Moderator: Flannel Jesus
Magnus Anderson wrote:"5" in "5 minutes" merely says that the period of time is composed of a finite number of things. It does not say that the period itself is finite.



The thing is that, if you say that "minute" is infinitely divisible, it logically follows it is an infinite thing (since only something composeod of an infinite number of things can be infinitely divisible i.e. be able to be divided into an infinite number of things.)
Magnus Anderson wrote:If an infinitely divisible period of time can be free from atomic (i.e. indivisible) parts, can you describe such a period of time? What is it composed of?
obsrvr524 wrote:Something being infinite merely means that it is endless. It is not a reference to size unless used as "infinitely large" or "infinitely small".
When we say "infinitely divisible"  we are saying that the process of dividing can be endless/infinite (if we choose to proceed)  it has nothing to do with the size of what is being divided or whether parts are involved at all.
Time is always merely relative. It isn't "composed" of anything. It is a measure of how fast one thing is changing relative to another  no parts  no particles  pieces  just comparison between two rates of change.
It isn't the physics  it is the language.
Magnus Anderson wrote:if the thing you're dividing is not composed of an infinite number of parts, then no such process can take place.[/quote (Of course, it can take place in one's imagination but that's not what we're talking about here.) Can you take a collection of 5 indivisible things and divide it / split it into an infinite number of equally sized nonzero parts? You can't, right?


I keep saying that (: And in English language, hours are composed of 60 minutes, minutes of 60 seconds, seconds of 1,000 milliseconds and so on. So when you say "Time isn't composed of anything", you're not speaking English language.
Magnus Anderson wrote:But if the thing you're dividing is not composed of an infinite number of parts, then no such process can take place.
Magnus Anderson wrote:They have to turn every highly abstract concept into something concrete. So time, according to them, is merely "what clocks show".
Magnus Anderson wrote:But if the thing you're dividing is not composed of an infinite number of parts, then no such process can take place.
obsrvr524 wrote:That is where I am sure your thinking has failed.
The universe CANNOT be composed of quanta parts (e.g. circles could not exist). And that means the substance of the universe must be infinitely divisible.
The existence of infinitely small portions of a substance does not mean that the substance is infinitely large in size.
An infinite (endless) quantity of an infinitely (endlessly) small substance can be (almost always is) a finite (not endless) clump of that substance.
Magnus Anderson wrote:How exactly can you take a thing that is not composed of an infinite number of parts and split it into an infinite number of parts?
Ichthus77 wrote:Prolly stupid question, but what does it mean for a circle to “exist”? Obsrvr… that a perfect circle cannot “exist” is no argument against (say) planck quanta.
Magnus Anderson wrote:The only problem is that if something isn't made out of indivisible elements, it's nothing at all.
Magnus Anderson wrote:I think you said earlier something along the lines of "1 / infinity = infinitesimal".
obsrvr524 wrote:If the substance you are talking about isn't made of parts there is no choice but for it to be infinitely divisible.
And if something IS made of parts  what lies between the parts?
You cannot fill space with any shaped part other than a cube. What happens when you go diagonally across a cube?  you get a fractional quantum cube distance. Space has to be filled by some kind of distance at any chosen angle or curve (regardless of what the substance might be) and you couldn't have fractions of quanta.
Angles and curves totally destroy the idea of quantumized distance.
Is that in the Bible? Where did you get that thought? What would the indivisible elements be made of?
Magnus Anderson wrote:And if something IS made of parts  what lies between the parts?
The answer to that question is "It depends". There is no universal answer because the answer depends on what kind of thing we're talking about. It depends on how it is defined. There may be something in between the parts (parts of other things or other parts of itself) but there may also be nothing at all.
Magnus Anderson wrote:You cannot fill space with any shaped part other than a cube. What happens when you go diagonally across a cube?  you get a fractional quantum cube distance. Space has to be filled by some kind of distance at any chosen angle or curve (regardless of what the substance might be) and you couldn't have fractions of quanta.
You seem to be talking about three dimensional space where each place within that space has no more and no less than 6 places that are immediately adjacent to it (or, in the case of infinitely divisible space, 6 places that are equally adjacent to it, given that there are no immediately adjacent points within infinitely divisible space.)
Magnus Anderson wrote:The kind of shape that can fill a single place within such a space is that of a cube. And the object that can fill it can be called "atomic cube".
Magnus Anderson wrote:An illusion of diagonal movement can be created by say making a sufficiently small step to the right, followed by a sufficiently small step upwards, followed by a sufficiently small step to the right and so on.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Is that in the Bible? Where did you get that thought? What would the indivisible elements be made of?
It's not in the Bible. It's in the Book of Logic.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sets must contain things that aren't merely subsets in order for them to be nonempty sets. An empty set, as you know, is nothing. If a set is made out of subsets, and there are no elements in it, then it's an empty set i.e. nothing at all.
obsrvr524 wrote:If distance is quantized  the entire universe must be made of quantum cube distances (regardless of what substance is involved). But a quantum "atomic cube" has a diagonal  a diagonal that is not of the quantum length but rather a fractional portion. Quantum existence does not allow for fractional quantum lengths (else it wouldn't be quantum).
You couldn't move but also the diagonals could not exist at all.
And if you did that  and each step was 1 quantum unit  what distance from origin would you have traveled? How many quanta straight distance from origin?  a fractional amount.
The universe doesn't care about sets. You are presupposing that everything is sets of parts in order to prove that everything is sets of parts.
Motor Daddy wrote:One is a QUANTITY. It is 1 shoe, or 1 house, or 1 day.
1 shoe is not made of 2 1/2 shoes, and at the same time 4 1/4 shoes, and at the same time 100 1/100 shoes.
What you are claiming is that 1 shoe is made up of anything you want it to be
obsrvr524 wrote:So do you believe that light traveling straight for 1 unit then reflected 90 degrees for 1 unit reaches it's destination at the same time as light traveling from the origin directly to that same end point?
And if the universe is made of cubic distances  which direction is straight UP?
Magnus Anderson wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:So do you believe that light traveling straight for 1 unit then reflected 90 degrees for 1 unit reaches it's destination at the same time as light traveling from the origin directly to that same end point?
If it is moving at the same speed, the asnwer is "No". And that's because the diagonal path is shorter than the other path. But how exactly is that relevant?
The point is that there are no diagonals within the type of space we've been talking about.
Magnus Anderson wrote:You can talk about a different type of space where diagonals do exist. For example, you can talk about a type of space where there is an additional direction of movement e.g. a topright direction of movement. In that sort of space, each place has 7 immediately (or equally) adjacent places: one in front of it, one behind it, one to the left of it, one to the right of it, one above it, one below it and one that is above and to the right of it. Assuming that we're talking about a finitely divisible space, the distance between any point within that space and its 7th neighbour (the one located above and to the right side of it) is equal to exactly one atomic length. No fractional part whatsoever.
Magnus Anderson wrote:And if the universe is made of cubic distances  which direction is straight UP?
What's UP and what's DOWN is an arbitrary choice  a matter of convention.
obsrvr524 wrote:It is relevant because your required zigzag path to achieve a diagonal direction is exactly the same length as the simple 1 unit right plus 1 unit up. Both paths are exactly 2 units in total length. So how is it that light could go diagonally faster than straight?
Absurd.
If you moved to that upright position then moved directly left  where would you be? You must exist at one of the specified points and can only move one of the specified units in one of the specified directions. But if you move upright 1 unit then left 1 unit  the point you would have to be at  doesn't exist. You would have to disappear.
Magnus Anderson wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:It is relevant because your required zigzag path to achieve a diagonal direction is exactly the same length as the simple 1 unit right plus 1 unit up. Both paths are exactly 2 units in total length. So how is it that light could go diagonally faster than straight?
You are not making your point clear. Yes, the zigzag path is exactly 2 units long. So what? There is no diagonal path, so nothing, not even light, can travel along it.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Absurd.
If you moved to that upright position then moved directly left  where would you be? You must exist at one of the specified points and can only move one of the specified units in one of the specified directions. But if you move upright 1 unit then left 1 unit  the point you would have to be at  doesn't exist. You would have to disappear.
Well, it might be the case that a finitely divisible space where each place has exactly 7 neighbouring places as described in my previous post is in fact a logical impossibility for the reasons that you outlined above. I don't know because I didn't think through it. And I am not going to do so because it's merely one out of many conceivable types of space.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Your claim is that there are logically possible spaces that are composed of indivisible elements.
Magnus Anderson wrote:In order to prove that claim, you will have to prove that it holds true for every conceivable type of space.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Do you realize that the type of space that I introduced in my previous post is merely one out of many finitely divisible spaces and that not every space is finitely divisible?
Magnus Anderson wrote:Proving that it is logically impossible won't automatically prove that all other finitely divisible spaces are. And it certainly won't prove that the same applies to infinitely divisible spaces. You have quite a lot of work to do, I'd say.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Do you realize that so far we've been dealing with finitely divisible types of space where each point has the same exact number of neighbouring points and that there are types of spaces where different points have different number of neighbouring points?
Magnus Anderson wrote:Think of a rectangle that is 4 atomic lengths wide and 3 atomic lengths high. Use a piece of paper and draw it. Let's say the only real points lying on that rectangle (all other being imaginary) are those that lie on its outline and those that line on one of its diagonals. Because the rectangle is 4x3 atomic lengths in size, the length of its diagonal is \(\sqrt{4^2 + 3^2}\) which is \(\sqrt{16 + 9}\) which is \(\sqrt{25}\) which is \(5\). So you have exactly 6 points lying on the diagonal. The peculiarity that is present in the previous type of space is absent in this scenario. Of course, what we have now is that only four points (the corner points) have 3 neighbouring points; all other points have 2 neighbouring points.
obsrvr524 wrote:Magnus Anderson wrote:Absurd.
If you moved to that upright position then moved directly left  where would you be? You must exist at one of the specified points and can only move one of the specified units in one of the specified directions. But if you move upright 1 unit then left 1 unit  the point you would have to be at  doesn't exist. You would have to disappear.
Well, it might be the case that a finitely divisible space where each place has exactly 7 neighbouring places as described in my previous post is in fact a logical impossibility for the reasons that you outlined above. I don't know because I didn't think through it. And I am not going to do so because it's merely one out of many conceivable types of space.
The same concern applies to your cube proposal. If you have a meter stick laying horizontally then raise it to a 45 degree angle  does the meter stick somehow grow extra matter so its edge can zigzag across the diagonal distance and still read 1 meter? Or should we expect it to shrink to near half its original size?
Ichthus77 wrote:Question. Is it light that travels through spacetime, or other way around? (spacetime, not BeingTime)
Motor Daddy wrote:Objects in relative motion to space ...
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users