The analysis has been one of matter itself.
Indivisible matter is devoid of space and time within itself.
Matter that is devoid of 4-d internal existence, can hardly be proclaimed as the essence of a 4-dimensional universe, can it?
Indivisibility and existence
- Thread starter lifegazer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- existence indivisibility
Indivisible matter is devoid of space and time within itself.
Matter that is devoid of 4-d internal existence, can hardly be proclaimed as the essence of a 4-dimensional universe, can it?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Unfortunately, neither does lifegazer.
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Well, for matter it's a little different. There's two possibilities:
Either matter occupies space, or it doesn't. If it does, and it is homogeneous, (which I wouldn't know), then still distance does have meaning, because different parts of the building block are at different locations. If it doesn't, then matter is still free to roam in 4-D space, just like any other point entitiy we could conceive of.
ETA:
In other words, the answer to your question is why couldn't it? If 0-D matter influences photons and other matter through forces, it wouldn't matter if it doesn't have dimensions itself. You would only notice the interactions we notice now.
Last edited:
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,329
May I see the proof? It sure isn't an argument from topology, that's for sure.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,329
At least two of us have given long-winded, point-by-point responses. The ball is now in your court to go point-by-point over those responses.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Done and you responded with a non sequitor. Ball is in your court.
You based your OP argument on a 4D spatial universe (real or not). If you don't know what you were talking about, not much we can do, is there?
Yes, once you abandoned your OP argument. Are we to ignore that now since it doesn't seem to be panning out for you?
Oh, back to the physical argument again. I do wish you'd make up your mind.
Yes, something that has open pockets of space within it is separable, but you were talking about indivisible objects, not separable objects. If you are talking about indivisible objects in a space, you're talking about (to the best of our current knowledge) funny little things called quarks. Their properties are very strange and I'm not entirely qualified to describe them in any authoritative way. However, I think you'll find that it is very difficult to describe the as objects that definitive extension in space.
Hyver
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Messages
- 149
lawlerskates....
no really, I give you the EXACT answer to your question and the only thing you have to say is that I'm "boring" you with "meaningless" calculus? You have a FUNDEMENTAL misunderstanding of the way in which indivisible, infinatly small units interact on a mass scale, and this misunderstanding is rooted in a lack of understanding of very basic calculus. The answer to your prblem is not some God-Mind-Universe, it's simple math. Simple math which you cannot be bothered with
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Mucking about in an apparant paradox that resolves itself by tightening one's definitions is not philosophy. It's what stoned college students do. "What if C A T actually spelled dog? Man, I am so baked right now."
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 862
Last edited:
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Welcome to 'gazerland!
lawlerskates....
no really, I give you the EXACT answer to your question and the only thing you have to say is that I'm "boring" you with "meaningless" calculus? You have a FUNDEMENTAL misunderstanding of the way in which indivisible, infinatly small units interact on a mass scale, and this misunderstanding is rooted in a lack of understanding of very basic calculus. The answer to your prblem is not some God-Mind-Universe, it's simple math. Simple math which you cannot be bothered with
The first part makes sense if you start with a four dimensional object of what ever shape in a four dimensional geometrical space. If absolutely indivisible means that you cannot divide the object in any way then through a process of casting off dividable points we can find the true indivisible object. As we chip away at the object removing every last point we arrive at a new object that contains no points at all. By then the object has no size in any dimension - even time if you will - and becomes a geometrical nonentity.
This resembles the argument about the infinitesimal. An infinitesimal defined as being the difference between 1.000...0 and 0.999...9, where the triple dots represents an infinite sequence of 0's and 9's respectively. Perform a little algebra and poof, the infinitesimal disappears and becomes a nonentity.
Can a nonentity form a universe? Not really. Can a collection of nonentities build a universe? Well no.
The second part does not follow the logic of the first part and therefore translates into a completely different system from our old geometrical model. If you metaphysically sectioned the object then you destroy the old object creating new different objects - the part of the entity on top, the part on the left, the part in the back, and the part in the past, and so on - each with a new name. Similarly your action of sectioning the object changes the metaphysical universe from one definite arrangement into a new different metaphysical universe with a different definite arrangement. (By sectioning I don't mean merely divide with minds eye with a dotted line, but actually cut the darn thing up.)
In the real world we see this all the time. Take a wheel apart and it breaks into hub, rim, and spokes. In the physical universe if you cut an electron with really sharp scissors it breaks into a series of other particles never into half an electron. (But what does the real world have to do with metaphysics anyway?)The first part makes sense if you start with a four dimensional object of what ever shape in a four dimensional geometrical space. If absolutely indivisible means that you cannot divide the object in any way then through a process of casting off dividable points we can find the true indivisible object. As we chip away at the object removing every last point we arrive at a new object that contains no points at all. By then the object has no size in any dimension - even time if you will - and becomes a geometrical nonentity.
This resembles the argument about the infinitesimal. An infinitesimal defined as being the difference between 1.000...0 and 0.999...9, where the triple dots represents an infinite sequence of 0's and 9's respectively. Perform a little algebra and poof, the infinitesimal disappears and becomes a nonentity.
Can a nonentity form a universe? Not really. Can a collection of nonentities build a universe? Well no.
The second part does not follow the logic of the first part and therefore translates into a completely different system from our old geometrical model. If you metaphysically sectioned the object then you destroy the old object creating new different objects - the part of the entity on top, the part on the left, the part in the back, and the part in the past, and so on - each with a new name. Similarly your action of sectioning the object changes the metaphysical universe from one definite arrangement into a new different metaphysical universe with a different definite arrangement. (By sectioning I don't mean merely divide with minds eye with a dotted line, but actually cut the darn thing up.)
In the real world we see this all the time. Take a wheel apart and it breaks into hub, rim, and spokes. In the physical universe if you cut an electron with really sharp scissors it breaks into a series of other particles never into half an electron. (But what does the real world have to do with metaphysics anyway?)
This resembles the argument about the infinitesimal. An infinitesimal defined as being the difference between 1.000...0 and 0.999...9, where the triple dots represents an infinite sequence of 0's and 9's respectively. Perform a little algebra and poof, the infinitesimal disappears and becomes a nonentity.
Can a nonentity form a universe? Not really. Can a collection of nonentities build a universe? Well no.
The second part does not follow the logic of the first part and therefore translates into a completely different system from our old geometrical model. If you metaphysically sectioned the object then you destroy the old object creating new different objects - the part of the entity on top, the part on the left, the part in the back, and the part in the past, and so on - each with a new name. Similarly your action of sectioning the object changes the metaphysical universe from one definite arrangement into a new different metaphysical universe with a different definite arrangement. (By sectioning I don't mean merely divide with minds eye with a dotted line, but actually cut the darn thing up.)
In the real world we see this all the time. Take a wheel apart and it breaks into hub, rim, and spokes. In the physical universe if you cut an electron with really sharp scissors it breaks into a series of other particles never into half an electron. (But what does the real world have to do with metaphysics anyway?)The first part makes sense if you start with a four dimensional object of what ever shape in a four dimensional geometrical space. If absolutely indivisible means that you cannot divide the object in any way then through a process of casting off dividable points we can find the true indivisible object. As we chip away at the object removing every last point we arrive at a new object that contains no points at all. By then the object has no size in any dimension - even time if you will - and becomes a geometrical nonentity.
This resembles the argument about the infinitesimal. An infinitesimal defined as being the difference between 1.000...0 and 0.999...9, where the triple dots represents an infinite sequence of 0's and 9's respectively. Perform a little algebra and poof, the infinitesimal disappears and becomes a nonentity.
Can a nonentity form a universe? Not really. Can a collection of nonentities build a universe? Well no.
The second part does not follow the logic of the first part and therefore translates into a completely different system from our old geometrical model. If you metaphysically sectioned the object then you destroy the old object creating new different objects - the part of the entity on top, the part on the left, the part in the back, and the part in the past, and so on - each with a new name. Similarly your action of sectioning the object changes the metaphysical universe from one definite arrangement into a new different metaphysical universe with a different definite arrangement. (By sectioning I don't mean merely divide with minds eye with a dotted line, but actually cut the darn thing up.)
In the real world we see this all the time. Take a wheel apart and it breaks into hub, rim, and spokes. In the physical universe if you cut an electron with really sharp scissors it breaks into a series of other particles never into half an electron. (But what does the real world have to do with metaphysics anyway?)
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
There are several things I think I would like to contribute, mostly because I'm quite completely drunk.Welcome to 'gazerland!
First of all, nescafe: That is probably the most elaborate smiley I've seen to date, and I hope you didn't design it yourself.
Hyver, unfortunately I feel uninhibited to tell you it's 'infinitely', not 'infinatly'. No disrespect intended. Feel free to correct any spelling errors on my part.
Lifegazer, start gazing at some useful stuff in your life.
You know I like you, but this topic has already passed, and it just doesn't work the way you would like it to work. A lot of this stuff just has to do with specific ways of thinking you can only learn by going through the steps that wiser men and women have gone through before us. Nobody expects you to invent the wheel again. It'd just be nice if you took notice of the things that are already known about the wheel, and about what it can, and cannot do.
Sleep well, I know I will.
I'll probably regret having said this in the morning, but you know what they say:...
What do they say again?
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 862
It is not as bad as the roflcopter
or one of the many varieties of the lollercoaster
.
(and no, I did not design them myself.
)
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Can anybody tell if when the LOL goes upside-down it stays LOL or turns into 707?
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
I can only imagine the quantities of spare time involved, though I appreciate the perseverance of the creator.and no, I did not design them myself.
It turns upside down.
Thanks for that - I really need to be staring at a sequence of computer generated characters at 1130 PM (after coming back from the pub) trying to resolve the LOL vs 707 quandry.
Actually - I was there for about 10 minutes trying to get my eyes in sequence with the rotation - didn't work though. What's the answer?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Thanks for that - I really need to be staring at a sequence of computer generated characters at 1130 PM (after coming back from the pub) trying to resolve the LOL vs 707 quandry.
Actually - I was there for about 10 minutes trying to get my eyes in sequence with the rotation - didn't work though. What's the answer?
H'ethetheth says it turns into 7O7
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator