have a 'most influential thinker'. I have learn't quantum mechanics from many sources over many years, and I do not know for a fact that quantum fluctuations prove matter can arise into existence from nothing and have never made the claim that it does prove it. Further I generally do not engage in belief when it comes to questions to which I have no way of knowing the answer.

If you do not give me a name for some reason then I can only go to sources I am aware of where such a theory has been put forth and perhaps some counter arguments to them (if they exist).
Go to any source you like. But don't get confused about what the argument is.

And if I do that you probably will raise an objection of a strawman argument.
Yes, I will raise that objection if you try to present an argument that I made a claim I didn't make. I will not claim a strawman simply because I don't like your source, that is not what a strawman argument is.

So give me a name or two.
Who is the most authoritative for you in declaring that matter can pop into existence from absolutely nothing ?
Lets be very clear on this. It is my claim that quantum mechanics (as a science, not as an individual), does not at this time give any indication that matter that pops into existence is caused by something to do so. I am not claiming that it is known that it 'comes from nothing', I am claiming that it is not known to be otherwise. Your claim, that I say is false, is that it is known to be otherwise.

If your claim holds up, you could be due for a Nobel prize.

Originally posted by sonship
Then name something you know there are an actual infinite number of.

I can't, and never claimed I could.

If either of us cannot name something then can you see why that argues that possibly no actual infinite number of things exists ?
It argues that it is possible, it doesn't prove it.

Doesn't that evidence that we may be on the right track to assume an actual infinite number of things does not exist ? It is not unreasonable.
It is not unreasonable to think that it might be so. It is unreasonable to claim that it is so. You simply keep repeating that latter without proof. Not good enough.

You laid hold of set theory and conceptual infinite points on the number line, I think. You proposed those. I looked into it and at least one source said "Nada."
Nope. Your one source did not say "Nada". You just didn't understand that source.

Those do not represent [b]actual infinite number of things. [/b]
Now its not clear what you are saying.

What exactly do you demand I repent for....
I think you know perfectly well as you carefully steer clear of it despite me repeating it several times. Then you proceed to refuse to repent for a whole list of things that I never asked you to repent for.
For someone who can write long detailed posts with multiple Bible verses, you sure are acting dense in this thread.

Therefore you admit that your earlier claim that other options did not exist was in error.

Which post are you refering to ?

Why cant you simply say so? Why all the dodging and weaving and refusals to admit error?

Which post contains error that I do not acknowledge ?

It appears that you are deliberately not following.

Your multiple disagreements per post ARE difficult for me to follow.
Your nearly sentence by sentence disagreements are hard to follow and unite.

Which post has the error you insist that I refuse to admit ?

When have I asked you to admit error simply because other options exist? I have only asked you to admit error when you claim no other options exist.

As I go down this post one statement at a time you can see that I request you to be specific. We'll deal with these posts one at a time.

Give me your first unadmitted error.

Off the top of my head I think I recall you demanding an admission of error because I said something like all things are derived from previous things.

Correct.

Stop right here. Let this be Demanded Admition #1.

Wiki says concerning the Law of the Conservation of Matter,

The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed.

I take your insistence on admitting error as admitting error in the Law of the Conservation of Matter.

Now the way I expressed this principle may not have been the best way to express it. But I see no reason to admit error about everything being derived from something previous or however I put that.

There are some caveats concerning open, closed and isolated systems.
There are some matters concerning special and general relativity which I could get more understanding of.
Perfect conservation and/or approximate conservation issues have some matters I could understand better.

Sometimes scientists are dealing with amounts of mass which are too small to be measured. I don't think these situations call for admition of error but perhaps difficulty in confirmation because of the limitations of our scientific tools at this time.

But I see no reason to admit error. The same article says:

An important idea in ancient Greek philosophy was that "Nothing comes from nothing", so that what exists now has always existed: no new matter can come into existence where there was none before. An explicit statement of this, along with the further principle that nothing can pass away into nothing, is found in Empedocles (approx. 490–430 BCE): "For it is impossible for anything to come to be from what is not, and it cannot be brought about or heard of that what is should be utterly destroyed."[1]

I think you pressed the word "previous" in order to object that sub-atomic particles made up of other smaller particles does not match that axiom.
I admit that maybe the word "previous" is not the best word for what I mean.
I am not sure.
So what do you mean?

The Law of the Conservation of Matter.

Quantum Mechanics is not well enough understood by me to positively admit error. But the Law of the Conservation of Matter is more apparent in classical physics. I am not ready to admit definite positive error according to some admittedly strange as of yet less understood phenomenon of Quantum Mechanics.

I will admit that some re-evaluation is going on in light of new fields of theory such as Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps I could be wrong. I'm not going to admit prematurely that I know I am wrong.

You and J P Moreland were arguing that it is a known fact that all existent things owe their existence to something else. You then used this in your 'borrower' argument.

That's correct that to the best of my ability I condensed his talk. It is possible that I expressed some matters differently then he did or would.

I explained that it is not a known fact that all existent things owe their existence to something else. You will not admit that you were in error.

Maybe I am in error that it is still not seriously questioned.

Maybe I am also in error that it is a known fact that gravity is the effect brought about by the curvature of space time around mass.

Maybe a lot of things could not be considered known facts that are not questioned by someone, somewhere.

Are you ready to say that it is an indisputable known FACT that matter pops into existence from absolutely nothing for absolutly no cause ?

Originally posted by sonship
Which post contains error that I do not acknowledge ?

I could list many, but that would just give you more opportunity to dodge and weave.

So lets stick to this one claim: third post on page 4.

Each thing owes its existence to something previous. Each thing borrowed its existence from a previous thing which also borrowed its existence.

My response is that this is not known to be true.

Until you can show it to be true, you cannot correctly state it as fact and use it in an argument. You did so in error.

I take your insistence on admitting error as admitting error in the Law of the Conservation of Matter.
Yes.
For reference please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass#Exceptions_or_caveats_to_mass.2Fmatter_conservation

But I see no reason to admit error. The same article says:

An important idea in ancient Greek philosophy was that "Nothing comes from nothing", so that what exists now has always existed: no new matter can come into existence where there was none before. An explicit statement of this, along with the further principle that nothing can pass away into nothing, is found in Empedocles (approx. 490–430 BCE): "For it is impossible for anything to come to be from what is not, and it cannot be brought about or heard of that what is should be utterly destroyed."[1]

Ha ha. Sometimes you can be hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Quantum Mechanics is not well enough understood by me to positively admit error.
And this is the heart of the matter. You made a claim as if it was fact. I pointed out that it is not known to be fact in modern science (quantum mechanics). Your response is that you don't understand modern science therefore you can continue to claim it as fact?
Next you'll be telling us that you are not in error to claim that the world is flat because you haven't yet understood spherical geometry.

Let me tell you a few facts, since you seem to be a few millennia behind the times and stuck in Greek philosophy.
1. Under quantum mechanics, causation is not known to be a fact. ie many events are not known to have a cause.
2. Under quantum mechanics, empty space, is a seething mass of particles popping into and out of existence. Sometimes, as is the case with the boundaries of black holes and Hawking radiation, those particles can be sorted such that they end up having long life times.

Now the above may not turn out to be the full story. But it is standard science today with no better competing theory.
Now that you know that the claim that Each thing owes its existence to something previous. is not a known fact, if you ever state it again as fact, you are in error, and now that you know why, you would be downright dishonest. Ignorance of Quantum Theory is not an excuse but rather, it should give you caution about making any claims about physics.

I could list many, but that would just give you more opportunity to dodge and weave.

So lets stick to this one claim: third post on page 4.

jw:
Each thing owes its existence to something previous. Each thing borrowed its existence from a previous thing which also borrowed its existence.

tw:
My response is that this is not known to be true.

Until you can show it to be true, you cannot correctly state it as fact and use it in an argument. You did so in error.

Can you state it as fact that it is false ?

Tell me. If absolutely nothing exists why would one thing as opposed to another pop into existence without cause ?

If absolutely nothing existed why would this rather than that pop uncaused into existence ?

By "nothing" we can assume Aristotle's comment - Nothing as what rocks dream of.

I take your insistence on admitting error as admitting error in the Law of the Conservation of Matter.
Yes.
For reference please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass#Exceptions_or_caveats_to_mass.2Fmatter_conservation

Do you think I didn't read it?
Of course that part I particularly read.

And I spoke of some caveats in the post.
I didn't see in these issues any compete negation of the Law of Conservation of Matter.

What words there should I have taken to be a factual negation of the Law of the Conservation of Matter ?

