Indivisibility

[Wudang]

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.

I do not lie. As I said before you're the one who's been caught lieing about your ignorance of Upchurch's question when you started a thread on it.

Read this slowly and carefully - I am not talking about everyday events. I am talking about spacetime events. As I thought I made clear. Your ignorance (which is self-imposed) is not my fault.

 

[lifegazer]

I do not lie. As I said before you're the one who's been caught lieing about your ignorance of Upchurch's question when you started a thread on it.

Read this slowly and carefully - I am not talking about everyday events. I am talking about spacetime events. As I thought I made clear. Your ignorance (which is self-imposed) is not my fault.

Five times I have asked...

Still no answer.

Tell me of an event or clear off.

 

[Z]

LG, the problem here is you fixate on what is essentially a pointless question. Since you don't even understand the nature of spacetime, why bother explaining a spacetime event without a 'thing' (as you like to put it)? So asking, over and over again, without first conceding a few points of your own, does nothing at all except make you look the fool.

How many times have we asked you to explain why you ask questions about sensed-reality, then deny us the use of sensed-reality science when we reply? Sure, we're readily admitting science can only describe the order among sensed-things - those sensed-things are, as near as we can tell, the only reality to which we are privy. When you ask a question, for example, about a rock, you're asking a question about a sensed-thing, which means the science of sensed-things applies. If, on the other hand, you're asking about some non-sensed thing, then there can be no discussions whatsoever.

So you put up or shut up.

 

[lifegazer]

When you ask a question, for example, about a rock, you're asking a question about a sensed-thing, which means the science of sensed-things applies.

Essentially, this thread ponders the possible reality of things beyond the SENSE of them.
Therefore, the science of sensed-things is irrelevant.
The only tool left to ponder the possible reality of a "thing" is reason itself.

The question is rationally legitimate:
Do any real things have definite existence beyond the sense of them?

If no, then on yer knees.
If yes, then address the argument using reason and put your science books back on the shelf.

 

[Filip Sandor]

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.

LG,

I am only suggesting that numbers are ultimately meaningless and if you follow it through logically this includes the number 1 also. Any numeric definition implies, by mathematical necessity, an endless set of theoretical values, which we know to be ultimately false, right? How can we define ONE without defining any other, possible values? We can assign any meaning to it that we like, but then it isn't a number anymore.

One possible, rational explination for this that carries conceptual merit pertaining to reality might be that logic seems to contradict itself naturally; in that it [appears to] arbitrarily define itself (ie. there is no logic behind logic). It may be cheap, but it works for now.

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.

I don't think it's necessary to dig that deep into it. You're balancing on a knife edge - science on one side and suggestive ideas at best on the other. For all intents and purposes, science is doing phenomenally well I would say!

From a philosophical point of view science may be somewhat limited and I do believe it is limited in many scopes, but that is not a good enough reason to discard science and scientific reasearch as a valid and useful practice, in my opinion. Look at all the things that science has done for us! How would you drive around without a car... what would fuel cars if it wasn't for the discovery of oil refinement and the internal combustion engine? What would life be like without the discovery of electriciy and how to manipulate it?! Look at computers and how useful they are in our lives. What about lightbulds, toasters, telephones... all of these things would not exist if it was not for science!

Albert Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." The same can be said about science and philosophy.

The argument I have posted is really not so complicated.

Well, I am just very good at complicating things! Sorry for any inconvenience.

 

[Z]

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.

Right here, you ask us to consider an object - say, a 'rock', for example. Since the only objects - the only 'rocks' - we know of exist in our sensed-awareness, then all the sensed-awareness rules of science applies to these objects, these rocks.

Nowhere in your OP here do you bring up things beyond our sensed-awareness of things.

Reason cannot ponder the reality of a 'thing' if we deny the science which applies to said 'thing' - unless you are discussing a thing which is beyond the grasp of science, in which case you are discussing a 'thing' which is also beyond the grasp of our sensed-awareness... in which case, no amount of 'reason' can determine any 'truth' about such things.

If you are trying to ponder the state of 'rockness' which exists beyond our sense of a rock, then you must apply science, because if the things we sense definitely exist beyond our sense of them, then our sciences are justified and validated. If what I see, feel, and otherwise detect as a 'rock' is, in fact, a rock, then the attributes of said 'rock' which I detect are true and valid, and ergo science applies appropriately.

So by invoking this object, you either a) refer to the sensed-object, in which case science applies, or b) refer to the object as a real thing which we have sensed, in which case you validate science as being a functional tool for reality beyond the senses as well.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Essentially, this thread ponders the possible reality of things beyond the SENSE of them.
Therefore, the science of sensed-things is irrelevant.

LG,

Here is an interesting question for you...

How can you tell the difference between sensed things and reality?

(twilight zone music plays in the background)

 

[lifegazer]

From a philosophical point of view science may be somewhat limited and I do believe it is limited in many scopes, but that is not a good enough reason to discard science and scientific reasearch as a valid and useful practice, in my opinion.

I have never advocated discarding science. Neither have I said that science is useless.
The point is that it tells us nothing about a 'reality' beyond the sense of one - nothing about a reality beyond whatever it is that I am, having these inner experiences.
Science is not a philosophy nor the basis of one.
In brief, science has no place in a philosophy forum.
Understand?

Look at all the things that science has done for us! How would you drive around without a car... what would fuel cars if it wasn't for the discovery of oil refinement and the internal combustion engine? What would life be like without the discovery of electriciy and how to manipulate it?! Look at computers and how useful they are in our lives. What about lightbulds, toasters, telephones... all of these things would not exist if it was not for science!

True. But what's this got to do with knowing about 'reality'?
Science is about the manipulation of sensed-order.

Btw, it can also be argued that science will be, ultimately, the thing which brings-about the destruction of the world - global-warming, nuclear weapons, etc..
But let's not get into that here.

 

[Z]

In brief, science has no place in a philosophy forum. Understand?

Then why ask a scientific question in a philosophy forum? As you often seem to do.

 

[lifegazer]

Then why ask a scientific question in a philosophy forum? As you often seem to do.

I have asked you to ponder the possible reality of "things" beyond your sense of them. That is not a scientific question.

 

[Anathema]

I have asked you to ponder the possible reality of "things" beyond your sense of them. That is not a scientific question.

Are you gazing at a possible reality of lint in your navel, or is it just sensed-lint?

 

[lifegazer]

Here is an interesting question for you...

How can you tell the difference between sensed things and reality?

That's easy:
One is the internal awareness of "things" generated by abstract sensations.
The other is... not that.

 

[Z]

I have asked you to ponder the possible reality of "things" beyond your sense of them. That is not a scientific question.

No, here is what you asked:

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.

You didn't ask us to consider a rock beyond our sensed-awareness of a rock. You didn't ask us to consider a hypothetical real rock existing in hypothetical real space. You asked us to consider an object that could be divided.

We know your philosophy - there are two modes of reality: sensed-reality, in which divisible things like rocks, people, and bubble gum exist, and to which science applies; and God, which is indivisible, uniform, non-spatial, non-temporal, and where no 'rock' nor any other divisible 'object' exists as well. So if you are mentioning an object, say, a 'rock', you are discussing sensed-reality, to which science applies.

Care to tell any more porkies, plonker? Like the porkie about how you wouldn't reply to any more of my posts?

 

[Upchurch]

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.

LOL.

Okay. Pay attention, since I am now going to do the impossible. I will define a spacetime event without mentioning a "thing". Heck, I'll do several. Ready?

Simple cartesian coordinates
(x, y, z, t) = (0, 0, 0, 0)

Cylindrical coordinates
(r, θ, h, t) = (2, 1.5 π, 4, 25)

Spherical coordinates
(r, θ, σ, t) = (15, π, 3π/2, 428)


See, lifegazer. An event in spacetime is merely a reference to a point in the spacetime manifold, that is all. And you'll not I was able to define three without mentioning a single "thing". Not only was it not impossible, it is fairly simple.

If you are going to continue to argue using "sensed world" complaining, quite complaining when we do the same, only correctly.

 

[lifegazer]

Nowhere in your OP here do you bring up things beyond our sensed-awareness of things.

Do you want me to rewrite the OP so as to clarify that we are investigating the possible reality of real things?
You're just dancing around the issue.

 

[Z]

That's easy:
One is the internal awareness of "things" generated by abstract sensations.
The other is... not that.

Again, a potential misuse of 'abstract', but let's move on...

This sounds like a stumble to me, LG - let's face it: humans define reality as the things of which they are aware. They assume that those things are external to self, but not without reason. So this 'internal awareness generated by abstract sensations' is reality to humans.

Anything of which we cannot be made aware via sensations is not reality.

Let's face it - remove the function of sensed-awareness, and we have absolutely no tools for determining the true nature of reality. Not even your much-vaunted 'reason' can determine the true nature of reality - especially not if your 'reasoning' continues to rely upon notions and concepts borrowed from sensed-reality.

 

[Z]

Do you want me to rewrite the OP so as to clarify that we are inverstigating the possible reality of real things?
You're just dancing around the issue.

Yes, that would probably help - however, in this case, you still cannot toss out science. If the sensed-things within our awareness are given to us by concrete sensations of externally real objects, then science is no longer merely the order among sensed-things, but the order among real things as translated via the sensations, and therefore still applies to the discussion at hand.

I think it's you who is dancing there, Mr. Flatley.

 

[lifegazer]

Simple cartesian coordinates
(x, y, z, t) = (0, 0, 0, 0)

What event does this signify?

Cylindrical coordinates
(r, θ, h, t) = (2, 1.5 π, 4, 25)

Spherical coordinates
(r, θ, σ, t) = (15, π, 3π/2, 428)

Cylinders and spheres are objects.
If the values of your coordinates are to have any significance, then they have significance to those objects - those things.

If you are going to continue to argue using "sensed world" complaining, quite complaining when we do the same, only correctly.

You've done nothing correctly.
I want you to tell me of an actual event that can happen in spacetime minus the existence of things.

Posting coordinates in reference to conceptualised shapes is absolutely meaningless in regards a discussion pertaining to reality.

 

[Filip Sandor]

I have never advocated discarding science. Neither have I said that science is useless.
The point is that it tells us nothing about a 'reality' beyond the sense of one - nothing about a reality beyond whatever it is that I am, having these inner experiences.
Science is not a philosophy nor the basis of one.
In brief, science has no place in a philosophy forum.
Understand?

LG,

You're taking this too seriously I think.

What exactly do you mean by "sensed things?"

How do you determine what is a sense of an object and what is an object?

What do you mean by "reality?" How do you differentiate between real and unreal?

All the different terms you use have practical meanings in the English language, but they can also have more abstract meanings, which you have to define as much as you can if you want to move on to the next level of discussion. This discussion won't last very long without proper clarification on your terms because we could be talking about anything and almost anyone could be right. Please define your terms accordingly... or take a breather and come back later to continue. Not trying to be a prick here, I just hate to see good philosophical chat turn into sensless babble.

 

[Z]

Actually, those are 'events' in spacetime. They are not actions, nor objects - merely 'events'.

I think he's demonstrating to you that you don't fully understand the language of that which you ask for.

For example, if I took you to an empty parking lot and you demanded to see a truck, and I climbed the flagpole and brought you the ball off the top - well, it's a similar situation. You might have been referring to a pickup truck or a semi tractor trailer; I referred to the ball on top of the flagpole. Unfortunately, science is full of strangely referred words - like 'event', 'spin', etc. - so asking for an event in spacetime that doesn't involve a 'thing' is asking for trouble.