Indivisibility and existence

[lifegazer]

The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things.
Why?
... Indivisibility of a 4d object means that the object is the same throughout, so that there is no way to differentiate 'any part' of it from another.
Hence, there is zero distance of length and time within an indivisible entity.
You might want to discuss this further, since this realisation leads to this:

If distance and time are meaningless within an indivisible entity, then distance and time are meaningless within a gathering of such entities, so that "The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things."

Now, this might not [yet] seem so significant. However, the absence of definite parts within the universe, means that the universe itself cannot be definite.
The thing is, a universe without indivisible parts must - by logical default - be indefinite (unreal).

Intelligent responses please.

 

[GodMark2]

I know I'm going to regret this but...

What definition of 4d are you using?

What defintion of indivisible are you using?

The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things.
Why?
... Indivisibility of a 4d object means that the object is the same throughout, so that there is no way to differentiate 'any part' of it from another.
Hence, there is zero distance of length and time within an indivisible entity.
You might want to discuss this further, since this realisation leads to this:

If distance and time are meaningless within an indivisible entity, then distance and time are meaningless within a gathering of such entities, so that "The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things."

Now, this might not [yet] seem so significant. However, the absence of definite parts within the universe, means that the universe itself cannot be definite.
The thing is, a universe without indivisible parts must - by logical default - be indefinite (unreal).

Intelligent responses please.

 

[Ashles]

Intelligent responses please.

Intelligent question please.

 

[wollery]

Define indivisible.

Without that any discussion of your OP is pointless.

 

[wollery]

Aah, after a couple of rereadings I see that you are equating "indivisible" with "definite".

The two are not the same and cannot be equated.

For instance, the computer sitting on my desk is "definite". It has measurable length, height, width & mass, but I could take a hammer to it and "divide" it into several smaller parts, each of which would also be "definite".

Definite, but by no means indivisible.

 

[Jimbo07]

A
For instance, the computer sitting on my desk is "definite". It has measurable length, height, width & mass, but I could take a hammer to it and "divide" it into several smaller parts, each of which would also be "definite".

Worse, I think lifegazer is making an argument from "Sorcerer's Apprentice."

The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things.
Why?
... Indivisibility of a 4d object means that the object is the same throughout, so that there is no way to differentiate 'any part' of it from another.
Hence, there is zero distance of length and time within an indivisible entity.

WHAT?!?!

Is lifegazer saying [/i]we[/i] are not indivisible, or that electrons are not indivisible? Physicists would say (regarding electrons), 'we don't know.'

My question... since it can only be two things:

Is lifegazer a complete moron (forgivable), or a troll (unforgivable in terms of forums)?

 

[Solitaire]

What definition of 4d are you using?

Probably the standard four dimension of space and time, although he could choose to work with any number of dimensions. I'm not sure, but think he's trying to make a theological issue out of geometry, an omni-origami argument.

What defintion of indivisible are you using?

Probably standard definition of indivisible with a twist. The indivisible entity, object, part, thing, or universe (perhaps what he calls god) extends in infinite extent upon all directions of space and time. He then concludes that an infinite entity cannot be real because it has no beginning, more or less.

In our universe, entities do exist. Unfortunately, for us and a great deal many other things as well, entities also suffer finite extent in both space and time. Here today, gone tomorrow.

 

[Hyver]

Hence, there is zero distance of length and time within an indivisible entity.
You might want to discuss this further, since this realisation leads to this:

If distance and time are meaningless within an indivisible entity, then distance and time are meaningless within a gathering of such entities, so that "The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things."

Have you ever studied calculus? I'm guessing not, becouse they can deal with this problem fairly well.

you see, if you have an infinate number of infinatly small (we could subsitute indivisible here if you would like) pieces, you can infact combine them together to get meaningful information. To Illustrate this, take for instance a line. Suppose you were to cut the line in half, then you would have two lines, cut each of them in half, and you have four, in half again makes eight and so forth. Repeat the procedure an infinate number of times and you are left with an infinate number of infinately small pieces that we will call points. Now, with calculus you can take these infinate points and get meaning full information with them including but not limited to the length of the line and also the slope of the line at any given point along it. I'm sure someone could explain it better to you then I could (been about 5 years since I took my last calc class) but the fact of the matter is, this statement you make is patently wrong.

Also, you still havn't responded to my last two posts concerning you. I'll take your silence to indicate that I am correct on all counts.

 

[Z]

Hmmm... another lifegazer thread.

[reads for a second]

Oh, this one.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

(Hey, Dar - you don't explain in this thread where 'indivisible' comes in at all...)

 

[H'ethetheth]

What hyver said.

I'd like to quote from my previous work, seeing how it is as relevant now as it was two years ago (though I like to think my writing has improved somewhat since then):

Aahhh, good times. I think I've seen this discussion before somewhere.

Lifegazer, I see that you still haven't looked into infinitesimals and how to do integration.

Let me say this: There are basically two possible configurations for a space.
It is either continuous or discrete. Let's say it is continuous for now.
Picture a finite space and divide it into little pieces. You can do this up to infinity if you like, as it is continuous. We take a shortcut and say we divided it into an infinite number of sub-spaces. These we call infinitesimals and are by inspection indivisible. Now if we consider two adjacent infinitesimals we can define a distance between them, which is however arbitrarily small. You can keep adding infinitesimals to your set, but they will never add up to a space that is not arbitrarily small. Unless you take an infinite number of them. That is, any finite continuous space can be divided into an infinite number of indivisible points.
This is what must follow if space is continuous.
Now if it is dicrete (who knows?), points can only exist on certain positions. So then any space contains a limited number of none the less indivisible points. points in between might be imagined but cannot exist in such a space. Both types of space can exist however, even a space imagined by your God would be one of the above, thereby negating your negation of space, which is fairly ludicrous and uninformed to begin with, as many have attempted to show you in another thread.
And then we arrive once again at the questions about the space imagined by your God. Is that continuous? What doth occupy imagined positions? What does it matter compared to real external space etc etc etc.

