Indivisibility

[lifegazer]

In order to reach your level, LG, I'd have to lower my quality.

Until you realise two things, I will not be partaking of PHILOSOPHICAL discussion with you any more:-

(1) Science seeks to discern the order present in sensed existence. It has nothing else to go on.
The laws of physics mirror sensed-reality.
(2) Science - which says nothing about ~reality~, but which delves deep into the UNreality of sensed-things - is neither a philosophy nor the basis for a philosophy.

Last chance dude. I shall give up on you as much as I like your spirit. I cannot afford to waste any more of my time on you since my time is running out. Not only that, but you spoil every thread I start with this same nonsense about "scientific fact" refuting my philosophy when it is easily provable that no scientific fact actually deals with reality.

There are no sensed facts which counter a philosophy about REALITY.

Embrace these philosophical truths or go away, for if you do not (after all the discussions we have had thus far), then I can only conclude that you are incapable of doing so or that you simply do not want to. As such, I will not respond to anything else you have to say.
I wish you well regardless. I apologise for my previous frustrations - you are a plonker but I like you.

 

[RussDill]

You really want to drive LG crazy though? mention quarks, and the lack of free quarks. Quarks are an elementry particle, but they are always bundled with 2 other quarks. There is no such thing as a free quark, the bundle of three quarks is kinda undivisible. Why? Because the force of attraction varies *inversely* with distance. The farther you pull them apart, the harder it is to pull, until you have enough energy that you get three new quarks. So is a proton indivisible?

 

[RussDill]

Embrace these philosophical truths or go away, for if you do not (after all the discussions we have had thus far), then I can only conclude that you are incapable of doing so or that you simply do not want to. As such, I will not respond to anything else you have to say.
I wish you well regardless. I apologise for my previous frustrations - you are a plonker but I like you.

back to the sermon preaching LG I guess. So much for intelligent discussion.

 

[Cosmo]

There are no sensed facts which counter a philosophy about REALITY.

The concept of a sensed-reality is still irrelevant. It does not matter. It is useless. Give up on it.

 

[lifegazer]

You really want to drive LG crazy though? mention quarks, and the lack of free quarks. Quarks are an elementry particle, but they are always bundled with 2 other quarks. There is no such thing as a free quark, the bundle of three quarks is kinda undivisible. Why? Because the force of attraction varies *inversely* with distance. The farther you pull them apart, the harder it is to pull, until you have enough energy that you get three new quarks. So is a proton indivisible?

You really think I lack the intelligence to understand these things?
You underestimate me.

What you fail to understand - like Z-dragon - is that physics is a mirror of the order that exists in the sensed world.
Yup - physics says nothing about a reality beyond the sense of one, so what you just said - and it is easily understandable - says Jack about a reality of things.

 

[Z]

Yet you start a discussion about sensed-reality. When you do that, science applies. If you violate science within the discussion, you violate the nature of the discussion itself.

The OP in this case dealt with things within sensed-reality. For all practical intents and purposes, sensed-reality IS reality. Why? Because there is no other reality which can be compared to sensed-reality.

You're not discussing a philosophy, LG, when you start discussing divisible objects in sensed space. You're discussing scientific theory.

Deal with it, little boy.

 

[lifegazer]

Deal with it, little boy.

Goodbye brother.

 

[Upchurch]

Yet you start a discussion about sensed-reality.

For that matter, can you think of a lifegazer discussion that hasn't started with a "sensed-reality" concept? The concept of "singularity" comes from our senses, as does "indivisible".

 

[RussDill]

You really think I lack the intelligence to understand these things?
You underestimate me.

What you fail to understand - like Z-dragon - is that physics is a mirror of the order that exists in the sensed world.
Yup - physics says nothing about a reality beyond the sense of one, so what you just said - and it is easily understandable - says Jack about a reality of things.

...then why take issue with M-Theory?

 

[Z]

Ignore me all you like, LG - I don't post responses to you for your sake, but for the sake of others. Just like anyone else I argue with - the goal is not changing your inflexible and undereducated mind, but to be a light guiding those who read this in passing.

Now, just in case anyone else missed the point:

Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.

Here, as you can see, LG has started with a premise dealing with 'sensed-reality'. By his own philosophy, a 'rock' can only exist within 'sensed-reality'. By invoking this 'rock' he also must invoke the 'science' which deals with said 'rock'.

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.

Again, with the sensed-reality. But let's move on. He firsts asks us to isolate one particle - which would be fairly easy to do, say, a neutron or a proton. Then he changes gears and asks for an absolutely singular entity.

First, we have no idea what he means by absolutely singular. But if he's referring to an indivisible entity, then we have to know - does he want a particle, or an indivisible entity? But let's play his game, for a moment - and offer him an electron.

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:-

No problem here - we have numerous examples of entities that are, at the moment, indivisible. Of course, we may later learn how we might divide them, and whatever emerges from that study will become the new 'indivisible object'.

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

Nothing, until we understand what he means by 'absolutely singular'.

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.

This is fairly reasonable - if we invoke the concept that 'absolutely' means that there never will be any means to split this electron down, then a single electron is an absolutely singular, absolutely indivisible entity.

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.

Clearly, a poorly-worded statement. That's like saying that an apple cannot separate something that is absolutely-indivisible. Obviously, nothing can divide that which is indivisible - but space and time can separate any number of absolutely indivisible entities from each other.

Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

This requires a definition of spaceless and timeless. IF, by spaceless, we means 'occupies no space', that is clearly wrong. An indivisible entity can certainly occupy space - the 'space' does not divide it; it simply exists within space. Likewise, 'timeless' would mean that the indivisible particle in question - the electron - is unchanging. By itself, a particle can be timeless - well, an individual particle can be timeless - but if any other entity exists, and any change occurs between entities, then that particle, in fact, occupies time as well.

So, no, an absolutely-indivisible entity cannot be spaceless or timeless, without heavily revising the definitions of said words.

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.

Conclusion based on a flawed premise. Really, the remainder of the conclusion does not merit discussion, as the premises they are founded upon are faulty.

That's it, really.

 

[Z]

For that matter, can you think of a lifegazer discussion that hasn't started with a "sensed-reality" concept? The concept of "singularity" comes from our senses, as does "indivisible".

You know, you have a good point here. LG tends to follow this pattern:

1) concept from 'sensed-reality'
2) big error regarding the 'science' of 'sensed-reality'
3) faulty conclusion
4) ugly arguments where he's shown his understanding of science is flawed
5) repeated assertions that 'science' tells us nothing about 'reality'
6) flees to start another cycle

It's funny, really - he says things like, "Physics tells us nothing about reality, only about the order between things in sensed-reality," but he starts off by having us consider a thing in sensed-reality. Which means physics applies.

It's like discussing an ancient sport, then claiming that anthropology can tell us nothing about modern sports! Crazy.

 

[Anathema]

Dance of the Salted Slug

We've seen it before.....

 

[Wudang]

Until you realise two things, I will not be partaking of PHILOSOPHICAL discussion with you any more:-

As of the second page of this you are not partaking of any fom of discussion with aynone. You are simply being ignorant and abusive.
Your OP is about the fundamental attributes of matter which you do not understand. As has been demonstrated concusively in many threads.

 

[lifegazer]

Your OP is about the fundamental attributes of matter which you do not understand. As has been demonstrated concusively in many threads.

Our understanding is of SENSED matter. "Things" within awareness act as particles or waves.
I have told certain people in here this already. Now I'm telling you.
Scientific knowledge doesn't relate to the reality of things. Science doesn't relate to reality.
Science is not a philosophy.
Science is not the basis for a philosophy.

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

Screw the science of sensed-things. It's irrelevant to the bold text.

 

[lifegazer]

Furthermore, I have asked you (three times) to define an event in spacetime without mentioning a "thing".
Three times you have ignored me.

... No wonder really, since it's impossible.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Ok, I see some people have already attacked this your analogy.. I hope nobody minds me taking a shot as some critical disection of your points then..

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:-

Let's pause for a moment and ask this: is there any singular thing in reality?

Well, in order for there to be ONE thing, we must understand the concept more than one. Simply put, the word singular is a mathematical term and it can easily be shown that math doesn't work for everything, therefore, math is false. A very quick and easy proof that math is false can go like this: How would you measure the exact length of one third of a meter? The answer is, you can't do it... mathematically of course, therefore, math is false and anything based in math, is also false; therefore, singular entities are false.

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

We can say that it must be, at least to a degree, a figment of the imagination. Although it might not be entirely wrong either. We did not choose to view 'things' separately, but do so naturally, which seems logically incompatable with the idea that singularity is a figment of the imagination, but is clearly significant in it's own right. (more on this below)

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?

It certainly appears to be a false notion. Even according to quantum physics, which observes that the smallest units of energy 'quanta' are, but mere distortions in space-time; they do not appear to be entirely separate from space-time (and it might be wiser not to treat them as such without due necessity).

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.

Even if you try you will find that it quite difficult visaulize. I agree.

Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

Space and time apparently interact, which would mean that they cannot be truly separate like the numbers we invented. Take away the number and the indivisible entity itself disappears, naturally.

Clearly there is room for further reasoning and investigation into this matter at a deeper level, but it quickly becomes very metaphysical in nature. This can be a very dangerous territory that most people are probably better off not venturing into without the right "mental gear" as it can become highly obtruse. In fact, such philosophizing can easily come to a dead end and even become totally boring so in my opinion, it's probably better to leave it open to interpretation until one is not so attached to superficial things.

(I would be quite interested to hear if 1inChrist has any comments on metaphysics,... or if he has any clue as to what I am talking about.)

Anyway, I digress!

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.

Fair enough. So why do we interpret it as such?

 

[lifegazer]

therefore, singular entities are false.

How can there be no singular entity in existence? If there can be no singular entity, then there can be no multitude of singular entities. There can be nothing.
Such a conclusion leads to the negation of all existence.

There must be a singular entity.

It certainly appears to be a false notion. Even according to quantum physics, which observes that the smallest units of energy 'quanta' are, but mere distortions in space-time; they do not appear to be entirely separate from space-time (and it might be wiser not to treat them as such without due necessity).

We have a sense of things. Physics is the study of those senses.
Physics cannot study any [supposed] reality beyond the sense of one and physics cannot make conclusions about anything other than the order of sensed-things flickering upon the screen of awareness.
... Until this is realised, en masse, philosophy and science are doomed to stagnation.

"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."

Even if you try you will find that it quite difficult visaulize. I agree.

Thankyou.

Clearly there is room for further reasoning and investigation into this matter at a deeper level, but it quickly becomes very metaphysical in nature. This can be a very dangerous territory that most people are probably better off not venturing into without the right "mental gear" as it can become highly obtruse. In fact, such philosophizing can easily come to a dead end and even become totally boring so in my opinion, it's probably better to leave it open to interpretation until one is not so attached to superficial things.

The argument I have posted is really not so complicated.

 

[Wudang]

Furthermore, I have asked you (three times) to define an event in spacetime without mentioning a "thing".
Three times you have ignored me.

... No wonder really, since it's impossible.

I have not ignored you nor have the others such as Russdill who have tried to spoonfeed you Janet and John versions of science. I can't explain a spacetime event to you because ,despite all our efforts, you fail to grasp spacetime (which to be fair is difficult without O-level geometry). You lack the vocabulary, the education, apparently the intelligence and definitely the willingness to learn anything.
Here is a clue: unlike you we do not hyphenate for random decoration nor do we agglutinate for that reason. Spacetime is a distinct concept.
Now go away and read a book. I would suggest Anthony Weston's "A rulebook for arguments" as a starter. Chapter 1 has a section "Distinguish premises and conclusion" which you might find especially useful.

 

[Wudang]

Here's another tip lifegazer. If you want to try discussing the material world, discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it, don't discuss it. Flipping between the two in a single thread makes you look foolishly inconsistent.
Your ranting about what physics is was demolished conclusively in at least 2 threads that you abandoned as usual. Shall we resurrect them? Oh hell why not?

 

[lifegazer]

I have not ignored you nor have the others such as Russdill who have tried to spoonfeed you Janet and John versions of science. I can't explain a spacetime event to you because ,despite all our efforts, you fail to grasp spacetime (which to be fair is difficult without O-level geometry). You lack the vocabulary, the education, apparently the intelligence and definitely the willingness to learn anything.
Here is a clue: unlike you we do not hyphenate for random decoration nor do we agglutinate for that reason. Spacetime is a distinct concept.
Now go away and read a book. I would suggest Anthony Weston's "A rulebook for arguments" as a starter. Chapter 1 has a section "Distinguish premises and conclusion" which you might find especially useful.

Shut up waffling and BSing this forum.
I have asked you four times to describe just one event without mentioning a "thing"- any event - yet you have failed to deliver.

Events are what happen to things.
An event cannot happen if there is no-thing in existence.

Up the grade or clear off. I'm tired of your nonsense and lies and insincerity.