Ron Davis wrote:
“I was reading about your paper about SLT and the paradox. One of my back woods style is off the wall sayings: If a paradox is conceived with fantasy; it can only be resolved with fantasy! I have found that people go through hoops to legitimately solve a paradox... when they should be looking at the paradox itself. Most paradoxes are not a reality of the Universe for one thing. And if fantasy is used to create a paradox then... fair is fair... to resolve it with fantasy.”
Thanks Ron for this important topic. Actually, your “off the wall saying” is similar to the one we use to combat indeterministic claims in general:
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence."
I suppose that another way of stating it would be:
"That which can be asserted as a fantasy can be refuted with a fantasy."
Seriously, a paradox results when one or more underlying assumptions is incorrect. Fundamental assumptions are not fantasies. They are legitimate statements even though unprovable. We resolve paradoxes by finding the erroneous assumption. Here is an example called “Olbers’ Paradox,” the statement that, if the universe were infinite, the night sky would not be dark. Light from an infinite number of stars would light up the entire sky at all times. The incorrect assumption is the belief that light (unlike anything else) could travel through empty space without anything happening to it on the way. Some Big Bangers would say that the resolution involves their expanding finite universe. The cosmic background radiation indicating an intergalactic temperature of 2.7K proves that space is not empty and the galactic redshift indicates that traveling through it is not without some difficulty.
The SLT-Order Paradox also was based on the erroneous assumption that the universe was finite. In an infinite universe divergence (decrease in order) and convergence (increase in order) are equal. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is merely a restatement of Newton’s First Law of Motion (a body in motion stays in motion unless it hits something). By assuming infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), we may change the word “unless” to “until.” Things come into being via the convergence of their parts and go out of being via divergence of their parts. The BBT is particularly absurd because of its paradoxical claim that everything that exists came into being via a grand divergence!
Do you see a pattern here? The indeterminists' assumption of finity razes havoc throughout physics. Obviously, correct theories should be paradox-free. Steve and I proudly challenge anyone to find even one paradox in our monumental work:
Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com), 626 p.