• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Indivisibility

lifegazer

Philosopher
L
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,047
Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.
Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality.
Either they do or they don't. If they don't, then bang goes your reality of singular entities separated by spacetime. If they do, then let's proceed with the argument:-

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

An absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible. Clearly, if it was divisible, then it could not be classed as an absolutely-singular entity in the first place.
Therefore, an absolutely-singular entity is absolutely indivisible.

What can we say about absolute indivisibility?

Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.
Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

Conclusion

You must now see where this is going: If an absolutely singular entity is spaceless and timeless in itself, then those entities are not 4-dimensional in themselves.
In a nutshell: no "singular thing" can truly exist as a 4-dimensional entity = there is no 4-dimensional reality.

4-dimensional reality negated.
 
lifegazer said:
Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.
Click to expand...

You just lost me. Why not? Spatial separation of multiple "singular entities" is not the same as dividing a single "singular entity."

Jeremy
 
Wudang said:
Are you trying to argue that strings must be zero-dimensional?
Click to expand...
What strings?
String-theory is just that: "a theory"... an incomplete one at that.

My conclusion is clear. If you find fault in the preceding reasoning, then address that reasoning.
 
You are applying the same words to two different concepts.

You are using the same words to describe what can best be described as "the set of all 4-dimensional entities" as you are using to describe the 4-dimensional entities themselves.

The set of all 4-dimensional entities may itself be absolutely singular in that there (by definition) is no entity outside it, but that doesn't mean the entities inside it are themselves singular.

Here's an example. Take the set of all odd numbers.
{1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, ... }
The set itself is infinite, but it doesn't make any sense (in fact, it's erroneous) to call any particular member of the set "infinite".
Likewise, each member of the set is odd, but it doesn't make any sense to call the set itself "odd".

Just because the set exhibits a certain property (in your case, "indivisible") doesn't mean that each member of the set, or indeed subsets of the set, exhibit the same property.
 
Wudang said:
Well for a kick off, there are no "singular" things as you abuse the word (which actually means something that stands out from its background). Try this
Click to expand...
Your method for refuting my argument is to avoid that argument and talk about something else altogether. Noted.

Regardless, if there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating.
 
Beleth said:
The set of all 4-dimensional entities may itself be absolutely singular in that there (by definition) is no entity outside it, but that doesn't mean the entities inside it are themselves singular.
Click to expand...
Same reply as previous:
If there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating.
 
If LG can prove an absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible, will that mean liberty and justice for all?
 
lifegazer said:
Your method for refuting my argument is to avoid that argument and talk about something else altogether. Noted.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you didn't read about Schrodinger then?

Regardless, if there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating.
Click to expand...

Do you mean "singular" in the sense of that word in the english language or in your own private lifegazer-speak?

If the former, then I refer you again to the esteemed Schrodinger as a starting point (well, perhaps not a point).

If the latter, then guessing at what you mean, I would hazard that they are separating space-time events.
 
Wudang said:
If the former, then I refer you again to the esteemed Schrodinger as a starting point (well, perhaps not a point).
Click to expand...
Just answer the questions. You're beginning to sound like a politician. Correction - you are like a politician.
You'll score no points in this debate unless you make clear comments.
If the latter, then guessing at what you mean, I would hazard that they are separating space-time events.
Click to expand...
Events of what?

Wake-up call: If there are no "things", then there is no spacetime separating those things = there are no events (of things) in spacetime.

Put your science book to one side. Incomplete theories are useless in refuting the argument I have presented. Please address that argument directly.
 
You're using multiple definitions of division.

Apparently, you are using definitions of division to mean both "breaking down" and "having spatial boundaries".

Its very possible to break down a rock into its finest 4D parts and still rightfully call each part indivisible, it would merely amount to singular existence through space and time.
 
lifegazer said:
Just answer the questions. You're beginning to sound like a politician. Correction - you are like a politician.
You'll score no points in this debate unless you make clear comments.
Click to expand...


Are clear as you are about whether you're speaking the english language or lifegazer-speak? I shall assume that you are using words as defined in the Oxford dictionary, okay?


Events of what?
Click to expand...

Events of space-time, I thought I said.


Wake-up call: If there are no "things", then there is no spacetime separating those things = there are no events (of things) in spacetime.
Click to expand...

I can just as easily say that if there are no "things" then is no Mind separating these things. Statements are not argument.


Put your science book to one side. Incomplete theories are useless in refuting the argument I have presented. Please address that argument directly.
Click to expand...

Well your argument isn't exactly complete. It begs the question of what a "singular entity" is.
Since a "singular" thing is something which stands out from its background then an absolutely singular thing must be something that absolutely stands out from its background - is it still part of its background then? If the background is space-time then how can something be absolutely singular (which is frankly still poorly defined) ?
 
lifegazer said:
Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.
Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.
Click to expand...

That's nice.

Given 2000 years, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with the Standard Model.
 
Yahweh said:
it would merely amount to singular existence through space and time.
Click to expand...
If no space exists between something (as it cannot in the case of an indivisible thing), then you cannot say that any two points within that thing are separated by space. As such, you cannot even say that "two separate points" exist. What is there to separate two different points in an entity exhibiting absolute sameness?

You need to think beyond your conceptualisations of space.
 
Wudang said:
Events of space-time, I thought I said.
Click to expand...
You cannot even define space or time without "things" to relate those concepts to!!!

Without "things", space and time are defineless.

There can be no events without "things".

You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.
I'll ask you one more time:
If there are no "things", then what does space and time separate?

If I were you, I'd just exhibit some sincerity and concede to this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom