Indivisibility

[lifegazer]

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.

You cannot use human ignorance as the basis for declaring sensed-things as real.
You cannot use human ignorance as the basis for declaring sensed-things as existing externally to awareness (externally to the observer).

You continue to do so, which kinda highlights your inability to reason.

 

[Z]

No, LG, I'm demonstrating the need for clarity in definition.

I'm demonstrating that reality is generally defined as that which causes the sensations which we have within our sensed-awareness. There are reasons why we consider this definition of reality to be valid. To define reality as something else requires a re-definition of the terms involved.

 

[lifegazer]

LG,

You're taking this too seriously I think.

Really? I don't suppose 'reality' is important to you. Nor do I suppose that the repercussions for humanity in regards 'reality' are important to you. But it is to the world - whether the world realises it or not. Which is why it's important to me.

What exactly do you mean by "sensed things?"

You have sensations... from the sensations comes the awareness of "things". Hence: sensed-things.

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

There is no way to experience the reality of an object since all experience is through sensation: colour; sound; pain; sweet; cold; etc. etc..

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

Reality: That thing or things which definitely exist in themselves and are not mere perceptions generated through abstract sensation.

 

[lifegazer]

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

Actually, they were conceptualised coordinates refering to a pair of conceptualised shapes.
I have asked that somebody should describe a definite event (something which really might happen). Nobody has done so because anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that real events require real "things" for those events to occur.

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

Give over - coordinates are a piece of cake.

 

[Upchurch]

What event does this signify?

the place/moment that occurs at (0, 0, 0, 0).

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.

Heh. They're just names, lifegazer. The are called "cylindrical" and "spherical" because it is in those coordinate systems that those objects are most easily defined. It would be analogous, I suppose, to calling cartesian coordiantes "cubal". The coordinate system is in no way dependent on the objects for which they are named.

added: A better anaology is the system that uses things like "inches" and "miles" is called "english". The "english" system is in no way dependent on England. Neither are spherical coordinates dependent on spheres.

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.

Au contrair. It seems that your education into the world around must continue. From here:

The "spacetime manifold" is the smooth, continuous domain of the field. This means that spatial and time coordinates are inter-related, and that the field is a function of these coordinates. A point on the manifold is a spacetime "event", and the distance between two events on the manifold is the spacetime "interval". The interval may be "timelike", "spacelike" or "null", corresponding to whether the interval is negative, positive or zero. Practically, this means that any two events which are separated by a timelike or null interval may influence each other, since something travelling less than or at the speed of light can connect them.

It you are going to use "sensed world" arguments, learn to use them correctly.

Or don't. It's actually more amusing when you don't.

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

Fortunately, I did no such thing. Your statement is incorrect.

 

[Upchurch]

... real events require real "things" for those events to occur.

Proof of this claim?

 

[Z]

Really? I don't suppose 'reality' is important to you. Nor do I suppose that the repercussions for humanity in regards 'reality' are important to you. But it is to the world - whether the world realises it or not. Which is why it's important to me.

You have sensations... from the sensations comes the awareness of "things". Hence: sensed-things.

There is no way to experience the reality of an object since all experience is through sensation: colour; sound; pain; sweet; cold; etc. etc..

Reality: That thing or things which definitely exist in themselves and are not mere perceptions generated through abstract sensation.

Well, I'd agree with the last statement - which makes it good that we have non-abstract sensations, yes?

LG - abstract means 'not representing a specific instance'. If I have a sensation of the coffee in my mug, that is a concrete, specific sensation of a real object. If, however, I somehow have an abstract sensation of 'coffee', well, I don't see how I could have such a sensation outside of thought. How do you have a non-representational perception? Basically, you don't - unless you deny the external reality of things.

See - you are starting with your philosophical end and trying to argue backwards to verify it.

Reality is both that which we perceive, and the source of those perceptions. IT is both the sensed-awarenesses that we are enmeshed in, and the causes of those sensed-things.

 

[lifegazer]

the place/moment that occurs at (0, 0, 0, 0).

So, at a specific point in space at a specific time... what occurs?

Heh. They're just names, lifegazer. The are called "cylindrical" and "spherical" because it is in those coordinate systems that those objects are most easily defined. It would be analogous, I suppose, to calling cartesian coordiantes "cubal". The coordinate system is in no way dependent on the objects for which they are named.

What does conceptual mathematics have to do with real events? Really?

Au contrair. It seems that your education into the world around must continue. From here:It you are going to use "sensed world" arguments, learn to use them correctly.

What does any of this tell us about real events?

And did you notice the bottom part of that paragraph? :-
Practically, this means that any two events which are separated by a timelike or null interval may influence each other, since something travelling less than or at the speed of light can connect them.

... Notice how the definitions are all tied-up with the existence of things other than spacetime?

 

[Anders]

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:-

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

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?

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

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.

Handwaving, worthless handwaving.

 

[Upchurch]

So, at a specific point in space at a specific time... what occurs?

An event, whether or not you attach any significance (or insignificance) to the event is up to you, but still, an event occurs. The point is, I was able to define one (three actually) without any reference to a "thing".

What does conceptual mathematics have to do with real events? Really?

What do you mean by "real"? Your make believe fantasy world? Probably not much.

And did you notice the bottom part of that paragraph? :-
Practically, this means that any two events which are separated by a timelike or null interval may influence each other, since something travelling less than or at the speed of light can connect them.

... Notice how the definitions are all tied-up with the existence of things other than spacetime?

You'll further notice that the definition is not dependent on the existance of things. Or distance, for that matter as two events can be seperated by a null interval. The only reference to a "thing" was in regards to influence. Nice try, but you didn't read closely enough.

 

[H'ethetheth]

So, at a specific point in space at a specific time... what occurs?

What does conceptual mathematics have to do with real events? Really?

What does any of this tell us about real events?

And did you notice the bottom part of that paragraph? :-
Practically, this means that any two events which are separated by a timelike or null interval may influence each other, since something travelling less than or at the speed of light can connect them.

... Notice how the definitions are all tied-up with the existence of things other than spacetime?

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.

 

[lifegazer]

An event, whether or not you attach any significance (or insignificance) to the event is up to you, but still, an event occurs. The point is, I was able to define one (three actually) without any reference to a "thing".

Upchurch squire, the mathematical definition of a conceptual point within conceptual spacetime as an 'event' in no way proves that real events (read as 'occurances') can occur without real "things"... or even that real [smooth] spacetime can exist by itself.

What does space mean without relation to things? What does time mean without relation to things?
We discern of time relative to the motion/action of perceived bodies. We fathom distance relative to the sensed-space which exists between perceived bodies.

 

[Upchurch]

You have yet to define what exactly you mean by "real". When you refer to "real" are you only refering to the scenerio presented by your philosophy? Is that the only thing you accept as "real"?

 

[lifegazer]

You have yet to define what exactly you mean by "real". When you refer to "real" are you only refering to the scenerio presented by your philosophy? Is that the only thing you accept as "real"?

Most people think that what we sense is an internal representation of what actually exists. For example, if we sense a rock, then a real rock exists externally to our awareness of it.
What is this 'real rock' made of?
It cannot be nothing.
It cannot be formless.
It cannot be substanceless.

Hence, it becomes subject to the argument I made in my OP.

You seem to want to have, or support, an external reality full of things separated by space and time. Yet to give these things definite form subjects them to my argument. So now you're looking for alternative explanations - a reality of things with no definitely real existence??
It's impossible upchurch. A bizarre form of reasoning brought-about by our limited understanding of quantum-physics.
Yet I have had to remind you that all physics is the study of those things that can be sensed - including QM.

QM is easily explainable when one realises that 'awareness' is truly non-spatial... and when one realises that the fundamental-energy giving-rise to the sense of things emanates from a source which has absolute free-will (since an entity with absolute free-will is ultimately non-determinable.).

If you want your external reality of "things" separated by space & time, then you need to support the fact that those "things" are 'out there' and definitely exist. Otherwise, there's nothing out there for you to believe in.

 

[RussDill]

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.

So far, science has gone a long way towards saving the world. Just look at life expectancy, the stamping out of disease, and the hope that maybe one day, when the "big one" comes, we may actually be able to do something about it. (unlike the dinosaurs)

 

[Dr Adequate]

Really? I don't suppose 'reality' is important to you. Nor do I suppose that the repercussions for humanity in regards 'reality' are important to you. But it is to the world - whether the world realises it or not. Which is why it's important to me.

I love it when they get grandiose. But try a little paranoia as well, lifegazer. They go so well together.

 

[RussDill]

Most people think that what we sense is an internal representation of what actually exists. For example, if we sense a rock, then a real rock exists externally to our awareness of it.
What is this 'real rock' made of?
It cannot be nothing.
It cannot be formless.
It cannot be substanceless.

Hence, it becomes subject to the argument I made in my OP.

It is made up of matter. The concepts and properties of matter seem to elude you.

You seem to want to have, or support, an external reality full of things separated by space and time.

Matter and energy exist as a part of spacetime. There is no matter or energy without spacetime, and there is no spacetime with out at least energy. And while an external reality cannot be absolutely proven, it also cannot be disproven. Even in your philosophy, you have this external reality where the laws of physics play out. Your book that the great mind opens to the right page whenever we perceive something. This book is your external reality, within this book, the laws of physics play out. You've only added to the complexity, it is entirely possible that the whole of existence could be the book alone where the laws of physics play out, and we could be part of that book. But you have added the "Mind" which controls and observes the contents of the book, which if you purport exists, you must show that, otherwise, its just the book.

Yet to give these things definite form subjects them to my argument.

Your argument does not apply to our reality, our laws of physics as we understand them. You are looking to create a hole, a logical inconsistency, in the way we understand reality. If you can do so, great, more power to you, go right ahead, however, you have failed to point out such a logical inconsistency, nor shown how even if you were to point out such a logical inconsistency, how the defacto answer would be the "mind".

The problems you have been pointing out have driven mankind batty for about 2400 years. QM is very elegant, and not only solves the paradoxes you point out, but is a *excellent* predictive model.

So now you're looking for alternative explanations - a reality of things with no definitely real existence??
It's impossible upchurch. A bizarre form of reasoning brought-about by our limited understanding of quantum-physics.

Yes, we did have to find an alternative explanation to existence then the atom of the ancients. The questions you ask are brought-about by your limited understanding of quantum physics.

Yet I have had to remind you that all physics is the study of those things that can be sensed - including QM.

Cop out. You cannot point to a true logical inconsistency, so you say that even if you can't plug a god into the gaps between understanding, he exists anyway.

QM is easily explainable when one realises that 'awareness' is truly non-spatial... and when one realises that the fundamental-energy giving-rise to the sense of things emanates from a source which has absolute free-will (since an entity with absolute free-will is ultimately non-determinable.).

Not only does that not adequately explain QM, it contridicts QM. QM relies completely on spacetime and its interaction with matter and energy. QM is not only 100% random (is free-will merely random?), but the probability at which the events occured can be predicted with absolute certainty. Unless you are saying that the probability at which someone will choose various options can be predicted with absolute certaintly, you have no standing.

If you want your external reality of "things" separated by space & time, then you need to support the fact that those "things" are 'out there' and definitely exist. Otherwise, there's nothing out there for you to believe in.

Guess what, I don't want my reality of things to be seperated by space time, I don't want reality to be anything, I'd rather study it and determine the truth.

Add to that, QM doesn't describe a reality of things seperated by spacetime, plato describes such a reality, QM does not.

[edited to fix tags]

 

[Upchurch]

Most people think that what we sense is an internal representation of what actually exists. For example, if we sense a rock, then a real rock exists externally to our awareness of it.
What is this 'real rock' made of?
It cannot be nothing.
It cannot be formless.
It cannot be substanceless.

Hence, it becomes subject to the argument I made in my OP.

You seem to want to have, or support, an external reality full of things separated by space and time. Yet to give these things definite form subjects them to my argument. So now you're looking for alternative explanations - a reality of things with no definitely real existence??
It's impossible upchurch. A bizarre form of reasoning brought-about by our limited understanding of quantum-physics.
Yet I have had to remind you that all physics is the study of those things that can be sensed - including QM.

QM is easily explainable when one realises that 'awareness' is truly non-spatial... and when one realises that the fundamental-energy giving-rise to the sense of things emanates from a source which has absolute free-will (since an entity with absolute free-will is ultimately non-determinable.).

If you want your external reality of "things" separated by space & time, then you need to support the fact that those "things" are 'out there' and definitely exist. Otherwise, there's nothing out there for you to believe in.

None of this defines what you mean by the word "real" as used in such phrases as "the mathematical definition of a conceptual point within conceptual spacetime as an 'event' in no way proves that real events (read as 'occurances') can occur without real "things"... "

However, let me help you in your general education. Methematics is actually a language, like English or Spanish or German. To be precise, it is a descriptive langauge whose primary purpose is describing the world around us. Whether or not you choose to believe that world exists, when you ask me to describe an event, the only proper and unambiguous language that can be done in is in mathematics. If you find that to be too conceptual for you to digest, English will only be more so since it can only accomplish a description through comparison and analogy, which is less percise and more error-prone.

So, even if you only consider the real world to be merely a "sensed" world, if you are going to ask about "sensed" events like events, you're going to have to accept an answer given within the language of the "sensed" world. To turn the challenge around, I defy you to define an event without relying on "sensed" world concepts.

 

[lifegazer]

None of this defines what you mean by the word "real" as used in such phrases as "the mathematical definition of a conceptual point within conceptual spacetime as an 'event' in no way proves that real events (read as 'occurances') can occur without real "things"... "

You don't understand the distinction between the illusion of a thing and the reality of a thing?
If we are considering the reality of a rock made of matter, then we are considering the concrete reality of matter itself, having true extension of being in 4 dimensions... as opposed to just the sense of it so.

However, let me help you in your general education. Methematics is actually a language, like English or Spanish or German.

Yes.

To be precise, it is a descriptive langauge whose primary purpose is describing the world around us.

Yes, but let's not forget that mathematics (numbers and concepts) don't necessarily relate to the sensed-world or the possible existence of a real world.
The concepts of pi and perfect shapes and infinity and nothing, for example, spring to mind. And what about the math of string theories? Now there's a prime example, if ever I saw one, of what math can do or attempt to do regardless of reality. Hell, you can even invent dimensions of existence if you want.

Whether or not you choose to believe that world exists, when you ask me to describe an event, the only proper and unambiguous language that can be done in is in mathematics.

Your problem - which you still haven't acknowledged - is that you constantly want to apply conceptual mathematics to the philosophical possibility of a specific reality.
Example: I ask you to define an event that can really happen in spacetime without a "thing" and you tell me that mathetical points (concepts with no substance) in spacetime are ~defined~ as events, therefore you have somehow answered my question. Not.

To turn the challenge around, I defy you to define an event without relying on "sensed" world concepts.

I'm not the one saying that "things" have existence beyond my sense of them.
Ironic that it is you and your skeptic pals who believe in a reality of "things" beyond your sense of one, yet I am left with the burden of defining this external reality for you! LOL

What do you claim exists "out there"?!!!!!!
Answer that. Maybe then we can get somewhere.

How can you believe in an external reality when you don't even know what it is that you believe in?
Bizarre really.

 

[Z]

That's too easy, LG - matter, energy, and spacetime exist 'out there' - as well as 'in here'.

That's the nature of reality, as far as I'm concerned. There's something deeper, sure, but it doesn't concern me. I don't care about muons, hyperstrings, particle-waves, etc... it's enough that I know, consistantly, that if I reach for the flame I can be burned; that if I need light I can flip a switch and get it; that if I need electricity to power something I can find it. It's enough for me to know how the material world works on my level - I don't need to go manipulating quarks and spinning gravitons to deal with reality. I certainly don't need to do so to bother with Deity.

You don't believe it's out there? Fine - so what? What the hell does it matter, whether reality is all a sensed-illusion or not? You cannot escape this reality; you cannot change the nature of this reality through philosophy and reason. You certainly aren't going to convince anyone, anyone at all, that you're right, seeing as you are painfully and woefully ignorant about the one reality we CAN verify and sense. In short order, you're a fool, with a fool's idea, no means to convert anyone, no desire to learn about the world around you, and nothing to offer anyone except mindless solipsism.

You are caught in this Matrix, LG - and there is absolutely no escape.

So... how does your 'philosophy' intend to deal with that?