But I see no reason to admit error. The same article says:

An important idea in ancient Greek philosophy was that "Nothing comes from nothing", so that what exists now has always existed: no new matter can come into existence where there was none before. An explicit statement of this, along with the further principle that nothing can pass away into nothing, is found in Empedocles (approx. 490–430 BCE): "For it is impossible for anything to come to be from what is not, and it cannot be brought about or heard of that what is should be utterly destroyed."[1]

Ha ha. Sometimes you can be hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Laugh harder.

After you have your good laugh you can explain that you know absolutely that matter can pop into existence without cause. I don't want as an answer that we have noticed some strange things in Quantum Physics.

Quantum Mechanics is not well enough understood by me to positively admit error.

And this is the heart of the matter. You made a claim as if it was fact. I pointed out that it is not known to be fact in modern science (quantum mechanics). Your response is that you don't understand modern science therefore you can continue to claim it as fact?

So you are now going to explain your fact that strange things seen in Quantum Physics proves without cause matter can pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

Since you're so knowledgeable about it break it down for us.

Comment on this paragraph please about Paul Davies:

Now in the case at hand, if originally absolutely nothing existed, then why should it be spacetime that springs spontaneously out of the void, rather than, say, hydrogen atoms or even rabbits? How can one talk about the probability of any particular thing's popping into being out of nothing?

Davies on one occasion seems to answer as if the laws of physics are the controlling factor which determines what may leap uncaused into being: "But what of the laws? They have to be 'there' to start with so that the universe can come into being. Quantum physics has to exist (in some sense) so that a quantum transition can generate the cosmos in the first place."35 Now this seems exceedingly peculiar. Davies seems to attribute to the laws of nature themselves a sort of ontological and causal status such that they constrain spontaneous becoming. But this seems clearly wrong-headed: the laws of physics do not themselves cause or constrain anything; they are simply propositional descriptions of a certain form and generality of what does happen in the universe. And the issue Edwards raises is why, if there were absolutely nothing, it would be true that any one thing rather than another should pop into being uncaused? It is futile to say it somehow belongs to the nature of spacetime to do so, for if there were absolutely nothing then there would have been no nature to determine that spacetime should spring into being.

Even more fundamentally, however, what Davies envisions is surely metaphysical nonsense. Though his scenario is cast as a scientific theory, someone ought to be bold enough to say that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of spacetime existed or not; if so, then it is not true that nothing existed; if not, then it would seem ontologically impossible that being should arise out of absolute non-being. To call such spontaneous springing into being out of non-being a "quantum transition" or to attribute it to "quantum gravity" explains nothing; indeed, on this account, there is no explanation. It just happens.

It seems to me, therefore, that Davies has not provided any plausible basis for denying the truth of the cosmological argument's first premiss. That whatever begins to exist has a cause would seem to be an ontologically necessary truth, one which is constantly confirmed in our experience.

Comments of W.L. Craig on Paul Davies and other proponents of something from nothing origins of the universe.

Next you'll be telling us that you are not in error to claim that the world is flat because you haven't yet understood spherical geometry.

What is too sad to really be laughable is that you think the universe popped into existence uncaused from absolutely nothing.

That you would go to such an extent to comfort your atheism is not really funny to me. It is a tragedy of a mind so self deceived.

And your concept is no friend of science which is all about finding CAUSES.
Funny is not the reaction I have. But the irony of you claiming to be a friend of science while essentially espousing magic.

Let me tell you a few facts, since you seem to be a few millennia behind the times and stuck in Greek philosophy.
1. Under quantum mechanics, causation is not known to be a fact. ie many events are not known to have a cause.

Not known YET probably.

Next you'll be saying that the cell is just a globe of jelly.

Good for the goose - good for the gander.

2. Under quantum mechanics, empty space, is a seething mass of particles popping into and out of existence.

That is not NOTHING. So that cannot be argued as evidence that the universe popped into existence out of absolutely nothing. Nothing is not "seething with mass of particles".

Nothing is no void, no space, no seething with particles.

How's your giggle now ?

Sometimes, as is the case with the boundaries of black holes and Hawking radiation, those particles can be sorted such that they end up having long life times.

Right here. Is Hawking radiation a theory or a known phenomenon ?

Has it been observed or is it just in the theoretical stage?

In September 2010, a signal that is closely related to black hole Hawking radiation (see analog gravity) was claimed to have been observed in a laboratory experiment involving optical light pulses, however the results remain unverified and debatable.[4][5] Other projects have been launched to look for this radiation within the framework of analog gravity. In June 2008, NASA launched the GLAST satellite, which will search for the terminal gamma-ray flashes expected from evaporating primordial black holes. In the event that speculative large extra dimension theories are correct, CERN's Large Hadron Collider may be able to create micro black holes and observe their evaporation.[6][7][8][9][10]

How's that silly giggle doing ?

Do you know what "remnants" are concerning black holes ? Not everyone agrees that remnants exist.

I read about the contraversy years ago in a Science Magazine that I just had to buy. It said "Stephen Hawking's Challenge - Can the Future Exist if a Black Hole Swallows the Past ?"

Its nice that a man could put his name to some theory - "Hawking Radiation."
But the comment about speaks of something not verified yet and "In the event that speculative large extra dimension theories are correct, CERN's Large Hadron Collider may be able to create micro black holes and observe their evaporation."

Now the above may not turn out to be the full story. But it is standard science today with no better competing theory.

So you are saying that the Law of Conservation of Matter is positively known to be incorrect ?

Site a peer reviewed article for me that identifies this Law as now wrong. I want to see it and the replies to it.

Now that you know that the claim that Each thing owes its existence to something previous. is not a known fact, if you ever state it again as fact, you are in error, and now that you know why, you would be downright dishonest. Ignorance of Quantum Theory is not an excuse but rather, it should give you caution about making any claims about physics.

Link me to your sources claiming that the Law of Conservation of Matter is now accepted by most scientists to be incorrect.

And if you don't and YOU are honest you'll admit that you're speculating that just maybe absolutely NOTHING yields SOMETHING into existence for no reason and no cause. (You hope)

Originally posted by sonship
Can you state it as fact that it is false ?

I cannot state as fact that it is false that everything comes into existence due to something prior to it (in time), (although, interestingly, this leads the the inevitable conclusion that time is either infinite in extent, or infinitely divisible).
What I can state as fact is that it is not known to be the case that everything comes into existence due to something prior to it, nor is it even considered to be the most likely situation by current science.

Tell me. If absolutely nothing exists why would one thing as opposed to another pop into existence without cause ?
Clearly you don't understand the words you are using. 'Without cause' rules out the possibility of an answer to the question you are asking ie 'what caused it?'.

By "nothing" we can assume Aristotle's comment - Nothing as what rocks dream of.
Well, I was talking about a very different nothing ie 'empty' space. But it doesn't really matter which nothing you choose, the question is still incoherent.

Do you think I didn't read it?
Yes.

Of course that part I particularly read.
But apparently ignored.

What words there should I have taken to be a factual negation of the Law of the Conservation of Matter ?
Seriously do you read your Bible with the same lack of attention, or do you only play dumb when it comes to admitting error?
Read the first sentence:
[quote]The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics.[/b]

After you have your good laugh you can explain that you know absolutely that matter can pop into existence without cause.
I never claimed that I did. If you repeat this strawman one more time I will accuse you of dishonesty because I have denied making such a claim several times, yet you keep repeating it. Why?

What is too sad to really be laughable is that you think the universe popped into existence uncaused from absolutely nothing.
No, I don't. See if you can quote me on it, or admit either misunderstanding me, or making it up.

How's your giggle now ?
Absolutely hilarious.
So, I see you are still dodging around the original accusation and not actually addressing it at all, but instead trying to move the goal posts and discuss different claims, and trying to address claims you think I made but didn't. The more you dodge and weave the sillier it looks. You should have simply admitted the error in the first place and have done with it. Now you are backed into a corner and getting out will be difficult. Over inflated egos can be a bit of a handicap sometimes. 🙂

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I could list many, but that would just give you more opportunity to dodge and weave.

So lets stick to this one claim: third post on page 4.

jw:
Each thing owes its existence to something previous. Each thing borrowed its existence from a previous thing which also borrowed its existence.

tw:
My response is that this is not known to be tr into existence for no reason and no cause. (You hope)

Looks like the crux of your argument is the word 'absolutely'. For instance, in BB theory, it did not come out of 'absolutely' nothing. There was something there before the beginning, implying a much larger universe where BB's happen all the time and whole universes come and go.

If you look up the Casimir effect, you will find putting two plates together very close, causes particles to pop into being from apparently nothing, but not the 'absolute' nothing you seem to think is an underlying argument.

The casimir effect is quite real and particles pop into existence an causes an actual force on the two plates coming together.

So the argument is exactly how 'absolute' is the nothing we are talking about.

Modern quantum theory says there is an underlying 'sea' of frothing energy, exactly what it is, I don't think even the best of them knows but it is there for sure.
Which means there is more to the universe than we understand right now and it lends evidence there was something before the big bang which enabled the BB in the first place.

That something has been speculated to be the 'multiverse' and one such theory goes 'a black hole from a parent universe is what leads to our universe, so it was a previous condition that led to our universe and further that black holes in our universe leads to more daughter universes being formed by the billions'

They think if that is true that perhaps the laws of physics would be different in each daughter and parent universe so maybe in a daughter universe the speed of light might work out to be a million kilometers per second or 1 km per second, depending on the exact conditions that led to the black hole making that particular universe.

You are quite fond of laughing at what people say so feel free to guffaw at our expense, these are speculations but speculation sometimes leads to actual new phyics, like Higgs did 40 years ago predicting the 'god particle', a terrible name, leading people to think some kind of supernatural aspect is going on.

You are quite fond of laughing at what people say so feel free to guffaw at our expense, these are speculations but speculation sometimes leads to actual new phyics, like Higgs did 40 years ago predicting the 'god particle', a terrible name, leading people to think some kind of supernatural aspect is going on.

Your post was interesting. I am familiar with some of those theories.

I am baffled at your comment about me being "fond of laughing at what people say." I consider that you must be mistaking me for someone else. Twhitehead is the one who just said he got a good hilarious laugh out of me refering to ancient Greek philosophy.

I don't laugh people down on this forum. So that comment is unfair.
My attitude is not to laugh at people but to ask them to stop and think about what they may be proposing soberly and seriously.

Now, this is what I believe about what you wrote.

I believe that however you break the universe down, no matter how you subdivide it into smaller sections, no matter how minute, however you section it, partition it, splice, or disassemble its component parts - the ultimate Cause of its existence lies outside of itself.

I believe how ever you imagine to add other universes, multiply universes, compound them, however you want to stack them, arrange their numbers, and speculate on their properties - the ultimate Cause of their existence lies outside of them.

It is not a laughing matter to me. I think the cause of the existence of this system must lie not within it but outside of it.

For the record, I have a whole lot of more reading to do about Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, Multiple Universes, etc. etc. etc. and whatever other innovative concepts which may be proposed in coming years.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Looks like the crux of your argument is the word 'absolutely'. For instance, in BB theory, it did not come out of 'absolutely' nothing. There was something there before the beginning, implying a much larger universe where BB's happen all the time and whole universes come and go.

If you look up the Casimir effect, you will find putting two plates together ...[text shortened]... le name, leading people to think some kind of supernatural aspect is going on.

You don't seem to understand that much of what you are talking about is speculation on a belief system and not actual scientific fact. Science requires something to exist before it can determine any facts on that something. I know that I exist because I had two parents and there was at least one witness to my birth and a recorded birth certificate. Science has given the name quark to the fundamental particle of matter, but do they know why it exists? Why does matter exist? That is a different way of stating the question why does something exist instead of nothing? I don't believe science is able to answer that question with facts. Science has done no better than religion in answering that question.

Originally posted by sonship
I believe that however you break the universe down, no matter how you subdivide it into smaller sections, no matter how minute, however you section it, partition it, splice, or disassemble its component parts - the ultimate Cause of its existence lies outside of itself.

I would like to know what you believe about causation itself, not when it comes to existence, but when it comes to things like position, or choice.
For example, if I throw a die, and it lands with a 6 face up, was that predetermined from the start of the universe? Or was it caused by some influence external to the universe? Or do some random events actually happen (random is equivalent to uncaused)?

I personally do not know the answer, but I believe quantum mechanics as it currently stands strongly suggests that random events occur, and in fact occur on every interaction at the quantum level, and although pure causation is not ruled out by quantum mechanics it is equally not known to be the case ie there is currently no evidential basis for a purely causative universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would like to know what you believe about causation itself, not when it comes to existence, but when it comes to things like position, or choice.
For example, if I throw a die, and it lands with a 6 face up, was that predetermined from the start of the universe? Or was it caused by some influence external to the universe? Or do some random events actua ...[text shortened]... known to be the case ie there is currently no evidential basis for a purely causative universe.

I remember when I was a kid and practice throwing a knife to stick in a target. I used a similar method of placing the dice in my hand and flipping them at just the right distance off the table to roll a double six most of the time, if I wished, during a game we used to play as kids. In Las Vegas you are required to toss the dice further and they must also bounce back from the side walls of the table, so in that case it would be much more difficult to be able to toss them in exactly the same way every time. The result seems clearly not predetermined from the start of the universe, but by your present actions and the environmental situations.

Matter is not perfectly conserved

The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. It is approximately true except in certain high energy applications.

A particular difficulty with the idea of conservation of "matter" is that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles that are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place over time, even within isolated systems. However, matter is conserved to such an extent that matter conservation may be safely assumed in chemical reactions and all situations in which radioactivity and nuclear reactions are not involved.

I took note of caveats to the Law of Conservation of Matter there. I wrote way back.

There are some caveats concerning open, closed and isolated systems.
There are some matters concerning special and general relativity which I could get more understanding of.
Perfect conservation and/or approximate conservation issues have some matters I could understand better.

Sometimes scientists are dealing with amounts of mass which are too small to be measured. I don't think these situations call for admition of error but perhaps difficulty in confirmation because of the limitations of our scientific tools at this time.

But I see no reason to admit error.

"Matter not perfectly conserved" was not strong enough to compel me to admit error in the Principle.

"Matter not conserved" might have been.

"Approximately true" does not compel me to admit error to the Principle.

I did admit that I could get more understanding.


"A particular difficulty ... is that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically" does not compel me to say the Principle is in error.


That whether or not "matter" is the proper word to use in election to positron deriving photons, doesn't compel me to say the Principle is an error.


It said - " However, matter is conserved to such an extent that matter conservation may be safely assumed in chemical reactions and all situations in which radioactivity and nuclear reactions are not involved."

Maybe I need to look into this more.

When we move into areas where we are not sure if the definition of "matter" is appropriate the Principle has some anomalies.


In the "high energy applications" some issues present which make the Principle "approximately true" .

They did not say these situations made the Prinicple definitely not true. The difficulty there being with definitions.


And now I am rehashing what I already wrote about that paragraph and a few more in the article:

Quantum Mechanics is not well enough understood by me to positively admit error. But the Law of the Conservation of Matter is more apparent in classical physics. I am not ready to admit definite positive error according to some admittedly strange as of yet less understood phenomenon of Quantum Mechanics.

I will admit that some re-evaluation is going on in light of new fields of theory such as Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps I could be wrong. I'm not going to admit prematurely that I know I am wrong.

You got an admiting of my limitation of expertise in Quantum Mechanics. I admit limitation in knowledge of physics.

You're waiting for this "Ah I am limited. So I am wrong about everything can be said to be derived from something else previous."


In the case of elections and positrons to photon conversion still you have elections and positrons PREVIOUS to photons.

So I see no reason to admit error there.


Other caveats refered to amounts of energy too small to be measured:

However, again unless radioactivity or nuclear reactions are involved, the amount of energy escaping systems as heat, work, or electromagnetic radiation is usually too small to be measured as a decrease in system mass.

Now this may branch out into other Principles. However I noticed that the heat or the work or the radiation (being very small) was still something "previous."


And I wrote:

Sometimes scientists are dealing with amounts of mass which are too small to be measured. I don't think these situations call for admition of error but perhaps difficulty in confirmation because of the limitations of our scientific tools at this time.

Maybe I erred that I should have written "amounts of energy" rather than "mass". But in mass to energy conversion you still have something derived from something previous.


That is all the time I have right now. But concerning your threat to call me dishonest? I expect you'll do that regardless. Nothing new there.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I remember when I was a kid and practice throwing a knife to stick in a target. I used a similar method of placing the dice in my hand and flipping them at just the right distance off the table to roll a double six most of the time, if I wished, during a game we used to play as kids. In Las Vegas you are required to toss the dice further and they must also ...[text shortened]... ed from the start of the universe, but by your present actions and the environmental situations.

Yes, I believe the roll of a die largely follows Newtons laws, and can be predicted, or planned out to a fair degree, especially if you used a computer.
However, I am talking about whether or not every single event in the universe is predetermined, or whether there are truly random events, and whether there are external inputs to the universe (and whether those too are predetermined or random).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I believe the roll of a die largely follows Newtons laws, and can be predicted, or planned out to a fair degree, especially if you used a computer.
However, I am talking about whether or not every single event in the universe is predetermined, or whether there are truly random events, and whether there are external inputs to the universe (and whether those too are predetermined or random).

I believe everything must follow God's laws. We may not be able to determine the result of the throw of the die, but God can if he wishes.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!