The Nature of the Universe

[James Putnam]

To all,

 

I requested the opportunity to start a new thread. The purpose of the old thread had changed significantly. I felt the old name had become misleading and might cause lower participation. The discussion had just barely begun. Only a few messages were lost. I feel they can easily be added anew by the members. I will begin this new thread with an explanation of its purpose. I will resubmit the five questions I had posed.

 

The Purpose: To determine what is true, false or presumptuous about our current level of understanding about the nature of the universe.

 

It is my belief there is a general presumption that the fundamental operation of the universe is sufficiently and probably correctly described by theories that were formulated from a mechanical viewpoint. There is an ongoing search for a physics theory of everything that some feel may be within our reach. It is my impression that other important sciences are strongly influenced by the conclusions offered by theoretical physics. I see the result of this practice revealing itself in a mechanical line of thought passing from one science to another. When this line of thought reaches into analyses of life and intelligence, I see it revealing itself in ideas such as the mind and emotions are machine-like products of known, mechanical properties or causes.

 

I take the position that life and intelligence are not the result of mechanical properties. I additionally take the position that the mechanical theories of the operation of the universe are incorrect. My view is definitely a minority or perhaps even a singular point of view. It is not a Biblical point of view. I have no interest in arguing in favor of Special Creation or of events such as a world wide flood. I find myself almost isolated from both the mechanical scientific point of view and the prominant Creationist point of view. However, my position is that mechanics is not the key to understanding the operation of the universe. I believe we will learn the true nature of the universe by discovering and analyzing the nature of intelligence. I believe it is the single, important fundamental property of the universe. I do not claim to know of or even to conclude that it had an original cause. I presume that I stand alone with this view at least here within the Hypography Forums. If I do not, then I would appreciate hearing from others who agree.

 

Now the challenge I present is this: I am assuming the position of a dissident inside a scientific box in which I do not wish to remain confined. However, I must work my way out of that box. Those who disagree with me are invited to try to keep me in that box. The method I will follow is to move step by step in an orderly fashion. I will not try to jump out of the box by making grand pronouncements and sweeping judgements. In return, I will not stay in the box as the result of others using these kinds of declarations against me.

 

I resubmit the five statements that I would make and would like to have evaluated by others. They are:

 

 

1. The increase of entropy gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

2. Gravity gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

3. Electric charge gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

4. The strong nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

5. The weak nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

I offer the meaning of direction here to be an irreversible change from one state with a recognizable trend toward a new, future state. This definition can be modified by others. It should not be mine only.

 

These statements can be argued against or even reworded by others. The goal is to get them right. The opinions expressed can be either scientific or philosophical. I invite correctness. I believe that if things are not taken for granted, I will get out of the box. These five statements are the beginning of a journey I feel is worth travelling. I ask those who previously expressed their views to please resubmit them. I apologize for this inconvenience and would appreciate your renewed participation.

 

James

 

 

 

Message from Tormod

This is where the "Thread previously known as Toward an Intelligent Design Science" will continue.

 

During the operation to split the threads I lost the last 10 posts, so the final posts in the old thread are no longer available. I aplogize for this.

 

James, edit this thread to restart your discussion.

[James Putnam]

1. The increase of entropy gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

2. Gravity gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

3. Electric charge gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

4. The strong nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

5. The weak nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

I believe all five statements are correct. They are properties that formed the history and will control the future of the universe. Sometimes they are used to argue that the universe is so fine tuned that it must have been designed. I do not use that argument. I am not trying to look outside the universe. I think that arguments and conclusions should not rely on either God or multiple universes in order to validate themselves. I want to know what it is that we have. I am not arguing why I think we have it. I feel the properties of the universe are sufficient in themselves for us to comprehend the nature of the universe. I posed the question of whether or not the universe has direction, because I think establishing a direction for it is the first step in this process.

 

James

[Buffy]

1. The increase of entropy gives direction to the future of the universe.

2. Gravity gives direction to the future of the universe.

3. Electric charge gives direction to the future of the universe.

4. The strong nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

5. The weak nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

I offer the meaning of direction here to be an irreversible change from one state with a recognizable trend toward a new, future state.

I guess the main issues here, given your definition of "gives direction" to be causing an "irreversible change from one state" to another are two fold:

 

1) Items 2-5 which are the four fundamental forces of nature (well, two, since 3-5 have been shown to be directly related to one another), are all reversible. As an example, gravity causes a spacecraft to fall towards the planet it is orbiting, but application of force by a rocket "reverses" the "change in state". I guess my question would be here, that the definition of "direction" you have given here is still a bit fuzzy and would benefit from further defintion. It would also be useful to describe your purpose in defining "direction." Several earlier posts by others indicate they have interpreted your meaning as "time" which you have not mentioned in this list. Time is generally believed to be irreversible, however Einsteins and others theories indicate that faster than light travel would proceed in reversed time (you may wish to see some of the discussions elsewhere here regarding tachyons).

 

2) Item 1 on your list is also a good candidate for showing direction, as it is generally accepted that the second law of thermodynamics implies that entropy increases irreversibly over time in a *closed* system, which the Universe appears to be. Repeating from my earlier post that Thormod seems to have lost in the move of the thread, it is very important to note that this law does *not* apply to systems that are open to external inputs. The law actually shows that if energy/matter is added to a system, that its entropy *decreases*. This is why it is believed by many that the Earth, which is receiving huge amounts of energy from the Sun and vast quantities of matter raining down from the solar system can easily support processes that can be perceived as being "creative" and reducing "chaos." Thus to put this into the discussion of "entropy showing direction", in an open system, energy inputs can locally "reverse" the general entropy direction of the universe, and therefore produce order, and possibly life and intelligence. Thus entropy in and of itself cannot be used effectively to argue that life and intelligence cannot evolve.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TeleMad]

2. Gravity gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

3. Electric charge gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

4. The strong nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

5. The weak nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

All four of those forces are intimately involved in stellar evolution, and if any one of their strengths were changed only slightly then the 'direction' stellar evolution would take would be dramatically altered. So at least in that sense, these four forces do give 'direction' to the future of the universe.

[James Putnam]

I guess the main issues here, given your definition of "gives direction" to be causing an "irreversible change from one state" to another are two fold:

 

1) Items 2-5 which are the four fundamental forces of nature (well, two, since 3-5 have been shown to be directly related to one another), are all reversible. As an example, gravity causes a spacecraft to fall towards the planet it is orbiting, but application of force by a rocket "reverses" the "change in state".

 

With regard to the four fundamental forces, I consider them all to be directly related to each other. For me they are different aspects of a single cause. However, I do not want to begin this debate on the premise that I am correct. I speak of them separately, so that others may give their view on each in either an isolated sense or as a functioning group. I am presenting them in their foundational, theoretical sense. First they were each identified as fundamental forces. My postion is that errors in theoretical interpretations were introduced right from the beginning analyses.

 

I am avoiding trying to place my views out front. I would like to take it step by step, so I have an opportunity to expose what I consider to be faulty theory. In the early stages of this discussion, I expect that we will talk about properties in a very limited sense. Oftentimes, it can be pointed out that first, simple, definitions are indequate to properly define properties. I think that is ok for now. I would experience the same problem if I tried to present my own views. It doesn't work well to jump right to conclusions. There are also inadequacies in this step by step analysis. It sometimes includes using misleading steps. But, the misleading step may be necessary to make an intermediate point when enough is not yet known to properly make the point. It is not unusual to not fully understand a phenomenon before we fully understand it. How's that for double talk.

 

 

I guess my question would be here, that the definition of "direction" you have given here is still a bit fuzzy and would benefit from further defintion. It would also be useful to describe your purpose in defining "direction." Several earlier posts by others indicate they have interpreted your meaning as "time" which you have not mentioned in this list.

 

I think it is a bit fuzzy. I am assuming it will necessarily remain fuzzy. That is because until we agree on a nature for the universe, the direction itself remains debatable. Perhaps it will be debatable even afterwards. I would be satisfied if others agreed there is direction, even if their views were different on what that means. For me, establishing that there is direction means there is an orderly process being followed. Then we can pursue, still from a fundamental point of view, how that orderly process should be theoretically represented. It seemed to me in my discussion with Tormod, that I would not be able to begin by just stating the universe has direction. It seems clear to me that the universe has direction, but I need for others to agree for good reasons so that I may proceed.

 

As for time, it is also sometimes, as you point out, referred to as possibly being reversible. I think the introduction of a position such as this should wait. I would not be allowed to get away with that practice if I were presenting my own views. If we look at the universe at its early stages and then consider what we expect to happen in all of the future that can be reliably predicted, then I believe we see direction. That direction, for me, is described by the changes the universe has gone through and the time period during which it has happened. I would be satisfied with this definition. I prefer the definition to be practical and not theoretical. Its modification can be proposed by anyone at any later point.

 

Time is generally believed to be irreversible, however Einsteins and others theories indicate that faster than light travel would proceed in reversed time (you may wish to see some of the discussions elsewhere here regarding tachyons).

 

I think it would be inappropriate to include Einstein's and others theories at this early stage. Insofar as this thread is considered, we have only begun the journey, and the correctness of Einstein or anyone else is not yet established. I would resist attempts to begin by including any assumption that Einstein was correct. I think, if he is correct, it will become shown in this analysis. My own prediction is that it will be shown to be incorrect. You would not accept that kind of position from me at this point, and I do not accept that Einstein is proven correct at this point. I think we should not try to get too complicated so fast.

 

 

2) Item 1 on your list is also a good candidate for showing direction, as it is generally accepted that the second law of thermodynamics implies that entropy increases irreversibly over time in a *closed* system, which the Universe appears to be. Repeating from my earlier post that Thormod seems to have lost in the move of the thread, it is very important to note that this law does *not* apply to systems that are open to external inputs. The law actually shows that if energy/matter is added to a system, that its entropy *decreases*. This is why it is believed by many that the Earth, which is receiving huge amounts of energy from the Sun and vast quantities of matter raining down from the solar system can easily support processes that can be perceived as being "creative" and reducing "chaos." Thus to put this into the discussion of "entropy showing direction", in an open system, energy inputs can locally "reverse" the general entropy direction of the universe, and therefore produce order, and possibly life and intelligence. Thus entropy in and of itself cannot be used effectively to argue that life and intelligence cannot evolve.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

I wouldn't try that line of argument. If I understand your point correctly, you are implying that argument might be used by someone who wished to justify crediting the evolution of life to a miracle. I oppose the use of either religious or scientific miracles. Ok, I find myself already feeling obliged to write long responses. I prefer taking this journey using smaller steps. I want to learn what it is that we can agree on.

 

James

[Tormod]

I think that for the sake of argument, I have no problems accepting that given the 5 points James listed, these all have an impact on the direction the universe will take.

 

I also am a bit unsure as to what lies in the term "direction" but if my earlier understanding of it as "irreversible change" is correct then I think I can grasp the meaning of that.

[Turtle]

___Since the five principles set forward refer to mechanical (mecahanistic) properties, I do not see anyone leaving the box any time soon. Do I understand you want some new principle that explains the five without invoking them? Your box is just Plato's Cave & your principles are shadows. :xx:

[James Putnam]

___Since the five principles set forward refer to mechanical (mecahanistic) properties, I do not see anyone leaving the box any time soon. Do I understand you want some new principle that explains the five without invoking them? Your box is just Plato's Cave & your principles are shadows. :xx:

 

They are presented as being mechanical, because that is what they were taken to be when first theoretically interpreted. I am hoping we can begin by agreeing to treat them as if they were mechanical. I believed that to be the simplest way to get agreement. I just want to achieve a first level of agreement, even if the rest of you only agree to agree among yourselves. No I do not expect to be getting out of the box anytime soon. We haven't yet constructed the box. The box should not be constructed by me. That is the first part of this task. I do not want some new principle from anyone. I am asking that we examine empirical knowledge and its introduction into theoretical analysis.

 

James

[Buffy]

It sometimes includes using misleading steps. But, the misleading step may be necessary to make an intermediate point when enough is not yet known to properly make the point.

No problem in that. In math and science it is a standard convention in proofs assume that a given is false in order to show a contradiction. You denigrate your own argument by calling it misleading.

{Buffy saying definition of direction seems fuzzy} I think it is a bit fuzzy. I am assuming it will necessarily remain fuzzy. That is because until we agree on a nature for the universe, the direction itself remains debatable....It seems clear to me that the universe has direction, but I need for others to agree for good reasons so that I may proceed.

That makes it very hard to gain agreement that any of the 5 items you've listed "show direction" in the universe. I think based on the statements in my previous post that I have concluded that the universe does not necessarily have "direction" beyond the notion of time and that increasing entropy is only a consequence since it is defined in terms of time. I think we all might agree that we leave the reversibility of time alone for now, but realize that its directionality is actually still an open issue.

 

To try to help you along, here are some definitions I could propose. I'll use mathematical definitions since you seem to be comfortable with that:

 

1) Direction is a value that increases monotonically

2) Direction is a vector that indicates a stable end point in an n-space (that is, there could be changes in the position of the element described by the vector over time, but the sum of all these changes is a constant).

3) Direction is a vector that indicates a range of values of an n-1-space in an n-space (that is, the overall direction and end point of the vector changes over time)

 

My previous post basically argues that all of the 5 items you mention can be reversed under a variety of conditions--that is they do not behave monotonically--and of the 5, only entropy actually shows a consistent vector, whereas the others are constantly in flux as the interact with other matter in the universe. So time for me seems to be the only thing that is "always moving forward."

Thus entropy in and of itself cannot be used effectively to argue that life and intelligence cannot evolve.

I wouldn't try that line of argument. If I understand your point correctly, you are implying that argument might be used by someone who wished to justify crediting the evolution of life to a miracle.

Not at all. Its just been clear that your thesis does include the notion that life and intelligence did not evolve and that it has existed unchanged since the beginning of the Universe. I was responding to your bringing entropy into your list, by making the point that while entropy may show direction in some way (and I argue here that entropy's "direction" is only a consequence of the supposed directionality of time), it does not preclude life and intelligence evolving from "mechanical" properties. But I am jumping ahead, so we'll leave that one out for now, just keep the notion in mind as you move forward.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[James Putnam]

No problem in that. In math and science it is a standard convention in proofs assume that a given is false in order to show a contradiction. You denigrate your own argument by calling it misleading.

That makes it very hard to gain agreement that any of the 5 items you've listed "show direction" in the universe. I think based on the statements in my previous post that I have concluded that the universe does not necessarily have "direction" beyond the notion of time and that increasing entropy is only a consequence since it is defined in terms of time. I think we all might agree that we leave the reversibility of time alone for now, but realize that its directionality is actually still an open issue.

 

To try to help you along, here are some definitions I could propose. I'll use mathematical definitions since you seem to be comfortable with that:

 

1) Direction is a value that increases monotonically

2) Direction is a vector that indicates a stable end point in an n-space (that is, there could be changes in the position of the element described by the vector over time, but the sum of all these changes is a constant).

3) Direction is a vector that indicates a range of values of an n-1-space in an n-space (that is, the overall direction and end point of the vector changes over time)

 

My previous post basically argues that all of the 5 items you mention can be reversed under a variety of conditions--that is they do not behave monotonically--and of the 5, only entropy actually shows a consistent vector, whereas the others are constantly in flux as the interact with other matter in the universe. So time for me seems to be the only thing that is "always moving forward."

Not at all. Its just been clear that your thesis does include the notion that life and intelligence did not evolve and that it has existed unchanged since the beginning of the Universe. I was responding to your bringing entropy into your list, by making the point that while entropy may show direction in some way (and I argue here that entropy's "direction" is only a consequence of the supposed directionality of time), it does not preclude life and intelligence evolving from "mechanical" properties. But I am jumping ahead, so we'll leave that one out for now, just keep the notion in mind as you move forward.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Ok. I am going to avoid being drawn into lengthy, technical arguments. I assume you will not stipulate that the universe has evolved in a way that could be described by the word 'direction'. As for your remark about my position on evolution, I see no relationship between my position and what you have described here. I see no reason to explain my position at this time. I feel it has no relevance to the purposes of this thread at this time.

 

James

[Buffy]

Ok. I am going to avoid being drawn into lengthy, technical arguments. I assume you will not stipulate that the universe has evolved in a way that could be described by the word 'direction'.

It doesn't really need to be a technical argument. I mistakenly assumed that by refering to the items on your list that you were making your point with technical information. On empirical grounds I agree that time shows direction, but you also asked earlier to respond on philosophical grounds, and I'll agree that direction is shown by the growth in human knowledge for example. If direction is going to remain fuzzy though, its not clear what the purpose is in getting us to "agree" that "there is direction" in the universe, since the validity of any arguments that depend on the statement "the universe has direction" must by predicate logic be similarly fuzzy. On the other hand if we were able to define what is meant by the term "direction" it would be easy to prove the following steps. You can go either way here, I'm just suggesting that it might be better to define the term more specifically. But either way, please proceed!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[James Putnam]

It doesn't really need to be a technical argument. I mistakenly assumed that by refering to the items on your list that you were making your point with technical information. On empirical grounds I agree that time shows direction, but you also asked earlier to respond on philosophical grounds, and I'll agree that direction is shown by the growth in human knowledge for example. If direction is going to remain fuzzy though, its not clear what the purpose is in getting us to "agree" that "there is direction" in the universe, since the validity of any arguments that depend on the statement "the universe has direction" must by predicate logic be similarly fuzzy. On the other hand if we were able to define what is meant by the term "direction" it would be easy to prove the following steps. You can go either way here, I'm just suggesting that it might be better to define the term more specifically. But either way, please proceed!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

When we begin analyzing any emirical evidence, there is alway fuzziness. I think theoretical physics is still very fuzzy. I think the concept of electric charge is fuzzy, but I would not object to it being injecting into this analysis. It at least provides a starting point. According to the physicist Julian Barbour, time doesn't even exist. I would say that is getting really fuzzy. I believe a conclusion that mechanical properties can lead to life and intelligence is very fuzzy. I want to remove the fuzziness, but do not believe it can be done before even beginning.

 

When this thread first started, I did not define direction. Since I started it a second time I added a definition. The first one is fine with me. I originally wanted others to define direction and whether or not the universe demonstrated it. I restarted the thread and made the mistake of offerring a definition. The one I added was meant to be worded so that it might be generally accepted. Here is my definition of direction: The empirical evidence can be analyzed in an orderly fashion. The evidence and the properties that constitute it do not even have to be identified. I think it does not matter what my definition is. Is it possible to construct the box?

 

Can someone else, who accepts that the universe has direction, please word a definition of direction?

 

If you do this, it will save me from having to defend the definition every other step along the way. Before we move farther along, I will leave time to see if any other members want to address the matter of defining direction.

 

James

[Turtle]

___I refer you to Goodel's Last Theorem, wherin it is proved that under any well developed system of math or logic there will arise propositions that are undemonstrable. I suggest yours is one such; to continue therefore is an exercise in futility & inefficient use of time. :o

[James Putnam]

___I refer you to Goodel's Last Theorem, wherin it is proved that under any well developed system of math or logic there will arise propositions that are undemonstrable. I suggest yours is one such; to continue therefore is an exercise in futility & inefficient use of time. :o

 

OK. Your position is on the record. Thank you.

 

James

[Buffy]

According to the physicist Julian Barbour, time doesn't even exist.

Although respected, not many people support Julian Barbour's theory mainly because it so clearly invokes circular reasoning: "I have a theory that unites Gravity and Quantum Mechanics. It involves assuming there is no such thing as time. Since we know that Gravity and Quantum mechanics are unified, we know that my theory is true, therefore there is no time. QED."

 

Many of us probably like time as something showing direction: it is easily measurable (albeit in a relativisitic manner) and widely accepted. Are you saying this is an unacceptable definition of direction?

Here is my definition of direction: The empirical evidence can be analyzed in an orderly fashion.

That sounds like a fine definition, although I'm somewhat confused as to what this definition has to do with "direction," you could probably proceed on that definition because I know of few people here who would argue with it.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Lazlo Toth]

My English professors always pounded into me: "Define your terms!" So I guess I have been deluded into thinking that is important. Are all definitions fuzzy? Are fuzzy definitions useless? I think I know what a dog is when I see it. It has four legs, hair and it barks. I know that a wolf looks like a dog and doesn't bark. I guess those definitions are fuzzy, but I think I can usually tell the difference between a dog and a wolf, and since other people use these same definitions, usually when I call something a dog, most people will agree with me. Even DNA sequences are fuzzy, but you could come up with rules for analyzing them that would always lead you to correctly conclude that an animal was a dog or not, right? I guess my question is that the word direction has several meanings according to my dictionary: "being directed by a person or force," "a set of instructions," "going to a specific place," "a heading", "a goal or purpose." These seem to be a bit different, don't they? I guess I am happy with the notion that the Universe is "heading someplace," but I know some people might not agree about it having a "goal or purpose." I can see how they might be concerned that you were trying not to define which meaning you mean by it because later you would say "but you said you agreed that the universe has direction so you already agreed that it has a goal or purpose." Wouldn't they be right to be concerned about that? Would it be possible to use one of these dictionary definitions?

 

Lazlo

[James Putnam]

My English professors always pounded into me: "Define your terms!" So I guess I have been deluded into thinking that is important. Are all definitions fuzzy? Are fuzzy definitions useless? I think I know what a dog is when I see it. It has four legs, hair and it barks. I know that a wolf looks like a dog and doesn't bark. I guess those definitions are fuzzy, but I think I can usually tell the difference between a dog and a wolf, and since other people use these same definitions, usually when I call something a dog, most people will agree with me. Even DNA sequences are fuzzy, but you could come up with rules for analyzing them that would always lead you to correctly conclude that an animal was a dog or not, right? I guess my question is that the word direction has several meanings according to my dictionary: "being directed by a person or force," "a set of instructions," "going to a specific place," "a heading", "a goal or purpose." These seem to be a bit different, don't they? I guess I am happy with the notion that the Universe is "heading someplace," but I know some people might not agree about it having a "goal or purpose." I can see how they might be concerned that you were trying not to define which meaning you mean by it because later you would say "but you said you agreed that the universe has direction so you already agreed that it has a goal or purpose." Wouldn't they be right to be concerned about that? Would it be possible to use one of these dictionary definitions?

 

Lazlo

 

Lazlo,

 

I think this is good input. I must not have made my intentions clear. I did not intend to define the box. I was willing to let that come from those who feel our empirical evidence is being analyzed rather well. Others would be able to make enough difficult stipulations that all would be satisfied that I was in a locked box. I considered definitions and interpretations to be a part of constructing that box. I only intended to enter the box and work my way out of it. I feel it may be sufficient to establish stipulations that appear to negate my position from the start. The boundary would be that their formulation should be based upon empirical evidence.

 

For example, I think one of these stipulations could be that the fundamental properties of the universe are mechanical. I am willing to be required to overcome this stipulation. Perhaps another could be that our evolution on the earth has been too confined for us to have developed the intelligence necessary to comprehend the nature of the universe. You can see though, that by my suggesting these stipulations, I am participating in building the box.

 

Attempting to begin this thread has been instructive. I have had the opportunity to think the matter through for a while. So, I will offer another suggestion. Perhaps asking anyone to build the box ahead of time was not a good idea. Maybe it can't be built before we start. It seems that it must include conclusions that can be reached only after analyzing the evidence. The conclusions themselves are debatable. If we begin our debate by putting conclusions up front, then we are forced to debate the conclusions. The problem seems to be that the conclusions must wait for the group analysis. I am thinking that we might instead retrace some of the scientific discoveries and their analyses. We could begin small and avoid many conflicts over principles and established conclusions. They could be offered up as part of the analysis so long as they are not introduced prematurely. Prematurely for me means they have been established by evidence that has not yet been introduced. When it comes to the analysis part, others would have the opportunity to box me in along the way.

 

This way we would not have to concern ourselves with whether or not the universe has direction. We would only have to recognize there is empirical evidence that exhibits interesting patterns that need to be analyzed. We would be like the scientists who participated in the discoveries and sought out their meanings. If anyone likes this idea better, but wishes to propose it in their own way, I am open to that.

 

Thank you for your message. I think we were becoming confronted with a difficult roadblock before we even got moving. Perhaps we may be able to go around it. I appreciate your opinion.

 

James