no. you are wrong - and more to the point, the statements are incompetant. You are arguing nonreality to support non-reality.
Indivisibility and existence
- Thread starter lifegazer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- existence indivisibility
no. you are wrong - and more to the point, the statements are incompetant. You are arguing nonreality to support non-reality.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
You aren't making a metaphysical inquiry. You made a physical argument and its wrong.
But you are arguing about the indivisibility of 4D objects. if you want to argue "actual reality" you're moving the goal posts and your OP is irrelevant to that end.
No, nothing said.
It seems I overestimated the intelligence of this board. Perhaps I should go through my OP...
Of course, a definite/real universe comprised of separate entities requires the existence of the aforementioned entities.
So, it's upto you guys to argue that such things exist.
Now, you can pretend that you don't know either what indivisible means or what the 4-dimensional universe is, if you want, but that just makes you look silly and I won't be wasting my time with you.
Also, you can say dumb things like "but science has definitely seen photons and they are indivisible.". But again, I won't be wasting much time with you.
What you have to do is actually address the meat of my reasoning, which follows:
Now, what you have to do is assume the existence of your indivisible
4-d object and then explain how something that is indivisible in itself can have different 4-d points of existence within itself.
There can be no space between something that is indivisible. Neither can there be any time (events or differences, perhaps).
You really must see the absoluteness of indivisibility to get this.
And Hyver, don't bore me with any more meaningless calculus please.
Clearly, this needs addressing properly, since you cannot have a definite world of 4-dimensional objects, if all the definite/indivisible objects within such existence are actually devoid of 4-dimensional meaning within themselves.
I begin by stating that no absolutely-singular building-blocks of the 4-dimensional universe exist.
Of course, a definite/real universe comprised of separate entities requires the existence of the aforementioned entities.
So, it's upto you guys to argue that such things exist.
Now, you can pretend that you don't know either what indivisible means or what the 4-dimensional universe is, if you want, but that just makes you look silly and I won't be wasting my time with you.
Also, you can say dumb things like "but science has definitely seen photons and they are indivisible.". But again, I won't be wasting much time with you.
What you have to do is actually address the meat of my reasoning, which follows:
This is what you have to address.
Now, what you have to do is assume the existence of your indivisible
4-d object and then explain how something that is indivisible in itself can have different 4-d points of existence within itself.
There can be no space between something that is indivisible. Neither can there be any time (events or differences, perhaps).
You really must see the absoluteness of indivisibility to get this.
And Hyver, don't bore me with any more meaningless calculus please.
Clearly, this needs addressing properly, since you cannot have a definite world of 4-dimensional objects, if all the definite/indivisible objects within such existence are actually devoid of 4-dimensional meaning within themselves.
I am enquiring as to the actual reality of matter.
This is a metaphysical enquiry and not an observational one.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Shifting the burden. Why is it up to us to prove you wrong? Can't you prove yourself right?
And yet, here you are. Tell me, are photons divisible in a 4D universe?
Incorrect. "Indivisible" means something that can not be broken apart. That is not the same as saying there can be no space between it.
Yes, the "logical default" argument from ignorance.
The real quesiton is: why do we waste our time with your sillyness?
Well, I have provided reasoning which argues that I am right. It is upto you to negate that reasoning or to provide reasoning of your own to explain why the aforementioned entities exist.
I don't know. What are they? Do they exist in a REAL 4d universe? Does a REAL 4-d universe exist?
As I said, observational 'facts' are meaningless at the metaphysical level.
Something that has open pockets of space within it is proven separable.
Z
Variable Constant
...unless that space is also part of that thing.
You seem to have trouble understanding a group of concepts: you are free to say whatever you want. Your saying/writing/thinking it has no bearing on its' reality. You are also free to define words and concepts any way you wish. Your defining them in that way has no bearing on their actual meaning. You are free to believe otherwise. Your doing so makes not a ripple on reality. If you wish to discuss these ideas reasonably, you still need to use words and concepts as the world (at least the world of those who care about this kind of topic) uses them. If not, a discussion is pointless.
Something that has open pockets of space within it is proven separable.
Come on dudes. Reality is in the balance and you're all watching the Simpsons.
Do definite building blocks of existence reside "out there" in the definite universe?
They have to, or there is no universe.
So, address my post from earlier. Don't give me no more BS.
The all-important statement:
you cannot have a definite world of 4-dimensional objects, if all the definite/indivisible objects within such existence are actually devoid of 4-dimensional meaning within themselves.
C'MON, address what I say for once. Give some credibility to this poxy forum.
Come on dudes. Reality is in the balance and you're all watching the Simpsons.
Do definite building blocks of existence reside "out there" in the definite universe?
They have to, or there is no universe.
So, address my post from earlier. Don't give me no more BS.
The all-important statement:
you cannot have a definite world of 4-dimensional objects, if all the definite/indivisible objects within such existence are actually devoid of 4-dimensional meaning within themselves.
C'MON, address what I say for once. Give some credibility to this poxy forum.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
First of all, Lifegazer, I would like to point out that you are falling back on the same, tired defensive position that you always do: You use science to back up a philosophical position. When we attack your understanding of science, you claim that it has no bearing on philosophy. When we argue your philosophy, you claim you are speaking about science. Such dodges might be useful in presidential politics but we here see the obvious disingenuity.
Ro answer your teal post: Why? Why must there be no definite world if it is made up of indivisible objects?
Assuming that you are right that our universe is, at its simplest, made up of infinite indivisible objects, why does that mean that there is no definite universe? The only experiment ever run on the creation and maintenance of a universe is currently in progress. At the macro level, just about everyone who isn't you is in agreement that there is definition and divisibility within all measurable real 3D (plus time) objects. A birthday cake can be cut into slices and one can measure the distance between one side of the cake and the other.
Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the evidence of our senses is in any way deceiving us on this issue. The universe is: a) consistent for all observers; b) linear in its presentation; and c) boring (not edited like a movie or disjointed like a dream).
The universe we experience being definite and divisable, your argument that our universe is not definite or divisible is provably wrong.
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 862
Getting a bit grandiose there, LG. Reality is not in the balance, just our understanding of it. Fortuanetly, I do not have to understand the nature of reality to exist.
Good thing we have some good ideas about the building blocks of reality, then.
Pshaw. Next thing you will be telling me that I cannot build lines, planes, spaces, and other sorts of manifolds out of tiny dimensionless points.
If you despise this forum so much, why do you keep coming back?
Where in this thread have I used science to back up a philosophical claim?
Remember that my claim is that there is no reality of a 4-dimensional universe. So tell me where I have used science to support this claim.
I merely pointed-out to upchurch that observation [of the order inherent within the experienced world] has no metaphysical value. Mainly for 2 reasons:
1) There is no reason to support the reality of anything experienced.
2) The order that we understand is actually quite primitive - as well as irrelevant - when it get's to this sort of depth.
The teal text is really self-explanatory. Athiests/science/realists/etc. are trying to sell you a dummy in that they are trying to sell the idea of a real 4-dimensional universe full of real 4-d objects.
However, fundamentally, a real 4-d universe has to be comprised of singular building blocks - you cannot hope to sustain the notion of a definite universe with no definite building blocks. Indivisibility is unavoidable.
Therefore, a real 4-d universe must be comprised of indivisible 4-d building blocks.
However, an indivisible entity cannot have space nor time within it - as explained. Thus, there are NOT 4 dimensions (of anything) within such an entity.
And so, if all the definite/indivisible objects within such existence are actually devoid of 4-dimensional meaning within themselves, how can we say that there is such a 4-dimensional reality? It's absurd.
Please, don't pollute metaphysics with observation.
The distinction between experience and reality is just basic philosophy. I'm sorry I have to keep repeating this, but what choices do you give me when you all use observation as a means for supporting the notion of a real universe?
Conceptualisation is not a [real] building.
I challenge you to find a REAL dimensionless point and to build a REAL line, plane, whatever from it.
The observation of something does not make it a reality. Neither does the conceptualisation of something.
Observation has polluted metaphysical debate, and so has naive mathematics. You cannot play with numbers/geometry and create actual realities.
For heaven's sake. What's wrong with you all? Are there any smart people in here who actually understand me?
Practising for the big day.
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 862
Why? We are not talking about the REAL universe, which as far as we can tell can be subdivided into smaller pieces (quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos, etc.), which DOES have definable means of determining location in space and time.
If you are talking about REAL, ACTUAL reality in the sense of noumenal reality, then any debate about it is pointless -- we know that it is at least consistent and complete enough to support reality as we observe it, and beyond that we cannot go.
Fair enough. Going from that very basic statement to "reality does not exist" is a rather large and unjustified leap, though.
What an odd statement. At the very least, observation in metaphysics is useful because we can use it to rule out which metaphysical rules and systems directly contravene observed reality.
No, but you can describe various realities (including observed reality) very accurately with them.
The outpourings of your massive throbbing brain thwart our every attempt to understand you, LG. You should try chatting with lightcreatedlife@hom instead. He has some interesting theories you may be interested in regarding the nature of the universe.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Points are infinitely small, indivisible building blocks. But lines exist. Lines are infinitely narrow, indivisible (lengthwise) building blocks but planes exist. Planes are infinitely shallow, indivisible (height-wise) building blocks but space exists.
It must be concluded that your argument is flawed. The thing that you are saying must logically follow does not follow.
The flaw in your argument is in the definition of points (or of indivisible objects). However you have defined them, you have done so incorrectly. The actual definition must, then, include the ability for an infinite number of infinitely indivisible objects to gain the property of mass (or volume or whathaveyou). The reason that this must be the case is that it is in fact the case.
If I were to guess, I would say that your particular misunderstanding comes from an ignorance of the math of infinite sets. Apparantly, there is an entire logical construct for dealing with the apparant absurdities of infinity. Mathematicians, led by the work of Georg Cantor, have been dealing successfully with such concepts for a hundred years. I reccomend you take a PhD in Mathematics and report back once you are through.
Otherwise, all you have done is identify an apparant paradox that is really the product of misunderstanding the concepts involved.
Anyone who thinks that something within experience created the experiencER, is not worthy of my efforts. Let him find me.
Jesus Christ. This guy completely blanked everything I just said.
For your information, I am aware of Cantor.
The fact that you assume that I am not - even though I have been debating metaphysics for several years - is a naive mistake on your part.
You really haven't got a clue if you think that Cantor's math come into play here.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Telling Hyver not to bore you with calculus isn't going to make this problem not be about calculus.
It really is that simple: We don't know how spacetime is built up. But it is either continuous or it isn't. If it is, then indivisible pieces of spacetime do not exist, and distances have a meaning everywhere, because if anything differs within an object, it's the co-ordinates of the space it occupies.
If Space is not continuous, then there are only 4-D indivisible building blocks, all of which have four dimensions and are finite.
This problem you do not wish to be bored with, is exactly the problem you think you've solved, ignoring the solution that is already there, and has been for some time.
It really is that simple: We don't know how spacetime is built up. But it is either continuous or it isn't. If it is, then indivisible pieces of spacetime do not exist, and distances have a meaning everywhere, because if anything differs within an object, it's the co-ordinates of the space it occupies.
If Space is not continuous, then there are only 4-D indivisible building blocks, all of which have four dimensions and are finite.
This problem you do not wish to be bored with, is exactly the problem you think you've solved, ignoring the solution that is already there, and has been for some time.