In other words: The same old questions about your same old philosophy.

So please name one respect in which observed space is not spatial.

 

[fuelair]

Lifegrazer has words but no knowledge. Therefore, he strings the words together. On the bright side, it keeps him/her/other out of mischief in the real world.

 

[nescafe]

The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things.
Why?

Good question. Are you referring to our 4d (as far as we can tell) universe, or to some hypothetical one?

... Indivisibility of a 4d object means that the object is the same throughout, so that there is no way to differentiate 'any part' of it from another.

A hypothetical one, then. This is obviously an exercise in abstract thought. You used the wrong word, though -- that definition is for the word "homogenous" not "indivisible". I have taken the liberty of reading "indivisible" as "homogenous" for the rest of this post.

Hence, there is zero distance of length and time within an indivisible entity.

Not quite. Undefinable is not the same as zero.

You might want to discuss this further, since this realisation leads to this:

If distance and time are meaningless within an indivisible entity, then distance and time are meaningless within a gathering of such entities, so that "The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things."

Indeed.

Now, this might not [yet] seem so significant. However, the absence of definite parts within the universe, means that the universe itself cannot be definite.
The thing is, a universe without indivisible parts must - by logical default - be indefinite (unreal).

Excellent -- you have constructed a logical argument!

Intelligent responses please.

It is a good thing that our universe is not perfectly homogenous.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Not quite. Undefinable is not the same as zero.

Good luck explaining that.

 

[RandFan]

Oh damn, I get it. I'm god dreaming. It's all so clear now and indisputable. Finally after all this time and all of those debates the truth has finally penetrated my brain like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius...

 

[Upchurch]

Been there, done that.

The error of this argument can be pinpointed here:

Indivisibility of a 4d object means that the object is the same throughout, so that there is no way to differentiate 'any part' of it from another.

Quickly, there are two primary errors, both definitional. The only "objects" that are currently thought to be "indivisible" are not what one might call conventional "objects". Photons/light waves, for example.

Argument from a position of ignorance. 'nuff said.



...and yet, I keep going.

The thing is, a universe without indivisible parts must - by logical default - be indefinite (unreal).

Ah, "logical default". What an eloquent way of saying, "I can't explain why, I just believe it to be so."


eta:

Informed responses please

 

[phildonnia]

If distance and time are meaningless within an indivisible entity, then distance and time are meaningless within a gathering of such entities...

...well, obviously. Analagously, letters of the alphabet are essentially meaningless, so any "gathering" of them must also be meaningless. Some more than others, if you catch my drift.

 

[Beerina]

The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things.
Why?
... Indivisibility of a 4d object

Why is it indivisible? There's nothing special about a 4-dimensional object.

means that the object is the same throughout

Does not follow. Things that are homogenous (the same throughought) are not necessarily indivisible, nor are things that are indivisible necessarily homogeneous

so that there is no way to differentiate 'any part' of it from another.
Hence, there is zero distance of length and time within an indivisible entity.

Does not follow from the property of indivisibility.

You might want to discuss this further, since this realisation leads to this:

If distance and time are meaningless within an indivisible entity,

Not true, but let's see where this is going...

then distance and time are meaningless within a gathering of such entities,

Does not follow. "a gathering of such entities" is, by definition, a bunch of divided items. You extend the (incorrect) property from one such thing to the interstices between several such things.

so that "The 4d universe cannot be comprised of multiple indivisible parts/things."

Does not follow. You assume multiple identically homogenous entities are, as a group, indivisible and therefore also without any distance or time measurement internal to them (presumably as a group.)

You then conclude that the entirety of the 4D universe is therefore comprised of such things, and therefore is not divisible, nor, presumably, extant in distance or time.

Yet nowhere have you demonstrated all 4d is comprised of the same, homogenous entities, which is necessary for your idea to even have a remote chance of success.

Now, this might not [yet] seem so significant. However, the absence of definite parts within the universe,

Presumably you are referring to distinguishible parts, as opposed to your multiple entities, each of identical homogenaity. You have not addressed this absence, just used a tortured logic to claim its existence (the absence of distinguishible units).

means that the universe itself cannot be definite.

Not sure what that means, even if your train of logic up to this point is true.

The thing is, a universe without indivisible parts must - by logical default - be indefinite (unreal).

Indefinite is unreal? So the universe doesn't exist?

Intelligent responses please.

Have at it.

 

[lifegazer]

The only "objects" that are currently thought to be "indivisible" are not what one might call conventional "objects". Photons/light waves, for example.

Argument from a position of ignorance. 'nuff said.

How silly. There are no scientific responses to metaphysical enquiry.
Science knows nothing about the actual reality of anything, least of all 'photons'.
And what it knows about the order inherent within experience, is very limited.

Nuff said.

 

[lifegazer]

Aah, after a couple of rereadings I see that you are equating "indivisible" with "definite".

The two are not the same and cannot be equated.

For instance, the computer sitting on my desk is "definite".

Go away. After all this time lingering about in my threads, you blurt out that the computer on your desk is 'definite'. I give up.

 

[Z]

Typical. Faced with actual content that damages his theories, he resorts to attacking minor quibbles of his own.

You should give up, Dar. After all, your theories are irrelevant anyway.