Space and divisibility

[Yasa]

Given a completely empty space, it is accepted from intuition and modern physics that that space is infinitely divisible. That is, there is no smallest part of space—we can always imagine smaller. The notion of an instant or point is commonly used and accepted in physics (think ‘instantaneous velocity’). Note that a mathematical point has no volume, area and is the ‘physical’ representation of the infinitesimal (0.0...1).

It seems so basic, when considering a truly empty space void of all matter, that it is divisible ad infinitum. I am inclined to believe that my following logic must be flawed due to this so intuitive and evident notion. However, I will show the problems with this ‘undeniable’ assumption:

1. Matter exists.
2. Matter occupies space.
3. Space is infinitely divisible.
4. It follows that whatever occupies this infinitely divisible space must in turn be infinitely divisible. Thus, matter is infinitely divisible.
5. Dividing matter indefinitely will lead to mathematical points that do not exist in space (that is, they do no occupy space).
6. Since the parts of matter do not exist, the whole of matter does not exist.

Also, an even more problematic situation occurs when we consider Zeno’s Paradoxes which I defend are logically valid and unsolved by calculus that assumes infinite series can sum to a limit. That is, calculus assumes the infinitesimal is equal to 0, yet then allows for us to divide by it when considering limits (ex. Lim x->0 5/x equals infinity) or, in physics, instantaneous velocity (which is defined by the limit as time->0 in the equation v=d/t... if it was zero we couldn’t calculate instantaneous velocity).

However, in order to amend these problems (i.e. continue believing that motion is possible and that matter exists), we have a few options:

1. Space (and time) is not infinitely divisible. Or,
2. Within infinitely divisible space and time lies matter that is bound by some unknown law or reason that allows it only to occupy certain portions or units. That is, matter can only exist and interact/move in certain smallest units of space. This implies that motion is not continuous but rather a vibration of miniature teleportations. Also, this means that despite space being infinitely divisible, the matter that resides in it is not. It is hard to understand just how this would work.


Please discuss whether space is infinitely divisible.

[ryanatau]

The problem is that when we say something is infinitely divisible we are saying we can always decrease the volume of an object to as little ass we please. However, we cannot, in actuality, make it zero. We say the 1/x as x goes to inf is zero only because we can make it as close to zero as we please. However, it never actually becomes zero. It is like when there is a hole in a function for example (x)/(x-1) has a hole at 1 but the limit as x goes to one still exists. Not because the function exists at 1 but because I can make it as close to one as I please.

Therefore, I can make an object as close to zero volume as I want by dividing it but I cannot make it actually zero. Then does it follows from my logic that infinite series never converge? No, because as the series approaches infinity it approaches convergence.

Also, it makes not sense to say a number is divided by infinity because infinity is not a number.

So then matter, though infinitely divisible, never becomes nothing. In fact, if you look into the work of Zeno you'll see he comes to the same conclusion. The purpose of his paradoxes was to show that change is an illusion and the world of sense-perception is useless (he was a student of Parmenides). (By change being an illusion of sense-perception Zeno and Parmenides mean that there are only two states being and non-being; since being cannot become non-being and non-being cannot become being; there is no becoming and thus no flux or change.)

[Anmon]

I like cupcakes.

[Piscean]

So then matter, though infinitely divisible, never becomes nothing. In fact, if you look into the work of Zeno you'll see he comes to the same conclusion. The purpose of his paradoxes was to show that change is an illusion and the world of sense-perception is useless (he was a student of Parmenides). (By change being an illusion of sense-perception Zeno and Parmenides mean that there are only two states being and non-being; since being cannot become non-being and non-being cannot become being; there is no becoming and thus no flux or change.)

So life therefore is eternal, now all the people that think your just nothing when you die have a scientific reason to believe otherwise!

[ryanatau]

I don't think Parmenides or Zeon would say "because change is an illusion I have eternal life." It does not follow from what they said that the soul is immortal.

[Ajdub18]

So if we cannot divide matter into something that equals zero, how do we explain zero itself? Is the space that exists between planets, stars, galaxies, etc. actually zero? Or is it some form of matter divided significantly closer to zero than the planets and stars themselves.

Does zero really exist? If it does how do we get there? How do we get away from it? Is our way of using mathematics to figure out our physical world correct, or is there some undiscovered laws of reality that we are missing?

Or (the more likely option) is my head going to explode trying to think about it?

[Technosoul]

I would propose that consciousness does exsist and yet cannot exsist as matter or space, consciousness can come into exsistance and go out of exsistance. And therefore is that unknown link between the exsistance of motion and non-motion relative to time and stillness. between 0 and 2 as #1. Consciousness would formulate to self-generate the measured impulses that can be called a time wave of impulses. The odd thing is that this potential theory would break the rules of debating something without the useage of circular reasoning, so you would have to bend the rules to comprehend that - thought - time - energy - matter - space - and life are all expressions of consciouness and likewise confirmed only by consciousness. As the undetectable factor. Aka - consciousness becomes self conscious and then can exsist as "I am that I am".

Both in an eternal sense or in a temporary sense when reduced to singular sub-indentities of the total sum.

Dividing is not the only mathimatical option, you can also count backwards - 3, 2, 1, 0 in determing sources or endings of a progressive momentum, in a circular momentum those points of extremes would join together to become seamless and thus, unseen (once a circle is completed and re-circle-ling becomes possible).

Kerpeach?

