Jump to content

expanding formal verbal logic


pantheory
 Share

Recommended Posts

This thread is a spin-off from the thread "simple explanations have legs"

 

This was my quote:

 

(...) My belief is that logic itself as a formal verbal science could be greatly improved. In my opinion only a very small percentage of humans know how to properly use it to their full advantage. (...)

As has been suggested by myself and others, I believe that common logic is a big failing of today's primary scientific theories/ models which is one of the causes why many do not make sense and one of the reasons why I think most will be replaced by more logical models.

It was suggested that this might be an interesting topic to discuss. I hope you think so :)

 

Besides all the formal logical principles involved with argument, there are also a number of other logical principles that might be adopted for a new book on formal logic. Below are a few principles that I have in my book on cosmology which could be adapted for formal verbal logic. I could probably think of and/or discover many more concerning research for a book. Maybe you have some ideas?

 

-- All else being equal, "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations." This 14th century concept was proposed at the beginning of the age of "enlightenment" or free-thinking in Europe. It is called the Principle of Occam's Razor.

 

-- Something does not come from nothing. This is a very old concept and adage which can be derived from many sources including an old Latin saying. It also can infer the basis for the first Law of Thermodynamics: Mass/ energy can neither be created nor destroyed". Nothingness by itself was ever a possible state of reality.

 

-- Everything can be considered relative. This principle requires a relative comparison for any statement concerning realities of the natural world. This concept was originally conceived by Heinrich Mach. A similar version reached greater fame through Albert Einstein.

 

-- If the universe is ultimately finite concerning times past, logically there could be no exterior cause for it. This is because any exterior cause must also have an explanation as to its beginning which would defy the meaning of the word "finite." (where universe means everything in existence)

 

-- As a principle of logic "the principle of least action" would relate to the concept that the most direct course, shortest path, or simplest explanation, concerning what changes may have occurred between one condition to another, is the more likely explanation. The question then becomes "what is the simplest and most likely way to get from here to there." In this way this principle is similar to Occam's Razor. In physics, "the principle of least action" is a principle of possible variations, that when applied to the action of a mechanical system, can be used to obtain the most parsimonious equations of motion for that system.

.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very wide and profound.

 

Point 1. Occam's razor: nothing to add.

 

Point 2. Nothingness: I remember as a child our teacher explaining ancient beliefs over parthenogenesis and we pupils laughing at the incredible imbecility of ancient people. Nothing have changed though and many people today believe that something can appear from nothing. I prefer the position which says that "nothing" is impossible.

 

Point 3. Relativity: IMHO Mach is the one, not Einstein. Einstein's Relativity is the result of an absolute: the Speed Of Light. There are a lot to say here, but that won't lead nowhere, the Web is full of such discussions. I prefer wonder about these other instances that are still not considered relative. Dimension for instance: IIRC Planck length has a specific absolute value in meters, IMHO it should be relative too.

 

Point 4. I don't understand the condition "If the universe is ultimately finite concerning times past", because IMHO even if this condition is not fulfilled, even then the statement "there could be no exterior cause for it." stands.

 

Point 5. Least Action. One of my favorites, nothing to add.

 

 

 

Adding point 6 of mine: the concept "intrinsic" is wrong.

For example: how is it logically possible to imagine an elementary particle that have some intrinsic properties if this particle is not made of something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very wide and profound.

 

Point 1. Occam's razor: nothing to add.

 

Point 2. Nothingness: I remember as a child our teacher explaining ancient beliefs over parthenogenesis and we pupils laughing at the incredible imbecility of ancient people. Nothing have changed though and many people today believe that something can appear from nothing. I prefer the position which says that "nothing" is impossible.

 

Point 3. Relativity: IMHO Mach is the one, not Einstein. Einstein's Relativity is the result of an absolute: the Speed Of Light. There are a lot to say here, but that won't lead nowhere, the Web is full of such discussions. I prefer wonder about these other instances that are still not considered relative. Dimension for instance: IIRC Planck length has a specific absolute value in meters, IMHO it should be relative too.

 

Point 4. I don't understand the condition "If the universe is ultimately finite concerning times past", because IMHO even if this condition is not fulfilled, even then the statement "there could be no exterior cause for it." stands.

 

Point 5. Least Action. One of my favorites, nothing to add.

 

Adding point 6 of mine: the concept "intrinsic" is wrong.

For example: how is it logically possible to imagine an elementary particle that have some intrinsic properties if this particle is not made of something else?

 

I'm buying your comments 1-5 as being totally valid :D

 

My comment concerning Point 4. The universe could be finite in times past but a timeless entity of some ilk could be the cause of it according to logic alone, hence my dance with words :) .

 

As to point #6 I believe describing the characteristics of matter as being intrinsic is valid theory. Ultimately, I believe, there is a structural level of substance/ matter beyond which there are no constituent parts. This however is theory alone and presently might not be considered a principle of logic.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woaw difficult to discuss many points in a single thread.

 

Point 4 is ultimately about Time. We all have to admit we don't know what time is. So we cannot discuss about what "finite in time" really means. Some say that's about the "beginning of time" which I consider word salad. Logic tells me first to understand what we are talking about and discuss the details afterwards.

 

Point 6 is maybe difficult to represent. Any time I encounter the word "intrinsic" I know that the author don't know.

 

(...)Ultimately, I believe, there is a structural level of substance/ matter beyond which there are no constituent parts. (...)

 

That was the logic of Democritus but IMHO there is a lack of consistency in this logic, similar to point 2: there is no origin of the Universe outside of the Universe either the "outside" is infinitely big, or infinitely small. IMHO the only logical and consistent position should be that, as there is no outside limit of the Universe, there is no "inside" limit of the Universe. It may be incomprehensible but at least it has some logic of symmetry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woaw difficult to discuss many points in a single thread.

 

Point 4 is ultimately about Time. We all have to admit we don't know what time is. So we cannot discuss about what "finite in time" really means. Some say that's about the "beginning of time" which I consider word salad. Logic tells me first to understand what we are talking about and discuss the details afterwards.

Point 6 is maybe difficult to represent. Any time I encounter the word "intrinsic" I know that the author don't know.

Since I am a theorist, I believe, assert, and have proposed that time is one of the simplest concepts of all to understand, the definition being: Time is an interval that can be measured and understood by the changes that occur within the field and matter between any two instances. Of course this definition is not a standard of any kind. The key word concerning a synonym for time is "change." From this definition alone we might then discuss time as it relates to logic.

 

That was the logic of Democritus but IMHO there is a lack of consistency in this logic, similar to point 2: there is no origin of the Universe outside of the Universe either the "outside" is infinitely big, or infinitely small. IMHO the only logical and consistent position should be that, as there is no outside limit of the Universe, there is no "inside" limit of the Universe. It may be incomprehensible but at least it has some logic of symmetry.

Again I think that causality of the universe may not be as simple a concept as time is, but it also is not complicated. The universe is either finite or infinite concerning times past. Looking up the definition of both words "finite" or "infinite," it seems easy to realize that it is not logically possible that the universe could have had an external cause, that its cause must have been innate such as potential energy. We also have to deal with the same definition of "universe." The definition that I am using is that the universe is everything that exists.

.

I believe the universe has both outside and inside limits, at any point in time, concerning the macro and micro scales respectively. This assertion is theory as apposed to logic, however. I do like your ideas :) since I believe these macro and micro limits change over time, both increasing in their extension.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha. we found a point of divergence! (it is so boring to say how wonderful ideas we both have, isn't it?)

 

I have a very different approach about Time. But that would make the thread derail.

 

--------------

That makes me think about another logical tool: classification and unification

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha. we found a point of divergence! (it is so boring to say how wonderful ideas we both have, isn't it?)

 

I have a very different approach about Time. But that would make the thread derail.

--------------

That makes me think about another logical tool: classification and unification

What is more important is the logical approach that we both take. From this, true discussion can really take place. It seems another individual here in the sci forum and logic club is newts, whereby all of us seem to consider verbal logic as essential, if not quintessential :)

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be stated as a principle of logic: that for all past times, substance (whether in the form of matter, field entities, energy of some kind) has always existed and changes have always occurred, and there never was a time before the first entity(s).

This would be true whether the universe was finite or infinite concerning past times.

 

michel123456,

 

I like your ideas of logical tools of organization such as the two you mentioned, classification and unification :)

 

Reality sits there begging intelligence to explain and define it. Classifications and unifications are two of the major organizational tools of science and accordingly should be of logic too.

 

Another related principle of both logic and philosophy might be called "Perspectivism". Both logic, philosophy, and science require at least one perspective (a particular point of view or way of looking at something) to be able to organize divergent entities into relationships according to that perspective -- change the perspective and the relationships might change.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-- All else being equal, "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

This is a tendency and not an absolute and therefore lacks the rigour we should expect from formal logic. It has no place in your proposed expansion of formal verbal logic.

 

Something does not come from nothing.
This is apparently valid for the current expression of the universe. We have no particular reason to assume it is applicable to the origin of the universe. Stipulating that it it does would be misleading and wrong.

 

Everything can be considered relative
The speed of light is absolute. You even made implicit mention of this point.

 

If the universe is ultimately finite concerning times past, logically there could be no exterior cause for it. This is because any exterior cause must also have an explanation as to its beginning which would defy the meaning of the word "finite." (where universe means everything in existence)
Logical fallacy arising from the use of two different definitions of universe.

 

Sorry, I don't feel you have said anything new or interesting, or even correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tendency and not an absolute and therefore lacks the rigour we should expect from formal logic. It has no place in your proposed expansion of formal verbal logic.

re: Occam's Razor.

I agree and consider it as a tool of logic rather than as an absolute principle, as are some of the other "principles" listed. Such "tools" would need to be categorized using some fancy names for each group :)

 

re: something from nothing

This is apparently valid for the current expression of the universe. We have no particular reason to assume it is applicable to the origin of the universe. Stipulating that it it does would be misleading and wrong.

I think this is a solid principle. For something to come from nothing or for something to turn into nothing violates the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If the universe were finite concerning past time, the beginning of the universe must have had no external cause otherwise such a cause would defy the meaning of the word "finite." (where universe would mean everything in existence)

 

re: Everything is relative

The speed of light is absolute. You even made implicit mention of this point.

I agree. At the present time we believe the speed of light in a vacuum is absolute/ constant. I believe our present ideas and theory are wrong in that the speed of light is relative to the background field ( the ZPF). For this principle of logic to be correct I would have to prove what I am saying. I have proposed a somewhat expensive experiment to prove what I believe to be true. I must both fund and conduct the experiment. In my model the speed of light accordingly varies by about 60 feet per second at the surface of the Earth, up vs. down. Until proven this principle of logic would not be considered valid, but it could be tested.

 

re: the universe had no external cause if finite

Logical fallacy arising from the use of two different definitions of universe.

I do not understand your criticism. There is only one definition and meaning for the word universe being used, which is stated in parenthesis.

 

Sorry, I don't feel you have said anything new or interesting, or even correct.

That's OK. Maybe my explanations will add some clarification :)

.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...)The speed of light is absolute. (...)

 

Words words words hitting the same stone again: IMHO the Speed Of Light is constant, not absolute, if anyone here understands the difference. Showing maybe the importance of putting the right words after a commonly accepted mathematical concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Occam's Razor--All things being equal, the simpler explanation is the more likely.

Ophiolite:

This is a tendency and not an absolute and therefore lacks the rigour we should expect from formal logic. It has no place in your proposed expansion of formal verbal logic.

pantheory:

I agree and consider it as a tool of logic rather than as an absolute principle, as are some of the other "principles" listed. Such "tools" would need to be categorized using some fancy names for each group :)

Yes, in some cases, Occam's Razor leaves us believing the wrong conclusion. This doesn't imply anything logically deficient about it. The qualifier 'all things being equal' adds much to the validity of the postulate. Without proof for the need of excessive assumptions (or plurality), the simplest solution is the best one, as it requires the least evidence. Once evidence countering the simplest explanation arises, all things are no longer equal. Lacking evidence, though, more complex explanations are logically less sound, as they call for more baseless premises. Soundness and Validity

 

RE: Something from Nothing--The idea that the Universe sprang forth from nothingness.

Ophiolite:

This is apparently valid for the current expression of the universe. We have no particular reason to assume it is applicable to the origin of the universe. Stipulating that it it does would be misleading and wrong.

pantheory:

I think this is a solid principle. For something to come from nothing or for something to turn into nothing violates the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If the universe were finite concerning past time, the beginning of the universe must have had no external cause otherwise such a cause would defy the meaning of the word "finite." (where universe would mean everything in existence)

We have every reason to believe that the laws of thermodynamics were present at the so-called beginning of the universe. We've had no evidence of them wavering since, so why would any point in time be exempt? I'd hold the same rule to causality, thus implying that the universe had no beginning... Here, though, we run into disparity in definition of the universe, which is a subject for another thread. Still, I wonder just how many proven physical laws are broken to justify the idea that the complete universe had a beginning? Even though we can show that the known universe had a point without classically defined matter, E = mc² shows the possibility of transition between the states of matter and energy, so only energy needed to be present at the 'beginning'.

 

As far as expanding formal verbal logic, it's really been done to death. Clarity, validity, and soundness need only exist within a set of premises and conclusions for an argument to hold. Be aware of fallacies, and any argument is as strong as its weakest premise. For the purposes of scientific application of logic, we could apply some standard notation, for clarity's sake alone.. I'd suggest:

 

D: definitions

 

P: premise 1

P: premise 2

...

C: conclusion

 

For instance:

D: Universe- All of existence, known, and unknown, for all time references possible.

D: Laws of Conservation- Set of physical laws stating matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

 

P: The Laws of Conservation are upheld in every experimental setting to date; Laws of Conservation are always true.

P: For the universe to be created, matter and energy would have to be created; Creating a universe breaks the Laws of Conservation.

P: The universe exists.

 

C: The universe was not created, but always existed, and can never be destroyed.

 

Do you see how this explanation is simpler, because it doesn't require an exception to the laws of thermodynamics? (I must admit, the 2nd law seems to counter this conclusion....ergo, if entropy always increases, how could anything ordered exist after an infinite amount of time? Of course, in infinite entropy, order forms by random chance....maybe...idk)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the present time we believe the speed of light in a vacuum is absolute/ constant. I believe our present ideas and theory are wrong in that the speed of light is relative to the background field ( the ZPF). For this principle of logic to be correct I would have to prove what I am saying. I have proposed a somewhat expensive experiment to prove what I believe to be true. I must both fund and conduct the experiment.

 

In the meantime, however, more and more experiments suggest that your belief is demonstrably false... Such as this one published last month:

 

 

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v106/i24/e243602

 

We report the direct observation of optical precursors of heralded single photons with step- and square-modulated wave packets passing through cold atoms. Using electromagnetically induced transparency and the slow-light effect, we separate the single-photon precursor, which always travels at the speed of light in vacuum, from its delayed main wave packet. In the two-level superluminal medium, our result suggests that the causality holds for a single photon.

 

 

Here's a translated version for the non-physicist:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14289114

 

The speed of light in vacuum is the Universe's ultimate speed limit, but experiments in recent years suggested that single photons might beat it.

 

If they could, theory allows for the prospect of time travel.

 

Now, a paper in Physical Review Letters shows that individual photons too are limited to the vacuum speed limit.

 

That means that photons maintain the principle of causality laid out in Einstein's theory of special relativity - that is, an event's effect cannot precede its cause by travelling faster than light. It is violation of this causality that would, in principle, permit time travel.

 

While the limit in vacuum is a fixed number - some 300,000km per second - the speed of light can vary widely in different materials.

 

These differences explain everything from why a straw looks bent in a glass of water to experiments in cold gases of atoms in which light's speed is actively manipulated.

 

Some of those experiments showed "superluminal" behaviour, in which photons travelled faster than the speed of light in a given medium.

 

It remained, however, to determine whether or not individual photons could exceed the vacuum limit.

 

<snip>

 

the team showed that the optical precursor and the photon that caused it are indeed limited to the vacuum speed of light.

 

 

Consequently, while you engage in the search for funding to further explore your belief, the rest of us encounter yet more evidence which shows its chance of validity to be incredibly unlikely.

 

 

 

Edited to fix quote

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marqq,

 

Lots of good comments.

 

One of the motivators for this thread was that I think logic is used very little concerning modern theories, Quantum Theory has been my prime example but the BB model I think also fails with logic. Maybe if the system of logic were better developed and understood it might be more respected by theorists. I do not think that logic should stifle theory development, only that explanations of the mathematics should use all effort trying to logically explain it. Such explanations such as the double slit experiment concerning a single photon or electron, going through two slits at the same time and then interfering with itself -- I think is a prime example of theoretical folly devoid of logic. Instead there are very simple logical explanations that I think are much more logical and probable. I will expand my answer tomorrow :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words words words hitting the same stone again: IMHO the Speed Of Light is constant, not absolute, if anyone here understands the difference. Showing maybe the importance of putting the right words after a commonly accepted mathematical concept.

I wasn't dealing with opinions. Well, actually I was: pantheory's opinions which he is trying to pass off as logical statements. I find it ironic that in a thread where he argues for greater application of logic it is noticeably absent from his own postulates.

 

We have every reason to believe that the laws of thermodynamics were present at the so-called beginning of the universe.
No we don't. We have every reaon to believe they existed a very short time after the beginning of the universe. That is an entirely different matter.

 

P: For the universe to be created' date=' matter and energy would have to be created; Creating a universe breaks the Laws of Conservation.[/quote']This premise is faulty. The net energy of the universe may be zero. It may be just a rather long lived virtual expression.

 

Without proof for the need of excessive assumptions (or plurality), the simplest solution is the best one, as it requires the least evidence.
I do not find the expression "to be more likely" is a rigorous one. Calling it BS would be unkind. Waffle might be closer to the mark. More to the point it is typically used by persons who can't be assed to investigate the clarity that the more complex explanation may afford.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't dealing with opinions.

 

That is because you believe that "SOL is absolute" is not an opinion but a truth. However if you replace the word "absolute" with the word "constant", you may realize that whole GR and SR still stand. Changing the wording don't change the Theory, it changes only its interpretation, slightly, but only if you understand the difference. IMHO of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marqq,

 

concerning logical concepts

C: The universe was not created, but always existed, and can never be destroyed.

 

Do you see how this explanation is simpler, because it doesn't require an exception to the laws of thermodynamics? (I must admit, the 2nd law seems to counter this conclusion....ergo, if entropy always increases, how could anything ordered exist after an infinite amount of time? Of course, in infinite entropy, order forms by random chance....maybe...idk)

I agree that the logic does not fail in this assertion but there is one logical facet concerning your statement C. that you may not have considered. A universe that has always existed can still be finite concerning past time. Some might consider this idea a play on words but I consider it a matter of logic and conceivably the most important concept to understand the beginning of the universe if it was finite concerning times past:

 

"Always" in this context means "for all times past" but it does not necessarily mean infinite times past. A beginning entity could not possibly have been created concerning logic. One must first grasp the understanding of the word "finite" concerning time. It means that there was no such thing as time before the beginning of the universe. The definition being used for universe is: everything that exists. So the first entity could not logically have had a cause, nor could it have come from nothing. The first change in this entity was the beginning of time. To consider a time before this is a contradiction of logic. Similar logic applies to an infinite universe, whereby the universe could have had no creation or cause. This is not an assertion, it is simply logic. One of the keys to understanding both concepts relates to the embolden definition of the word "universe" above. If you have problems with either concept ask questions or make comments :blink:

 

Concerning the speed of light being relative to the motion of a background field and the related concept presented, I must concede this is alternative theory and for this thread the concept should have been explained differently. "Everything is relative" would still seem to be acceptable since the speed of light is relative to the background gravitational field that contains it such as a distant galaxy with a redshift greater than 1. Such a statement would seem to be consistent with General Relativity.

 

As to entropy and the universe, it would seem that both gravity and the chemistry of life seem to operate contrary to the principles of entropy.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No we don't. We have every reaon to believe they existed a very short time after the beginning of the universe. That is an entirely different matter.1

 

This premise is faulty. The net energy of the universe may be zero. It may be just a rather long lived virtual expression. 2

 

I do not find the expression "to be more likely" is a rigorous one. Calling it BS would be unkind. Waffle might be closer to the mark. More to the point it is typically used by persons who can't be assed to investigate the clarity that the more complex explanation may afford.3

 

Ophi--just gotta say, I love arguing with you. You're an excellent devil's advocate, and I really do appreciate your scrutiny...ROUND 2 *ding*

 

 

1:Why should we believe that ineffable physical laws can come in and out of existence at any point in time? Is there evidence of such occurrence? Without evidence to the contrary, it seems a stretch to assume that one unobserved point in time was exempt from a physical law.

2: Now here you're arguing that the Laws of Conservation were being followed, and that negative energy and matter were created to maintain them (I assume?). Should the laws be rewritten now, then, to say, "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, unless equivalent negative matter and negative energy are simultaneously created or destroyed"? It seems mathematically sound...like 2 sides of a pleasant equality, but what induces this dimorphic creation? Why don't we see it happening more often? I'll admit, I constructed the argument wrong...I should've stated that no matter or energy could exist before the universe existed. Arguments throughout time, though, have always had dozens of unspoken premises, leading all the way back to solipsism and the denial of it. I stand by my premise: that for something to not exist, and then spontaneously exist, it must have been created, and thus break the laws of conservation. The spontaneous creation of negative energy and matter at the same time, until the laws are rewritten, remain as further violation of said laws.

3: Because of Solipsism, the fact that nothing but the self can truly be known, all we can have is a degree of certainty that is incomplete. Likelihood is a degree of certainty. Nothing more rigorous is available. The only solution to solipsism is Occam's Razor. While it may be true that we all live in a Matrix-like reality, plugged into a virtual world without ever experiencing the true reality, all that we can observe is all we have to work with. Truth beyond our virtual reality is inconsequential, as no proof or effect of anything beyond is present. Yes, Occam's Razor is our blue pill, but the red one's really just LSD anyway, without evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marqq,

 

concerning logical concepts

 

I agree that the logic does not fail in this assertion but there is one logical facet concerning your statement C. that you may not have considered. A universe that has always existed can still be finite concerning past time. Some might consider this idea a play on words but I consider it a matter of logic and conceivably the most important concept to understand the beginning of the universe if it was finite concerning times past:

 

"Always" in this context means "for all times past" but it does not necessarily mean infinite times past. A beginning entity could not possibly have been created concerning logic. One must first grasp the understanding of the word "finite" concerning time. It means that there was no such thing as time before the beginning of the universe. The definition being used for universe is: everything that exists. So the first entity could not logically have had a cause, nor could it have come from nothing. The first change in this entity was the beginning of time. To consider a time before this is a contradiction of logic. Similar logic applies to an infinite universe, whereby the universe could have had no creation or cause. This is not an assertion, it is simply logic. One of the keys to understanding both concepts relates to the embolden definition of the word "universe" above. If you have problems with either concept ask questions or make comments :blink:

 

Concerning the speed of light being relative to the motion of a background field and the related concept presented, I must concede this is alternative theory and for this thread the concept should have been explained differently. "Everything is relative" would still seem to be acceptable since the speed of light is relative to the background gravitational field that contains it such as a distant galaxy with a redshift greater than 1. Such a statement would seem to be consistent with General Relativity.

 

As to entropy and the universe, it would seem that both gravity and the chemistry of life seem to operate contrary to the principles of entropy.

 

I'm afraid I do have issues with the concept of a complete universe with a finite past. I don't believe in the spontaneous creation of forces, physical laws, matter or really--anything. I just tried a search for an older argument between causality and spontaneity, but only found meanderings on free will (a concept to which I also do not prescribe). (Meanderings--a good read, but not truly pertinent) Perhaps it's a matter for another thread, but I'd wager that any process described as spontaneous simply has a cause that's difficult to pinpoint. I prescribe exclusively to causality, the idea that every effect is preceded by a cause. I really have no basis for this belief, except for overwhelming anecdotal evidence... My point is, though, that if time and motion did not exist prior to our universe, it could not have become present without cause. Because of this, I vehemently believe in the (inaccurately named) multiverse, and that our known universe was caused by some action in the surrounding area acting on a universal medium. I'm rambling again pantheory...I guess you just have that effect on me :P .

 

On to the topic of the relativity of the speed of light. Hmm...how to word this without going into my universal medium idea... Well, ok, you're only concerned with variations due to gravitational/inertial fields? The effect of huge masses on light is currently called 'gravitation lensing', I believe. In any other lens, contact with the surface, or transition from one medium to another is the source of curvature of light. If gravity does form a lens at super-intense levels of gravity, it stands to reason that a lesser effect would be present at lower gravity. Considering a gravitational field has no edge, but rather is a gradient, its edge is the entirety of its presence, and so must bend or otherwise affect light everywhere that it has effects. It seems to me, though, that the effect would be the same as the light travels up or down, and the differences in measurement would only be seen at different altitudes (if gravitational lensing is really an accurate description of gravity's effect on light).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I do have issues with the concept of a complete universe with a finite past.

So do I

I don't believe in the spontaneous creation of forces, physical laws, matter or really--anything.

So do I

 

I just tried a search for an older argument between causality and spontaneity, but only found meanderings on free will (a concept to which I also do not prescribe). (Meanderings--a good read, but not truly pertinent) Perhaps it's a matter for another thread, but I'd wager that any process described as spontaneous simply has a cause that's difficult to pinpoint.

Well said. spontaneous is such an unscientific word I put in the same drawer with "intrinsic".

 

I prescribe exclusively to causality, the idea that every effect is preceded by a cause. I really have no basis for this belief, except for overwhelming anecdotal evidence...

I agree.

 

My point is, though, that if time and motion did not exist prior to our universe, it could not have become present without cause. Because of this, I vehemently believe in the (inaccurately named) multiverse, and that our known universe was caused by some action in the surrounding area acting on a universal medium. I'm rambling again pantheory...I guess you just have that effect on me :P .

whoops, here I don't follow. For me we are missing completely a proper understanding of time, that's the point.

Edited by michel123456
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I do have issues with the concept of a complete universe with a finite past. I don't believe in the spontaneous creation of forces, physical laws, matter or really--anything.

I also do not believe in spontaneous creation. I believe that a beginning entity could not logically or possibly have had a cause for its existence -- and also no possibility of spontaneous creation for anything. We are exactly on the same page but I think you may be missing the logical concept that neither a finite nor an infinite universe could possibly have had a cause based upon the definition of the words themselves: finite, infinite, and universe (meaning everything in existence).

 

I just tried a search for an older argument between causality and spontaneity, but only found meanderings on free will (a concept to which I also do not prescribe). (Meanderings--a good read, but not truly pertinent) Perhaps it's a matter for another thread, but I'd wager that any process described as spontaneous simply has a cause that's difficult to pinpoint. I prescribe exclusively to causality, the idea that every effect is preceded by a cause. I really have no basis for this belief, except for overwhelming anecdotal evidence... My point is, though, that if time and motion did not exist prior to our universe, it could not have become present without cause. Because of this, I vehemently believe in the (inaccurately named) multiverse, and that our known universe was caused by some action in the surrounding area acting on a universal medium.

Neither one of us believes in the possibility of spontaneous creation. Nor do I believe that if the ZPF pre-existed our universe, or that if it did that it could create anything of permanence. Now I'm rambling :)

 

On to the topic of the relativity of the speed of light. Hmm...how to word this without going into my universal medium idea... Well, ok, you're only concerned with variations due to gravitational/inertial fields? The effect of huge masses on light is currently called 'gravitation lensing', I believe.

