Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #576267 > unrolled thread

8th page, Bell Inequality PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  8th page, Bell Inequality PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 14:23 -0700
    Re: 8th page, Bell Inequality PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 16:30 -0500
      Re: 8th page, Bell Inequality PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 21:44 -0700
        Re: 8th page, Bell Inequality PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 08:19 -0500
          Re: 8th page, Bell Inequality PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 15:19 -0700
        Re: 8th page, Bell Inequality PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 04:42 +0000
          most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 23:35 -0700
            Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 14:55 +0000
              Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 15:40 -0700
                Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-09 23:34 +0000
                  Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 17:08 -0700
                    Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 20:09 -0500
                    Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-10 04:41 +0000
                      use of disjunction in Atom syllogism; PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 22:06 -0700

#576267 — 8th page, Bell Inequality PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

page 8, Bell Inequality
Atom-Totality-Universe 

The 4 major supporting evidence of the Atom Totality are these: 
1) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is blackbody, meaning cavity, meaning a structure 
2) Bell Inequality is true and thus the Universe is quantum mechanical-- meaning it is the inside of an atom 
3) Solid Body Rotation can exist only in a Universe in which Electromagnetism EM runs the Universe as seen in the Maxwell theory, and so a universe operated by Maxwell theory is a universe of an atom 
4) Strong Nuclear Force is another EM force of Chemical Bonding only scaled higher 

Now I delve into (2) Bell Inequality that showed that Bohr's Quantum Mechanics was true but that Einstein's physics of General Relativity was false. Here again, the Universe is Quantum Mechanical which means the Universe is a structure, or cavity, or a container of sorts and thus implying Atomic, which means the Universe is a single big atom. 

Now the Bell Inequality along with CMBR are cosmic features of quantum mechanics, meaning the Universe has to be an Atom to sustain these quantum features. In CMBR, the single Cosmic Atom is a large container or Structure of this cosmic atom. And the Bell Inequality is further evidence that the Cosmos is quantum, not the Structureless BBEGR. 

Now this theory of the Bell Inequality seems totally off the deep end. But only for a second. Because if you start learning about John Bell, Einstein/Rosen/Podalsky 
and Bohr, you start learning how Einstein with BBEGR was found wrong against Bohr and Bell with Quantum Mechanics dominating the physics of the Universe. 
The John Bell Inequality which decided EPR-thought- experiment. Was Einstein correct or was Quantum Mechanics correct? 
What Bell found out after Aspect did the experiments, is that QM was 
correct and Einstein was wrong. BBEGR is wrong. 
But then the interpretation of Bell Inequality had begun. And what 
Bell concluded was that there was just one way in which to get rid of 
speed faster than light and the EPR experiment to hold true. Bell, 
found one way to solve the problem-- Superdeterminism. 
--- quoting what Archimedes Plutonium gave as a Wikipedia entry on 
Superdeterminism -- 
SUPERDETERMINISM 
 Physicist John S. Bell as 
referenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Bell is noted 
mostly for his Bell Inequality Theorem which shows us that Quantum 
Physics is not just restricted to the microworld but that Quantum 
Physics stretches clear across the Cosmos. John Bell not only 
discovered the Inequality for which experimental physicists such as 
Alain Aspect could then test to see if Quantum
Mechanics stretches 
across the Cosmos, but one of John Bell's contributions to science is 
rarely noted. And John Bell does not discuss this contribution in 
printed material but seems to have conveyed it on the BBC television 
in interviews. It is my opinion that 
the concept of Superdeterminism 
is John Bell's finest contribution to physics, and much more important 
than his Bell Inequality, even
though it required his Inequality to 
come to his concept of Superdeterminism. As far as I know from the 
history of physics, the concept of Superdeterminism begins with John 
Bell because it requires John Bell's Inequality Theorem. And the 
concept of Superdeterminism is probably John Bell's greatest single 
contribution to science. 
Here is John Bell defining what Superdeterminism is: 
--- Bell stated on the BBC --- 
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and 
spooky action at a distance. But it (Superdeterminism) involves 
absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free 
will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just 
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our 
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment 
rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. 
There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what 
measurement hasbeen carried out on particle B, because the universe, 
including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its 
outcome, will be." 
--- end Bell quote --- 
--- further statement by John Bell to the BBC on Superdeterminism --- 
"The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of 
states, collapse of the wavefunction, and spooky action at a distance, 
is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think 
it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things." 
--- end Bell quote--- 

So, what the Bell Inequality did was further support the idea the Universe as a Whole is a Structure, a Cavity, or a Container and the only plausible structure is a big atom as the Universe. The Bell Inequality, like the blackbody CMBR support the Atom Totality theory and throws out the BBEGR. 
The only thing needed for Bell Inequality is the idea of a region of the Cosmos that contains the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, which controls the rest of the Cosmos. 
Physicists rarely mention the concept of superdeterminism and how it 
solves the problems of Quantum Mechanics. They do not mention it 
partly because it disrupts the Big Bang Theory, since it makes no 
sense that a Big Bang Universe can have superdeterminism. 
John Bell lived under the Big Bang Theory, but if he had lived into the 1990s 
there arose a rival theory to the Big Bang, called the Atom Totality. 
The problem John Bell had with Superdeterminism is that there is no 
mechanism in the Big-Bang theory to make Superdeterminism work. In the 
Atom-Totality theory, there is a mechanism in that the Nucleus of the 
Atom-Totality does all the ordering up of every event that takes place 
in the Cosmos. The Nucleus pulls the strings of every event that 
takes place in the entire Universe. The year that John S. Bell died, 
1990, is the year in which the Atom-Totality theory was born. 
One ramification of the Bell Inequality and superdeterminism is the explanation of how the brain and mind work, of course that is psychology and not pure physics, but let me amble down that road while here on superdeterminism. 
In the Brain Locus theory, the mind is like a radio receiver which is 
only one atom or one molecule and the rest of the brain tissue goes to 
executing whatever the messages shot from the Atom Totality Nucleus 
into the brain. The photons and neutrinos carry these messages. So that all life is puppets whose every action, thought was shot from the Nucleus into our brain locus and we execute that message.   

Physicists rarely mention the concept of superdeterminism and how it 
solves the problems of Quantum Mechanics. They do not mention it 
partly because it disrupts the Big Bang Theory, since it makes no 
sense that a Big Bang Universe can have superdeterminism.  John Bell 
lived under the Big Bang Theory, but if he had lived into the 1990s 
there arose a rival theory to the Big Bang, called the Atom Totality. 
The problem John Bell had with Superdeterminism is that there is no 
mechanism in the Big-Bang theory to make Superdeterminism work. In the 
Atom-Totality theory, there is a mechanism in that the Nucleus of the 
Atom-Totality does all the ordering up of every event that takes place 
in the Cosmos. The Nucleus pulls the strings of every event that 
takes place in the entire Universe. The year that John S. Bell died, 
1990, is the year in which the Atom-Totality theory was born. 



                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 



https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#576270

On 5/7/16 4:23 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Bell Inequality is true and thus the Universe is quantum mechanical-- meaning it is the inside of an atom

>
>
>               ##                                      #
>               ##                                      #
>               #########################################
>               #########################################
>               ##                                 ######
>               ##                             ##########
>                                            ############
>                                         ##############
>                                       #############
>                                    #############
>                                ##############
>                              #############
>                           ##############
>                         #############
>                      ##############
>                  #############                        #
>                #############                          #
>               #########################################
>               #########################################
>                                                       #
>
>                       ########
>                    ###############
>                  ##################
>                 #####################
>                ####               ####
>                ##                   ##
>               ##                     ##
>               ##                     ##
>               ##                    ###
>                ##                   ##
>                ####               ####
>                 #####################
>                  ##################
>                    ###############
>                       ########
>
>

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576378

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 4:31:02 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
(snipped Sam's porno pic)

Instead of letting Sam's pupils, Odd and others, out of class early for party, pizza, beer, why not teach them what makes a "universal law" by the last two lines of this syllogism.
Syllogism 

(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 
 

(2) The Universe itself is matter 


(3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom 


(4) If the Universe is a singular atom then the Atomic Theory is a 
beautiful universal truth pushed to its maximum logical reach 


(5) If the Universe is not a singular atom then the Atomic theory 
has to be modified to include the exception : All matter, except the 
Universe itself, is made up of singular atoms.

The waifs of Odd and Moroney pander such loose logic as this:
All humans are composed of cells
Odd is a human
hence, Odd is a cell

The education system fails when it allows people to have physics degrees but never a course in logic

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576449

On 5/7/16 11:44 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The Universe itself is matter

   The universe is mostly empty space.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576554

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 8:19:52 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/7/16 11:44 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The Universe itself is matter
> 
>    The universe is mostly empty space.
> 

An atom is mostly empty space, but your Big Bang is mostly dark energy, dark mass

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576631

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Syllogism

>(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 

>(2) The Universe itself is matter

>(3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom

>The waifs of Odd and Moroney pander such loose logic as this:
>All humans are composed of cells
>Odd is a human
>hence, Odd is a cell

That claim is totally illogical, of course.  Just like your claim the
universe is a single atom. Which is why Odd used it.

Tell me, given:

(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 

(2) The Universe itself is matter

you don't come up with the logical conclusion (almost a tautology) that

3a) Therefore, the Universe is made up of atoms.

yet you make some sort of step of illogic and conclude:

3b) Therefore, the Universe is made up of a single atom.

How do you justify going from the plural to the singular? When I add atoms
to atoms I get even more atoms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576648 — most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 11:42:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Syllogism
> 
> >(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 
> 
> >(2) The Universe itself is matter
> 
> >(3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom
> 
> >The waifs of Odd and Moroney pander such loose logic as this:
> >All humans are composed of cells
> >Odd is a human
> >hence, Odd is a cell
> 
> That claim is totally illogical, of course.  Just like your claim the
> universe is a single atom. Which is why Odd used it.
> 

Of course Moroney does not show my full argument. Just like in the 1990s when this bozo kept arguing that plutonium element had only 17 or 18 subshells when I wrote that pu has 22 subshells in total of which only 19 are filled at any one moment. 

(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 
 

(2) The Universe itself is matter 


(3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom 


(4) If the Universe is a singular atom then the Atomic Theory is a 
beautiful universal truth pushed to its maximum logical reach 


(5) If the Universe is not a singular atom then the Atomic theory 
has to be modified to include the exception : All matter, except the 
Universe itself, is made up of singular atoms.

The 4 and 5 tell us that if the Universe is a single big atom, then the Atomic Theory is a Full Complete Universal law, whereas, if the Universe is not a single atom, the Atomic theory has a missing piece.

But a bozo like either Odd or Moroney can not understand any of this. For they never studied nor understood logic and would likely flunk a course of logic based on their Usenet posts.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576709 — Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Of course Moroney does not show my full argument. Just like in the 1990s 
>when this bozo kept arguing that plutonium element had only 17 or 18 
>subshells when I wrote that pu has 22 subshells in total of which only 19 
>are filled at any one moment.

I noticed you completely avoided answering my simple question.
All you have is insults.

(reposted)

Tell me, given:

(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 

(2) The Universe itself is matter

you don't come up with the logical conclusion (almost a tautology) that

3a) Therefore, the Universe is made up of atoms.

yet you make some sort of step of illogic and conclude:

3b) Therefore, the Universe is made up of a single atom.

How do you justify going from the plural to the singular? When I add atoms
to atoms I get even more atoms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576851 — Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 9:56:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Of course Moroney does not show my full argument. Just like in the 1990s 
> >when this bozo kept arguing that plutonium element had only 17 or 18 
> >subshells when I wrote that pu has 22 subshells in total of which only 19 
> >are filled at any one moment.
> 
> I noticed you completely avoided answering my simple question.
> All you have is insults.
> 

All you ever have is attack attack attack

Until the day you respect the person you talk to, is the day you deserve a answer, but until then, you are to be used as the nonphysicist dolt that you are. If you are in education in Mass. in my opinion you should be booted out of education as doing more harm to students then ever any good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576879 — Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 9:56:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> I noticed you completely avoided answering my simple question.
>> All you have is insults.
>>

>All you ever have is attack attack attack

>Until the day you respect the person you talk to, is the day you deserve a 
>answer, but until then, you are to be used as the nonphysicist dolt that 
>you are. If you are in education in Mass. in my opinion you should be 
booted out of education as doing more harm to students then ever any good.

So you can't answer this simple question?

Given:

(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 

(2) The Universe itself is matter

you don't come up with the logical conclusion (almost a tautology) that

3a) Therefore, the Universe is made up of atoms.

Instead, you make some sort of step of illogic and conclude:

3b) Therefore, the Universe is made up of a single atom.

How do you justify going from the plural to the singular? When I add atoms
to atoms I get even more atoms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576887 — Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 6:34:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 

Why does this attacking Boston Mass. nitwit oaf of a nonphysicist never list my full argument?


(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 
 

(2) The Universe itself is matter 


(3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom 


(4) If the Universe is a singular atom then the Atomic Theory is a 
beautiful universal truth pushed to its maximum logical reach 


(5) If the Universe is not a singular atom then the Atomic theory 
has to be modified to include the exception : All matter, except the 
Universe itself, is made up of singular atoms. 

Is it because it is true and he has nothing to attack?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576931 — Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On 5/9/2016 7:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 6:34:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>
> Why does this attacking Boston Mass. nitwit oaf of a nonphysicist never list my full argument?
>
>
> (1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 

>
> (2) The Universe itself is matter
>
> 
(3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom

Experimental evidence says it is not a singular atom, but a collection 
of atoms, like matter itself is.

>
> 
(4) If the Universe is a singular atom then the Atomic Theory is a 
beautiful universal truth
> pushed to its maximum logical reach

This is not a physics argument. There is no physical value to this 
statement and contributes nothing to a physical argument.

>
> 
(5) If the Universe is not a singular atom then the Atomic theory 
has to be modified to
> include the exception : All matter, except the 
Universe itself, is made up of singular atoms.

This statement does not follow from the previous.
The universe is not a singular atom. However, it is made up of singular 
atoms, because the universe is a collection of atoms. This follows 
directly from (3) and experimental evidence.

>
> Is it because it is true and he has nothing to attack?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576958 — Re: most posters to sci.physics are poor in logic PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 6:34:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Why does this attacking Boston Mass. nitwit oaf of a nonphysicist never
>list my full argument?

I am trying to follow your logic.  I am not attacking.  I have a problem
with your Step 3. We haven't even reached Step 4 and 5 yet, plus they
depend on Step 3. Once we resolve the logic issue with Step 3, we can look
at your Steps 4 and 5.

So, could you explain why you switched to the singular for "atom" in what
would otherwise be a trivial exercise in logic?

Again, I am not attacking. Any real scientist needs to accept scrutiny of
his or her ideas.  A PhD candidate has to defend his dissertation or
thesis.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576960 — use of disjunction in Atom syllogism; PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:42:10 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
(snip)
> I am trying to follow your logic.  I am not attacking.  I have a problem
> with your Step 3. We haven't even reached Step 4 and 5 yet, plus they
> depend on Step 3. Once we resolve the logic issue with Step 3, we can look
> at your Steps 4 and 5.
> 

Alright, that looks like a honest, non attacking post, so I will indulge.

Syllogism 

(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 
 

(2) The Universe itself is matter 


(3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom 


(4) If the Universe is a singular atom then the Atomic Theory is a 
beautiful universal truth pushed to its maximum logical reach 


(5) If the Universe is not a singular atom then the Atomic theory 
has to be modified to include the exception : All matter, except the 
Universe itself, is made up of singular atoms.

I do not see why you would have trouble with 3 and yet not 2. The 2 comes from the simple fact that inside the Universe we can point to atoms residing inside the Universe and atoms are matter, so that matter inside a Universe we can say the Universe is matter.

As for 3, I do not know why that gives you any problem, unless you never studied formal logic, because in logic we have the "or" connective, called the disjunctive connector, much like saying either the ocean is blue or the ocean is not blue. Either the person is a male or the person is not a male. Either the conjecture is true or the conjecture is not true.

In Logic there are two types of "or" connective, the inclusive, and the exclusive, so that we can say either or, or both, which is inclusive or we can say either A or B but not both A and B.

You can stick in a sentence or line in the Syllogism of disjunction anywhere.

3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom 

This is the exclusive "or" in use. It is a true logical statement that cannot be refuted or denied.

Maybe you think a syllogism is some physics device. And probably, all that have never taken formal logic, all of this would be bewildering and not understood.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web