[Ajdub18]

Ok, let me try this out here. You are saying that consciousness must exsist in order for space and matter to exsist. It is the link between absolute nothingness and something. I tend to agree with this notion. Why do we all seem to experience the same space and matter once consciousness arrives? Does this back the theory that we are pieces of one consciousness?

So if you wanted to get to and from zero you would use addition and subtraction. To put it really simply...adding consciousness or subtracting it, rather than dividing it.

You lost me on the circular momentum...I understand what it is and how it would be unseen, but missed its relevance. Are you saying that consciousness is circular momentum?

[Piscean]

I don't think Parmenides or Zeon would say "because change is an illusion I have eternal life." It does not follow from what they said that the soul is immortal.

I was playing off the phrase "being cannot become non-being and non-being cannot become being" just to giv ya somthin to think about.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Ajdub18 Ok, let me try this out here. You are saying that consciousness must exsist in order for space and matter to exsist. It is the link between absolute nothingness and something. I tend to agree with this notion. Why do we all seem to experience the same space and matter once consciousness arrives? Does this back the theory that we are pieces of one consciousness? So if you wanted to get to and from zero you would use addition and subtraction. To put it really simply...adding consciousness or subtracting it, rather than dividing it. You lost me on the circular momentum...I understand what it is and how it would be unseen, but missed its relevance. Are you saying that consciousness is circular momentum?

First. If you draw a circle and start at point A you would then continue the line around until the end merges with pont A. If you followed that same circle then you could not visibally be able to tell at what point in the circle point A is at ( at least if I drew the circle you could not tell where it I started to draw the circle at).

I am not sure if consciousness is a motion or momentum. We cannot put it into a testube and study it. We could perhaps determine if we want to discribe thoughts as being in motion, like a thought-stream.

But let us imagine that consciouness would evolve as a mind when related thoughts reproduced more thoughts, and those thoughts orbited around a center point of relative stillness, thus you would have lots of related thoughts orbiting around in a mind which is expanding form that center point of "nothingness" (a taboo word) which is utter silence. (do not have words to make exact discriptions with as yet).

That grouping of thoughts which would be called the orginal mind would be surrounded by space, with a center point of space out of which the thoughts manifested. If the thoughts became aware, those thoughts by reflecting inwardly could determine a contrast between thinking and that nothingness, and that contrast would provide evidence of self-consciousness, and/or self-exsistance.

That would place consciousness as the that invisible zone between nothingness and thought, as thoughts would be sub-particles that make up the whole fomulation of the conscious mind. Thoughts would become the activity of consciousness within consciousness as a pre-factor for energy where-in thoughts seek to complete a total idea. Which idea would be the idea of exsistance. (hope you do not mind if I sound a bit like some alien with this report).

The factor that thoughts would be circular in their momentum would suggest that the first "design" established is the circle. And lucky for us the symbol for zero - ground zero as it where - is shaped like a circle. The number " 0 " is a circle.

So we can use the symbol of "0" as a name for the god. note that the middle letter in the word god is also a "o". lucky for me and my wanna-be theory.

Now if you draw a flat line it really has no purpose because without an end point it can have no goal. It just goes on and on to nowhere. At least a circular line has a purpose which is to return to the beginning point of it's orgin. Returning home so to speak from a journey.
That would suggest that our human consciousness can have purpose by returning to it's orgins at point A, which in religious terms would be for our consciousness to re-unite with the god-consciousness, the oversoul, the indwelling spirit, or whatever name you wish to use. To complete the journey and give purpose to the meaning of exsistance.

But beyond that the consciousness, of which we are a part of, must return also to that center point of stillness, by looking within, and about finding a point of relative stillness within our self, called "my space". Or in your case. your space. That center point of stillness is called the soul of our consciousness. A space that is also a portal to that source of enlightened thoughts, which ocur out of nothingness. (aka - out of the blue). As so evidenced by this wanna-be theory which came out of the blue. By using our consciousness to create a space of absolute not knowing we create a void that MUST be filled with a knowing. That principle discribes the essence of conscious creation.

This idea however would bring a big boo form both the science and the reilgious communities because of it's alienated departure from their norms of thinking.

This is just part one of the wanna-be theory.

[Ajdub18]

Well hey, I like it. I tend to think more on the line between science and religion anyway. I am just starting to really get into the mysteries of consciousness. I just finished reading Fred Alan Wolf's Mind into Matter and Matter into Feeling...which I highly recommend. And I am excited to start David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order which I have heard a lot of good things about.

I say keep the theories coming, because people like me will sit and think about them all day and try to mix and match other ones I have heard or read about.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Piscean I was playing off the phrase "being cannot become non-being and non-being cannot become being" just to giv ya somthin to think about.

Well that defiantly doesn't prove God exists because if nothing can become then the universe always existed and is not a creation of god.

[Jagged]

You lost me at 5.

"5. Dividing matter indefinitely will lead to mathematical points that do not exist in space (that is, they do no occupy space)."

How? Expand? I think you might be making the argument that if a point denotes the smallest amount of space, and space is always divisible, and matter takes up space, then some piece of matter can be split up indefinitely into points. Since points make up space, there is actually no net volume.

If that's the original argument, then there's one simple flaw. You would be dividing the mass into an infinite number of points. An infinite number of points multiplied by their relative volume, 0, does not necessarily create a net zero mass.

A chunk of space cannot be split into a finite number of points.