Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 JREF Forum Indivisibility

Notices

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 Tags indivisibility

 1st November 2004, 01:48 PM #1 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Indivisibility 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.
 1st November 2004, 01:57 PM #2 toddjh Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,252 Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer 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. You just lost me. Why not? Spatial separation of multiple "singular entities" is not the same as dividing a single "singular entity." Jeremy
 1st November 2004, 02:02 PM #3 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317 Are you trying to argue that strings must be zero-dimensional? __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 1st November 2004, 02:14 PM #4 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by Wudang Are you trying to argue that strings must be zero-dimensional? What strings? String-theory is just that: "a theory"... an incomplete one at that. My conclusion is clear. If you find fault in the preceding reasoning, then address that reasoning.
 1st November 2004, 02:16 PM #5 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317 Don't need to, Schrodinger beat me to it. __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 1st November 2004, 02:21 PM #6 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by Wudang Don't need to, Schrodinger beat me to it. Howso?
 1st November 2004, 02:23 PM #7 Beleth FAQ Creator     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,134 You are applying the same words to two different concepts. You are using the same words to describe what can best be described as "the set of all 4-dimensional entities" as you are using to describe the 4-dimensional entities themselves. The set of all 4-dimensional entities may itself be absolutely singular in that there (by definition) is no entity outside it, but that doesn't mean the entities inside it are themselves singular. Here's an example. Take the set of all odd numbers. {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, ... } The set itself is infinite, but it doesn't make any sense (in fact, it's erroneous) to call any particular member of the set "infinite". Likewise, each member of the set is odd, but it doesn't make any sense to call the set itself "odd". Just because the set exhibits a certain property (in your case, "indivisible") doesn't mean that each member of the set, or indeed subsets of the set, exhibit the same property. __________________ Administrator and Head Moderator, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne I will come back only after the words "Hi, Nyarl!" are returned to the post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=14 .
 1st November 2004, 02:27 PM #8 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317 Well for a kick off, there are no "singular" things as you abuse the word (which actually means something that stands out from its background). Try this __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 1st November 2004, 02:32 PM #9 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by Wudang Well for a kick off, there are no "singular" things as you abuse the word (which actually means something that stands out from its background). Try this Your method for refuting my argument is to avoid that argument and talk about something else altogether. Noted. Regardless, if there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating.
 1st November 2004, 02:33 PM #10 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by Beleth The set of all 4-dimensional entities may itself be absolutely singular in that there (by definition) is no entity outside it, but that doesn't mean the entities inside it are themselves singular. Same reply as previous: If there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating.
 1st November 2004, 02:46 PM #11 Michael Redman Illuminator   Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer [any] theory is just that: "a theory"... Sure sign of misunderstanding. __________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain
 1st November 2004, 02:50 PM #12 Anathema Muse     Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 672 If LG can prove an absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible, will that mean liberty and justice for all? __________________ "The language and concepts contained herein are guaranteed not to cause eternal torment in the place where the guy with the horns and pointed stick conducts his business." -- Frank Zappa "Seatbelts. They help keep you not dead." -- LostAngeles "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" -- Matthew 26:52 (King James Version)
 1st November 2004, 02:51 PM #13 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Your method for refuting my argument is to avoid that argument and talk about something else altogether. Noted. Ah, so you didn't read about Schrodinger then? Quote: Regardless, if there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating. Do you mean "singular" in the sense of that word in the english language or in your own private lifegazer-speak? If the former, then I refer you again to the esteemed Schrodinger as a starting point (well, perhaps not a point). If the latter, then guessing at what you mean, I would hazard that they are separating space-time events. __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 1st November 2004, 02:59 PM #14 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by Wudang If the former, then I refer you again to the esteemed Schrodinger as a starting point (well, perhaps not a point). Just answer the questions. You're beginning to sound like a politician. Correction - you are like a politician. You'll score no points in this debate unless you make clear comments. Quote: If the latter, then guessing at what you mean, I would hazard that they are separating space-time events. Events of what? Wake-up call: If there are no "things", then there is no spacetime separating those things = there are no events (of things) in spacetime. Put your science book to one side. Incomplete theories are useless in refuting the argument I have presented. Please address that argument directly.
 1st November 2004, 03:08 PM #15 Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay     Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029 You're using multiple definitions of division. Apparently, you are using definitions of division to mean both "breaking down" and "having spatial boundaries". Its very possible to break down a rock into its finest 4D parts and still rightfully call each part indivisible, it would merely amount to singular existence through space and time.
 1st November 2004, 03:14 PM #16 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Just answer the questions. You're beginning to sound like a politician. Correction - you are like a politician. You'll score no points in this debate unless you make clear comments. Are clear as you are about whether you're speaking the english language or lifegazer-speak? I shall assume that you are using words as defined in the Oxford dictionary, okay? Quote: Events of what? Events of space-time, I thought I said. Quote: Wake-up call: If there are no "things", then there is no spacetime separating those things = there are no events (of things) in spacetime. I can just as easily say that if there are no "things" then is no Mind separating these things. Statements are not argument. Quote: Put your science book to one side. Incomplete theories are useless in refuting the argument I have presented. Please address that argument directly. Well your argument isn't exactly complete. It begs the question of what a "singular entity" is. Since a "singular" thing is something which stands out from its background then an absolutely singular thing must be something that absolutely stands out from its background - is it still part of its background then? If the background is space-time then how can something be absolutely singular (which is frankly still poorly defined) ? __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 1st November 2004, 03:14 PM #17 epepke Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953 Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer 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. That's nice. Given 2000 years, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with the Standard Model.
 1st November 2004, 03:21 PM #18 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317 Re: Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by epepke That's nice. Given 2000 years, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with the Standard Model. Actually, since Leucippus was around 420 BC, he might need a bit longer. __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 1st November 2004, 03:22 PM #19 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by Yahweh it would merely amount to singular existence through space and time. If no space exists between something (as it cannot in the case of an indivisible thing), then you cannot say that any two points within that thing are separated by space. As such, you cannot even say that "two separate points" exist. What is there to separate two different points in an entity exhibiting absolute sameness? You need to think beyond your conceptualisations of space.
 1st November 2004, 03:30 PM #20 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by Wudang Events of space-time, I thought I said. You cannot even define space or time without "things" to relate those concepts to!!! Without "things", space and time are defineless. There can be no events without "things". You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself. I'll ask you one more time: If there are no "things", then what does space and time separate? If I were you, I'd just exhibit some sincerity and concede to this point.
 1st November 2004, 03:31 PM #21 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Re: Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by epepke That's nice. Given 2000 years, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with the Standard Model. Does this somehow parade as a refutation to my argument?
 1st November 2004, 03:37 PM #22 Ratman_tf Graduate Poster   Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,002 Lifegazer, I never understood your need to rely on the Real World in order to disprove the objective existence of the Real World. It seems to me that you'd be better off attacking this from the angle of why god generates rocks and atoms and us in the first place, otherwise, you're just speculating on things that don't really exist. __________________ "In the end, I was so decent, I stopped being a Christian altogether!" -Ruby --- "God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man." -Nanrei Kobori
 1st November 2004, 03:43 PM #23 epepke Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953 Re: Re: Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Does this somehow parade as a refutation to my argument? No. Your argument is incoherent and relies on semantic sloppiness. This has been pointed out to you. As far as I'm concerned, it needs no refutation. I'm just making fun of you.
 1st November 2004, 03:43 PM #24 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer If no space exists between something (as it cannot in the case of an indivisible thing), then you cannot say that any two points within that thing are separated by space. As such, you cannot even say that "two separate points" exist. What is there to separate two different points in an entity exhibiting absolute sameness? You need to think beyond your conceptualisations of space. Apparently I also need to think beyond my conceptalisations of grammar. "no space exists between something"? Okay, what's the difference between a duck? __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 1st November 2004, 03:43 PM #25 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by Ratman_tf Lifegazer, I never understood your need to rely on the Real World in order to disprove the objective existence of the Real World. 99.99% of the people I talk to have a blind and unshakable-faith in the "real world". I have to break that faith - it seems - before anyone will even begin to listen to me. Quote: It seems to me that you'd be better off attacking this from the angle of why god generates rocks and atoms and us in the first place, otherwise, you're just speculating on things that don't really exist. Well if they "don't really exist", I shouldn't have a need to convince you of the existence of God. My argument has been presented. If you find a flaw, then discuss.
 1st November 2004, 03:44 PM #26 Upchurch Papa Funkosophy     Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,473 Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity. Well, here's your first problem: After a certain point, it wouldn't be correct to call the think you're dividing a "particle" anymore. That term would be too simplistic and inaccurate for what you would end up with (even before it became necessarily "indivisible", if ever). Quote: 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. Maybe I missed the explanation, but whaaaaa....? How does infinitely divisible objects lead to the conclusion that there are no singular finite objects? Or maybe a better question is, what are you defining as "singular finite objects"? Quote: Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). Here's your second problem. Spacetime isn't just what exists between objects. Objects exist in spacetime. That is, there is also spacetime were objects are currently at as well as between them and other objects. Again, a rather simplistic and inaccurate take. However, even if this view were correct, all one could say is that there is no spacetime at the indivisible objects, not that there is no spacetime. To make that argument, you would have to try to argue that there is only one indivisible object and that can hardly be the case since all macroscopic objects are divisible, meaning they are made of many divisible objects. Quote: 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. This, of course, is made double-moot given the poor understanding of both "indivisible objects" and "spacetime". Quote: 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. I don't see how it follows, but it is moot as absolutely indivisible entities are not spaceless or timeless. You really should avoid attempting these physical arguments until you learn more about physics. You're just no good at them. edited for spelling
 1st November 2004, 03:47 PM #27 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Re: Re: Re: Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by epepke No. Your argument is incoherent and relies on semantic sloppiness. This has been pointed out to you. As far as I'm concerned, it needs no refutation. I'm just making fun of you. Denial. The last retreat of the lame. If you think my argument is incoherent, I would suggest you join the kiddies club in yahoo and talk about cartoons. In other words, say something worthwhile or get lost.
 1st November 2004, 03:47 PM #28 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer You cannot even define space or time without "things" to relate those concepts to!!! Without "things", space and time are defineless. There can be no events without "things". You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself. I'll ask you one more time: If there are no "things", then what does space and time separate? If I were you, I'd just exhibit some sincerity and concede to this point. "defineless"? Actually, your problem is that you can't define space or time without "things" to relate them to, I understand spacetime as a metric. You seem to be thinking of it as some form of aether or something equally outdated. Is spacetime a "thing" in your native language? __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 1st November 2004, 03:53 PM #29 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by Wudang "defineless"? Actually, your problem is that you can't define space or time without "things" to relate them to, I understand spacetime as a metric. If you lack the intelligence to understand that values of space and time are defined in relation to and between "things", then it's pointless talking to you. Take every-thing out of the universe and then try to define an event. It's impossible.
 1st November 2004, 03:55 PM #30 Upchurch Papa Funkosophy     Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,473 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer 99.99% of the people I talk to have a blind and unshakable-faith in the "real world". I have to break that faith - it seems - before anyone will even begin to listen to me. uh-huh. And how are you going to do that without understanding the "real world" in the first place? Quote: My argument has been presented. If you find a flaw, then discuss. Done and done.
 1st November 2004, 03:59 PM #31 Wudang BOFH     Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer If you lack the intelligence to understand that values of space and time are defined in relation to and between "things", then it's pointless talking to you. Take every-thing out of the universe and then try to define an event. It's impossible. I repeat for the hard-of-thinking "spacetime", "metric". I don't think people who describe something as "defineless" should be criticising others intelligence, to be frank. __________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
 1st November 2004, 04:00 PM #32 Upchurch Papa Funkosophy     Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,473 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer If you lack the intelligence to understand that values of space and time are defined in relation to and between "things", then it's pointless talking to you. Uh.... lifegazer? That isn't how spacetime is defined. You seem to be the only one who defines it that way and you will have to admit that when it comes to things like relativity, you are woefully uninformed. Remember all those discussions we've had on the subject, some of which you had to conceed that you didn't understand? This is one of those times. Quote: Take every-thing out of the universe and then try to define an event. It's impossible. Actually, it is possible. It would just be smooth.
 1st November 2004, 04:05 PM #33 c4ts Philosopher     Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427 Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer 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. 11 dimensional reality hypothesized. All you have to do is find a nonvanishing harmonic spinor. __________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.
 1st November 2004, 04:21 PM #34 epepke Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Denial. The last retreat of the lame. If you think my argument is incoherent, I would suggest you join the kiddies club in yahoo and talk about cartoons. In other words, say something worthwhile or get lost. [/b][/quote] Woohoo! A put-down by lifegazer. Now I can die happy. You constantly present things that you apparently consider arguments, based on a rather simple idee fixe. You use words that you only half-understand to describe concepts that you don't seem to understand at all. You provide a valuable service to this forum because you show us what can happen to a mind that otherwise might be put to some use.
 1st November 2004, 04:44 PM #35 Z D.D.D.     Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166 Re: Indivisibility Ahhhh.... I see that LG has snuck away from yet another thread to start a new, equally invalid thread... Someone ought to maintain a running index of every thread he abandons, and the exact conditions of his arguments at the end of said threads. Welll.... let's see what Mr. Woefully Ignorant has to say tonight: Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer 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. Problem: Divide a rock - you now have two half-rocks. Divide again - more parts. What you perhaps wish to say is, divide the rock and discard half until you are left with just one particle. Problem 2: Define 'absolutely singular'. As I understand it, an absolutely singular entity is any one entity. Period. Which means, you have one rock - well, that's an absolutely singular entity. So what do you mean, an absolutely singular entity? Perhaps you are asking us to divide the components until you have an indivisible entity... in which case, we can only theorize, at this point, as to the existence of an 'absolutely indivisible' entity. Oh, we'd like to assume that there is some point at which we can no longer split things - doesn't that have something to do with Planck's constant, or something? - and we've even gone and classified some particles as being 'indivisible'. Muons, neutrinos, bosons, etc. If you really are interested in the theory of 'indivisible entities', then you need to spend quite a while studying quantum theory. Quote: 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. In other words, space-time cannot divide an absolutely indivisible entity - well, of course it cannot 'divide' it. But properties of said entities can certainly be 'defined' by space-time. Quote: Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless. Study quantum theory for a while. As I understand it, indivisible entities are not, in fact, spaceless nor timeless. Quote: 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. Meaningless conclusion, since we have not proven that an individual entity is spaceless or timeless. Further, just because an entity may itself be less than 4-dimensional does not indicate that it cannot exist in 4 or more dimensional space. Quote: In a nutshell: no "singular thing" can truly exist as a 4-dimensional entity = there is no 4-dimensional reality. Nutshell - good analogy. IN fact: no matter what 'singular things' exist, if there exist any two things, then space-time must exist. By space-time I mean some form of multi-dimensional reality. If you have only one, singular, unchanging thing, then spacetime is meaningless. But the moment you add another, you define space - specifically, a distance between two things. Add a third, and you may very well invoke two more dimensions. Plus, the very act of adding a thing invokes time. Now - in proper reasoning, if you come to a conclusion that is clearly wrong, you must re-think your reasoning. Clearly, the conclusion that 4-dimensional space cannot exist is wrong, ergo, your reasoning is faulty. Quote: 4-dimensional reality negated. NOT EVEN CLOSE. __________________ Merry Yarglemas!
 1st November 2004, 07:38 PM #36 monkboon Thinker     Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 186 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer You'll score no points in this debate unless you make clear comments. What's good for the goose, and all that. Quote: 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. Separate what? The singular entity from itself? Quote: Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless. You seem to be making a big jump to your conclusion here. Your definition of space-time says that it separates singular entities, but it says nothing of what space-time is relative to any one singular entity. I don't see how you've shown that singular entities occupy null space-time. Show your work. Are you still trying to convince me that I'm God? I'm not buying it. If I were God, I could have gotten out of that speeding ticket 12 years ago, and that I certainly did not. __________________ "Are we halfway there yet?" -- Zeno as a child I never cared much for astrology, but then I'm an Aries, and we're just naturally skeptical.
 2nd November 2004, 01:41 PM #37 RussDill Illuminator   Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,348 Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer 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. Thats great, but your entire argument was founded on the divisibility of objects. The property of divisibility/non-divisibility, etc, applies to objects. Space/time is not an object, and divisibility or non-divisibility is not a property that can be assigned to space/time. __________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep
 2nd November 2004, 01:43 PM #38 RussDill Illuminator   Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,348 Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Wake-up call: If there are no "things", then there is no spacetime separating those things = there are no events (of things) in spacetime. Put your science book to one side. Incomplete theories are useless in refuting the argument I have presented. Please address that argument directly. He is pointing out that particles are probability curves, and the probability curve of a single particle can be divided as many times as you want. Take a photon passing through the silvered mirror, until it reacts with another particle, half the probability curve is on one side of the mirror, half is on the other side. __________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep
 2nd November 2004, 01:44 PM #39 RussDill Illuminator   Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,348 Re: Re: Re: Indivisibility Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Does this somehow parade as a refutation to my argument? Its funny, laugh. __________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep
 2nd November 2004, 02:10 PM #40 lifegazer Philosopher   Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047 Quote: Originally posted by RussDill Thats great, but your entire argument was founded on the divisibility of objects. The property of divisibility/non-divisibility, etc, applies to objects. Space/time is not an object, and divisibility or non-divisibility is not a property that can be assigned to space/time. My argument did not include the divisibility of spacetime.

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit