Indivisibility

[lifegazer]

He is pointing out that particles are probability curves, and the probability curve of a single particle can be divided as many times as you want. Take a photon passing through the silvered mirror, until it reacts with another particle, half the probability curve is on one side of the mirror, half is on the other side.

So reality is full of "probability curves"? lol

Come on Russ. Time to face the music. Either real things exist beyond your sense of them, or they don't.
And don't forget that our physics refer to our sense of the world, since that is the only world we can observe.
So, probability curves refer to the chances of a particle being sensed within your awareness.

 

[Z]

Just demonstrating further lack of understanding, LG. Read the theories... I know science doesn't mean much to you, but if you would only try... you would understand the nature of the 'indivisible' things.

 

[lifegazer]

"It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity."

Well, here's your first problem: After a certain point, it wouldn't be correct to call the think you're dividing a "particle" anymore. That term would be too simplistic and inaccurate for what you would end up with (even before it became necessarily "indivisible", if ever).

Whatever you want to label a single thing is irrelevant. The only relevance here is whether definite things exist beyond your sense of them, separated from you by spacetime.

"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."

Maybe I missed the explanation, but whaaaaa....?

I pre-empted the possibility that some readers would respond thus as a means to disputing the possibility that "singular things" do definitely exist. But if they don't exist, then no thing can exist separate from your awareness then, can it?

THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN A REALITY BEYOND THEIR SENSE OF ONE, MUST INSIST ON THE DEFINITE EXISTENCE OF "THINGS"

Your call - do you want to argue that "things" have definite existence or not? If not, then get down on your knees and praise your God. If so, then address the OP.

"Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities)."

Here's your second problem. Spacetime isn't just what exists between objects. Objects exist in spacetime. That is, there is also spacetime were objects are currently at as well as between them and other objects. Again, a rather simplistic and inaccurate take.

I refer you to the answer I gave to Yahweh:
"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."

However, even if this view were correct, all one could say is that there is no spacetime at the indivisible objects, not that there is no spacetime.

If ALL things that are reported to exist are shown to be devoid of space and time, then no thing truly exists in spacetime.
How can an entity devoid of any physical dimension actual exist in those dimensions?

You really should avoid attempting these physical arguments until you learn more about physics. You're just no good at them.

You really should avoid philosophical contemplation because you're too engrossed within you physics books to make sense of reality.
Touche.

Stick to reason Uppy lad and minimise the garbage in future.

 

[lifegazer]

Just demonstrating further lack of understanding, LG. Read the theories... I know science doesn't mean much to you, but if you would only try... you would understand the nature of the 'indivisible' things.

Quack quack quack.
Go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence.
On second thoughts: go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence AND that unless "things" DEFINITELY exist beyond your sense of them, that no external reality doth exist.

The responses to my OP have been **** poor. Really. It all reeks of satanism or something.

 

[Z]

LG your tone, as usual, is offensive and moronic.

You don't stick to reason, so why should anyone else?

I've already explained - as I'm sure others have, in this thread as well as an older thread - that space/time is something that exists between indivisible things, not within them. You tried this argument before and got nowhere - you tried claiming that if any thing exists with less dimensions than reality, that reality cannot have more dimensions than that thing. WRONG.

But - you are still trying to relate indivisible things to space as if they were matter. What we're trying to hint to you is, that at a certain stage, some things cease being 'matter' and become-- something else. What? Heck, no one really knows the answers to that yet. Electrons, for example, aren't exactly matter as we understand it - they are indivisible particle/wave functions. We don't see individual electrons; rather, we see their 'shell' or their energy movements... It's very complicated, but that's the way it is.

At any rate, as I said before, in order for dimensions of space to exist, all you need are any number of indivisible things beyond one. They can themselves have only a location within space-time - in fact, we can even use points, if you like - but regardless of what they are, the moment there are two or more of them, space is defined.

As for time - time is just a measure of change. If you have nothing, and then you suddenly have two particles, you have space-time. Simple reason.

 

[Z]

Quack quack quack.
Go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence.
On second thoughts: go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence AND that unless "things" DEFINITELY exist beyond your sense of them, that no external reality doth exist.

The responses to my OP have been **** poor. Really. It all reeks of satanism or something.

Here's a better idea, LG - hows about you go away and come back when you understand anything at all. For example - when you understand basic concepts such as infinity, space, or time. Regardless of whether or not science deals with sensed-things or not, you cannot use science to argue against science. You cannot invoke science and logic in your reasoning, then deny their efficacy because of their dependance on 'sensed-reality'.

Your mis-use, again, of 'doth' just demonstrates: you're not interested in reason, you're only interested in bolstering your own ridiculous and loosely-founded faith.

Your OPs are always, in themselves, **** poor. Really. They all reek of fundamentalism or something.

 

[Anathema]

LG, LG, LG....still writhing like a salted slug...

 

[lifegazer]

Here's a better idea, LG - hows about you go away and come back when you understand anything at all. For example - when you understand basic concepts such as infinity, space, or time. Regardless of whether or not science deals with sensed-things or not, you cannot use science to argue against science.

I have used reason to argue against an unfounded so-called philosophical stance. My OP doesn't even mention science.
Address the OP or gag your beak.

 

[Z]

Already did, monkey-boy. Check page 1. As usual, you either missed it or just refused to try dealing with the results of your incorrect assumptions and failed reasoning.

 

[Upchurch]

Whatever you want to label a single thing is irrelevant. The only relevance here is whether definite things exist beyond your sense of them, separated from you by spacetime.

"Definite things", huh?

Neither "definite" nor "thing" have much meaning beyond a certain point. You're going to have to be more specific if you are going to hinge your argument on whether or not they exist.

And, again, you're using an incorrect concept of spacetime, but we'll get into that.

I pre-empted the possibility that some readers would respond thus as a means to disputing the possibility that "singular things" do definitely exist. But if they don't exist, then no thing can exist separate from your awareness then, can it?

Yeah, it still doesn't make any sense. I'll repeat the reiteration of my question: Or maybe a better question is, what are you defining as "singular finite objects"?

THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN A REALITY BEYOND THEIR SENSE OF ONE, MUST INSIST ON THE DEFINITE EXISTENCE OF "THINGS"

What do you mean by "definite". By my understanding of the word, yeah, I do believe in the existance of things, as much as one can be.

I refer you to the answer I gave to Yahweh:
"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?

Okay, pay attention. Let's construct an imaginary construct. We'll call it the "Indivisible Object". So that it is easier to understand in our macroscopic world, we'll say it has the following properties:

1. It cannot be devided into smaller parts.
2. It is 1 meter long.
3. It is 1 meter wide.
4. It is 1 meter high.
5. It is green*.

Now. Given that it cannot be seperated into parts, it is by definition, indivisible. However, you will still note that it occupies multiple points in space. Thus, it can be said that portions of the indivisible object are seperated by a spacial distance. Further, as the indivisible object has duration, it space a temperal distance as well.

Now, shrink the indivisible object to whatever size you imagine an indivisible object ought to be. It still possesses spacial distance (even if very small) and it still possesses temporal distance. Thus, the indivisible object still exists within the spacetime manifold.

If ALL things that are reported to exist are shown to be devoid of space and time, then no thing truly exists in spacetime.

But the premise is not met, so the conclusion does not hold.

Stick to reason Uppy lad and minimise the garbage in future.

I'd ask you to do the same, but you've not quite made it to "reason" yet. You're stuck in "rationalization".

* No particular reason. I just like green.

 

[Z]

Um, technical point, UC - an indivisible object can't have a color, can it? There's no sub-portions that absorb light, move to higher energy states, then return to lower energy states releasing specific frequencies of light, are there? So we have to deal with uncolored things, right? In other words, invisible things?

 

[lifegazer]

LG your tone, as usual, is offensive and moronic.

Shut up you satanic plonker.

I've already explained - as I'm sure others have, in this thread as well as an older thread - that space/time is something that exists between indivisible things, not within them.

Ghosts in spacetime? LOL

What we're trying to hint to you is, that at a certain stage, some things cease being 'matter' and become-- something else. What? Heck, no one really knows the answers to that yet. Electrons, for example, aren't exactly matter as we understand it - they are indivisible particle/wave functions.

What did I just say to you in my previous post? Do you not listen?
"Go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence AND that unless "things" DEFINITELY exist beyond your sense of them, that no external reality doth exist."

We don't see individual electrons; rather, we see their 'shell' or their energy movements... It's very complicated, but that's the way it is.

LOL
"It's complicated LG - nobody really understands, but non-understanding suffices to refute your philosophy."
This is retard philosophy and I don't give a monkey's uncle whether you're offended or not.

I understand!!!
Particles are seen within awareness and until seen, their potential to be seen within awareness is equated to "a probability wave".
QM refers to SENSED existence.
How many bleedin' times do I have to explain to you this simple truth?

Science tells us nothing about reality - science tells us about the world that is sensed. FACT.
Now, put your science books back on the shelf and try and think for yourself for a change. Are you capable of that?

Up the quality or stay away from my threads. I'm tired of your BS.

 

[Beleth]

Same reply as previous:
If there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating.

I never said there were no singular things. Your miscomprehension of my statement is noted.

Describing "the set of all 4-dimensional things" as "singular" imparts a different meaning to word "singular" than describing "one 4-dimensional thing" as "singular" does. The former is a definiton akin to "unique" where the latter is a definition akin to "particular".

I own a pickup truck.
There is a set of objects containg all the pickup trucks in existence.
That set is "singular" in that there is no other set with that description, i.e. it is "unique" set.
My pickup truck is "singular" in that, although there are others like it, it is the only one I own, i.e. it is a "particular" truck.

 

[Upchurch]

Um, technical point, UC - an indivisible object can't have a color, can it?

Sure it can, all you have to do is cover the indivisible objects with an appropriate electron cloud. The electrons themselves aren't part of the indivisible object, but definition. Just near it. Really, really, near it.









It's my imaginary object and I say it's green!

 

[RussDill]

My argument did not include the divisibility of spacetime.

"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."

The statement assumes that space/time itself can be divided. Be interesting to see if you reply to the divided waves of probability.

 

[Z]

Shut up you satanic plonker.

Make me. Oh, and by the way: Wiccans aren't satanic. Satan is a creation of the Judeo-Christian faith. As for what the heck a plonker is...???

Ghosts in spacetime? LOL

Well, this just shows you're losing it - where were ghosts referred to?

What did I just say to you in my previous post? Do you not listen?
"Go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence AND that unless "things" DEFINITELY exist beyond your sense of them, that no external reality doth exist."

You are not in charge of these forums. You do not control who posts what, where. You cannot make me 'go away'. As long as you try passing off incorrect information as if it were true, I will be here to correct you. No one is arguing with you about your 'sensed-existence' in this thread. Your OP is making the assumption that 'sensed-existence' is 'real-existence' - so naturally the discussion follows those lines.

LOL
"It's complicated LG - nobody really understands, but non-understanding suffices to refute your philosophy."
This is retard philosophy and I don't give a monkey's uncle whether you're offended or not.

Did I say nobody really understands? No, I did not. Some folks understand it very well. I understand just enough to know that your philosophy is total bunk and based on absolutely incorrect assumptions. And I don't care whether you're offended or not - clearly, you are a moron.

I am not offended, btw - I often get ignorant people insulting me when they cannot understand basic principles. I deal with children all the time.

I understand!!!
Particles are seen within awareness and until seen, their potential to be seen within awareness is equated to "a probability wave".
QM refers to SENSED existence.
How many bleedin' times do I have to explain to you this simple truth?

A million assertions doesn't make a truth - but no one is arguing with what you are saying, either. So continue on...

Science tells us nothing about reality - science tells us about the world that is sensed. FACT.
Now, put your science books back on the shelf and try and think for yourself for a change. Are you capable of that?

Yet you invoke science in your OP - so either you play the game by the rules you establish, or you gets knocked around for being an ignorant a$$hat. If you didn't want science interfering with this post, you shouldn't bring up scientific ideas.

As it is, science tells us about the only reality to which we are privy - FACT - whereas your so-called reason tells us nothing at all, seeing as its founded on falsehood and poor thinking skills.

Up the quality or stay away from my threads. I'm tired of your BS.

In order to reach your level, LG, I'd have to lower my quality. And, frankly, I don't care what you're tired of - I will post when and where I feel like, if it is appropriate. Clearly, you are the only one offended by me posting in your threads - I'd suggest that's because you are the only one with something to fear from my posts: specifically, that you might learn something.

 

[RussDill]

So reality is full of "probability curves"? lol

exactly.

Come on Russ. Time to face the music. Either real things exist beyond your sense of them, or they don't.

Particle, or wave of probability. In a reality made up of descrite particles, the particles would be just as real as the waves in a quantum mechanical reality. (Reality is best described with QM, which you seem to agree with, so I don't see how you take issue)

And don't forget that our physics refer to our sense of the world, since that is the only world we can observe.
So, probability curves refer to the chances of a particle being sensed within your awareness.

No, the refer to the chance of a particle interacting with another particle, that signal being amplified, and then us sensing that amplifed (likely displayed somewhere, or stored somewhere) information. We don't sense the QM interactions in experiments directly.

 

[Upchurch]

divided waves of probability

That made my head hurt.

I suppose one could argue that dividing waves of probablility would be fairly easy. If it is a stream of photons going through a beam splitter, you could have the "right side" and the "left side", but I suppose you could also argue that you aren't really dividing anything since the photons still end up on either one side or the other.





Stupid QM

 

[Z]

I have used reason to argue against an unfounded so-called philosophical stance. My OP doesn't even mention science.
Address the OP or gag your beak.

What philosophical stance would that be, again? I saw scientific theory being attacked, not philosophy.

Your OP is all about science.

And I have no beak - nor can you make me 'gag my beak', monkey-boy.

 

[RussDill]

That made my head hurt.

I suppose one could argue that dividing waves of probablility would be fairly easy. If it is a stream of photons going through a beam splitter, you could have the "right side" and the "left side", but I suppose you could also argue that you aren't really dividing anything since the photons still end up on either one side or the other.





Stupid QM

Easier way to think about it. The wave function of a particle is always spread out over a certain area, and that area can be grown, shrunk, it can have holes made in it (donut electron orbits), it can even be split up.