It is called gravitational lensing when it results in some kind of focus resulting in amplification of the image. When not it also appears as a gravitational redshift, or simply the bending of light via gravity.

 

In any other lens, contact with the surface, or transition from one medium to another is the source of curvature of light. If gravity does form a lens at super-intense levels of gravity, it stands to reason that a lesser effect would be present at lower gravity. Considering a gravitational field has no edge, but rather is a gradient, its edge is the entirety of its presence, and so must bend or otherwise affect light everywhere that it has effects. It seems to me, though, that the effect would be the same as the light travels up or down, and the differences in measurement would only be seen at different altitudes (if gravitational lensing is really an accurate description of gravity's effect on light).

This was an inappropriate comment of mine since it is an aside from the logic theme of the thread, so I will be brief in my reply. My own gravity model proposes that gravity is caused by an inflowing aether -- a pushing force. The estimated velocity of this inward pushing of this aether was about 30 feet per second, a 60 feet per second differential speed up vs. down. This was the direction that Michelson Morley never looked. Such a small difference in the speed of light (60 feet per second) also was not possible to detect with their equipment, concerning the motion of an aether. I pretty much know how to conduct such an experiment today. It might take a few hundred thousand dollars for me to conduct this experiment, but maybe less if I could rent or borrow some of the equipment. So for further detail of the experiment you could ask me on the "alternative to the Big Bang theory" thread or PM me :)

 

Your comments concerning logic do not fail, in my opinion :)

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own gravity model proposes that gravity is caused by an inflowing aether -- a pushing force. The estimated velocity of this inward pushing of this aether was about 30 feet per second, a 60 feet per second differential speed up vs. down.

Æther :D

I love this topic...how can I just leave it, even though we're in a logic thread? I would have to point out a flaw, though, in the idea that gravity is caused by an aether moving at 30ft/s. How would this account for the ~32 ft/s² acceleration due to earth's gravity? Terminal velocity would then be only 30 ft/s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Æther :D

I love this topic...how can I just leave it, even though we're in a logic thread? I would have to point out a flaw, though, in the idea that gravity is caused by an aether moving at 30ft/s. How would this account for the ~32 ft/s² acceleration due to earth's gravity? Terminal velocity would then be only 30 ft/s.

I could say the speed of the aether pushing downward is moving at the Earth's surface at a speed of 32 ft. per second. However since I cannot prove the correlation of speed of the aether to the acceleration of gravity, according to my theory, I can only estimate the speed of the inflowing aether field to one significant figure which would be simply 30 ft. per second. The estimated tolerance would be 16 ft. per second, so the expected range for this speed would be between 14 ft. per second to 46 ft. per second. According to the correlation with the acceleration velocity, there accordingly is a vector force pushing down which accedes the vector force pushing up by a difference of 32 ft. per second. Apply a continuous force of 32 ft. per second to a moving body, it will accelerated at a rate of 32 ft. per second per second.

/

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Pan - Marq is correct, an object moving at the same speed as your ether will feel no force. Terminal velocity due to gravity would be the velocity of the ether - this is clearly not the case - if it was we could all have fun jumping from planes without parachutes.

 

Even on speculations you cannot get away with "a continuous force of 32 ft. per second" - feet per second (distance.time^-1) is a speed or a velocity, and not a force (mass.distance.time^-2). Dimensional analysis is always useful when making formula/equations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...)Neither one of us believes in the possibility of spontaneous creation. (...)

 

Here we can apply logic.

Our premise is that we have only one Universe (one particle in BBT and in Pan theory) and that at some instant in the past, this first element of the Universe came into existence.

It is like looking at the sea and supposing an instant in the past when there was only one wave that gave birth to all the waves we see today at the surface of all the oceans. Was there a time when all the new born oceans were perfectly flat? I suppose mathematically the probability exist.

Logic says it is completely impossible.

The waves of all the oceans oscillate constantly around a state of equilibrium they never reach all at the same time.

So, even in the case of the sum of energy of the universe being zero, why do we have to suppose that in distant past the Universe was in a zero state?

It is something we have put ourselves in our minds, it is not something that we would logically expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.