The Final Stage of Creation

[37818]

What is an 'infinite set cause'?

What ever is the uncaused reason for an infinite series of causes without any first cause in the series.

[shunyadragon]

What ever is the uncaused reason for an infinite series of causes without any first cause in the series.

Not a legitimate use of 'set' in math. An 'infinite series of causes would an actual infinite closed set. An uncaused reason would not be a set. It would be a potential infinity. There is a possibility that the uncaused reason could be natural or it could be God.

[37818]

The doctrine of the hypostatic union states that Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. This is clearly contradictory. The same sort of contradiction applies to the Trinity.

Again you are alleging the explanations are contradictions.

You need to support your claim that Jesus the

That claim originates in the writings of the Christian NT.

Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it...i.e. the nature of physical beings inhabiting the physical world. This puts it in the realm of science.

The word "metaphysics" means beyond or after the phyisics. As for the fundamental nature of being - that is - existence. As I have argued, an uncaused existence is fundamental. Now contingent physical existence - space. Space is contingent on there being matter. Without matter-engergy, space as we know it, cannot be measured.


As I stated the infinite number of causes would not have a first cause. It would be a set of causes with an uncaused existence for the set to exist.

[37818]

Not a legitimate use of 'set' in math. An 'infinite series of causes would an actual infinite closed set. An uncaused reason would not be a set. It would be a potential infinity. There is a possibility that the uncaused reason could be natural or it could be God.

This is not math. An infinite series of causes and effects without any first cause in the series of causes and effects. You disallow calling it a "set?" What would you allow it to be called? It has been named an "infinite regress." An infinite regress requires an infinite past - an uncaused existence in which it, the infinite regress can exist.

[shunyadragon]

This is not math. An infinite series of causes and effects without any first cause in the series of causes and effects. You disallow calling it a "set?" What would you allow it to be called? It has been named an "infinite regress." An infinite regress requires an infinite past - an uncaused existence in which it, the infinite regress can exist.

If your using math terminology, it is math. Making your own definitions is amusing creative reasoning to self justify your own beliefs, but not reality. That is the problem with WLC's argument. It is the misuse of math.

[37818]

If your using math terminology, it is math. Making your own definitions is amusing creative reasoning to self justify your own beliefs, but not reality. That is the problem with WLC's argument. It is the misuse of math.

Again, you want to disallow a term on the basis that the term is also used in math. Then are you going to disallow the terms "regress" and "series" also?

[shunyadragon]

Again, you want to disallow a term on the basis that the term is also used in math. Then are you going to disallow the terms "regress" and "series" also?

Actually, yes, because they are used to describe a math concept, and use math language. The argument is in terms of the nature of infinities and the misuse of these math terms and concepts to justify a math conclusion as to whether the physical existence is finite or infinite.

[Kbertsche]

The doctrine of the hypostatic union states that Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. This is clearly contradictory.

Modern physics claims that photons are both fully waves and fully particles. This is clearly contradictory in a similar way.

[shunyadragon]

Modern physics claims that photons are both fully waves and fully particles. This is clearly contradictory in a similar way.

I believe that Modern Physics consider photons to have the attributes of waves and particles, actually most often described as particles.

Source: http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/f/photon.htm

Photon Definition

Under the photon theory of light, a photon is defined as a discrete bundle (or quantum) of electromagnetic (or light) energy. Photons are always in motion and, in a vacuum, have a constant speed of light to all observers, at the vacuum speed of light (more commonly just called the speed of light) of c = 2.998 x 108 m/s.

Basic Properties of Photons

According to the photon theory of light, photons:

move at a constant velocity, c = 2.9979 x 108 m/s (i.e. "the speed of light"), in free space

have zero mass and rest energy.

carry energy and momentum, which are also related to the frequency nu and wavelength lamdba of the electromagnetic wave by E = h nu and p = h / lambda.

can be destroyed/created when radiation is absorbed/emitted.

can have particle-like interactions (i.e. collisions) with electrons and other particles, such as in the Compton effect.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166262/what-is-a-photon

It has zero mass, zero charge and spin one, and it is the gauge boson of the electromagnetic interactions. In all electromagnetic interactions a photon is involved, either on shell ( mass zero) or virtual within a Feynman diagram.

There exists a quantum mechanical equation which gives a wave function for the photon. It is a form of Maxwell's equation the differentials treated as operators for example here.

The classical electromagnetic fields emerge from a huge accumulation of photons that have through E=h*nu the connection with the frequency of the electromagnetic wave. It is not simple mathematics, but it can be demonstrated. . This article in wikipedia might help in this.

As a general rule, when one is talking of electric and magnetic fields the classical theory is adequate to describe the data. It is only at the level of elementary particles that the photon framework is needed, and there it is quite well defined.

© Copyright Original Source

[Kbertsche]

I believe that Modern Physics consider photons to have the attributes of waves and particles, actually most often described as particles.

Maybe we've found something that you and I actually agree on?!?

Yes, when we speak of "photons" we are usually implying particle nature as opposed to wave nature. When we speak of "electromagnetic radiation" we are usually implying wave nature as opposed to particle nature. But the point is that whether you call it "photons" or "electromagnetic radiation", it is the same thing. It always is fully particle and always is fully wave. It doesn't "switch" from one to the other.

In a purely classical view of the universe, being fully particle and fully wave at the same time is a contradiction. But the physical observations say that both really are true simultaneously, so we must admit that the classical picture is too limited.

Likewise, the hypostatic union seems to be a contradiction. But the biblical data says that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, simultaneously. So we must admit that our "classical" intuition is too limited here as well.

[shunyadragon]

Maybe we've found something that you and I actually agree on?!?

Yes, when we speak of "photons" we are usually implying particle nature as opposed to wave nature. When we speak of "electromagnetic radiation" we are usually implying wave nature as opposed to particle nature. But the point is that whether you call it "photons" or "electromagnetic radiation", it is the same thing. It always is fully particle and always is fully wave. It doesn't "switch" from one to the other.

I disagree with the following you posted.

Modern physics claims that photons are both fully waves and fully particles.

Yes, when we speak of "photons" we are usually implying particle nature as opposed to wave nature. When we speak of "electromagnetic radiation" we are usually implying wave nature as opposed to particle nature. But the point is that whether you call it "photons" or "electromagnetic radiation", it is the same thing. It always is fully particle and always is fully wave. It doesn't "switch" from one to the other.

Likewise, the hypostatic union seems to be a contradiction. But the biblical data says that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, simultaneously. So we must admit that our "classical" intuition is too limited here as well.

I do not consider the comparison valid. I do not believe in the Trinity view of God. I consider it heretical Tritheism.

[Tassman]

Modern physics claims that photons are both fully waves and fully particles. This is clearly contradictory in a similar way.

This is what modern quantum physics says. But again the microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect in the macroscopic world, where the laws of classical physics hold true. If they did not hold true then we could not reliably fly a rocket to the moon.

Likewise, the hypostatic union seems to be a contradiction. But the biblical data says that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, simultaneously. So we must admit that our "classical" intuition is too limited here as well.

No, what we admit is that the biblical data is wrong.

[Tassman]

Again you are alleging the explanations are contradictions.

That claim originates in the writings of the Christian NT.

The word "metaphysics" means beyond or after the phyisics.

The facts that inform the premises of a metaphysical argument can only attained via empirical science. Otherwise they can only be assumed, i.e. guessed at...as Aristotle found out to his cost.

As for the fundamental nature of being - that is - existence. As I have argued, an uncaused existence is fundamental. Now contingent physical existence - space. Space is contingent on there being matter. Without matter-engergy, space as we know it, cannot be measured.

Things have moved along since Aquinas. There is no reason to believe the quantum vacuum required a cause, except our intuition taken from the macroscopic world. And if there's anything we've learnt from quantum physics...it's that our intuition is utterly inadequate in understanding the microscopic world. This is merely an argument from ignorance; and therefore cannot form a premise for a sound argument.

As I stated the infinite number of causes would not have a first cause. It would be a set of causes with an uncaused existence for the set to exist.

[Kbertsche]

This is what modern quantum physics says. But again the microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect in the macroscopic world, where the laws of classical physics hold true.

False. If "the microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect in the macroscopic world" then the computer that you are typing on doesn't work. It can't work without quantum physics.

[shunyadragon]

False. If "the microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect in the macroscopic world" then the computer that you are typing on doesn't work. It can't work without quantum physics.

This is clearly an over statement of the role of Quantum Physics in the macroscopic world. It is true that absolutely nothing would work in our macroscopic world including computers without the nature of the Quantum World, but Tassman is correct the Laws of Classical Physics hold in the macroscopic world without consideration of Quantum Mechanics.

Computers work fine based on classical physics.