# Indivisibility, Empty Space

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Metaphysics
3. » Indivisibility, Empty Space

Thu 4 Sep, 2008 03:37 pm
Uniform Motion is constant velocity in that it is constant speed and constant direction.

Is motion possible in a space that is empty except for you, and you happen to be in it; meaning you'd be the only true reference point.

I know speed is the scalar quantity of velocity, meaning that speed only implies magnitude whereas velocity is a vector; both magnitude and direction.

It seems to me that if a reference point exists then motion is possible, but if you are the only reference point(lets pretend you are indivisible) then motion really has no relation. However, lets say you moved through the emptiness of space, or rather, you apply a force causing you to move. And you go at a constant velocity. But lets say now you wished to change directions. Well ok you could tell that you reposition yourself 90 degrees and exert a force to move and change directions, thus now overall, you actions were not uniform motion, because of the change in direction. But whats to say you changed direction, whats to say you weren't going at a uniform motion. (lets say both forces were equal for both the actions). Nothing.

Anyways...

I can conclude that motion is all about reference, and relation. Time has no influence on motion, it doesn't even define magnitude. Only it seems does time have influence when the uniform motion is of an object not moving at all. Because how are we to define its relative point without time? And thats a pretty weak statement to say the least.

Anyways...

I believe that the very property of the object (you) in the example being indivisible changes the way motion works for it. Firstly, right when time gets into the picture, it would seem impossible for only 1 object to exist in the universe, a single indivisible substance, a single piece of it.

An indivisible object has no self containment so it can't apply a force on itself. How can it, when no opposite reaction force can be attained either.Think about it.

Therefore all of its motion has to be externally related or caused. It would seem prudent for there to b a force that deals upon indivisible objects only in order to keep energy existent in the universe. But in no way can I prove this from what I know.

A have a theory or a rule without any proof at all but still... The only thing that can make an object have a projectory in time with 100% certainty is an effect upon itself from itself, its intrinsics; all external effects cannot be accounted for so there is no 100% certainty when externally affected. The more external forces there are, the less certain the projectory is going to be.

Indivisible objects individually, in and of themselves, do not have an effect on themselves, it all comes from external forces, anything external. So if they were to be affected by something that is in and of themselves (but it would have to be externally) then there would be that 100% certainty, in the sense that the external effect on the indivisible object has its own projectory it undergoes, but it implies to indivisible object now has the same projectory.

An indivisible object that is only effected by external forces that are not implient upon the indivisible object at hand will be quite random, because indivisible objects have no boundaries set intrinsically from in and of themselves. It has the likelihood of doing a lot more.

But then I have to say that the only forces that actually limit an object's projectory are that which are internally caused. Which makes sense because all external forces are doing is labelling the ability for a projectory to actually exist from no projectory at all. Time does not imply projectory, causality does, but causality is not a result of time, regardless of how it defines time's path. Causality is a result of forces, which again, labels projectory.

*just to clarify... objects do not have to be indivisible here, unless I have stated the object is*

I'm going to stop now. I think this is getting out of hand.

iconoclast

Thu 4 Sep, 2008 03:39 pm
@Holiday20310401,
I once saw paul daniels make an elephant disappear!

iconoclast.

Holiday20310401

Thu 4 Sep, 2008 03:42 pm
@iconoclast,

iconoclast

Thu 4 Sep, 2008 05:17 pm
@Holiday20310401,
oh, individisbility - not invisibility, sorry, my mistake!

Holiday20310401

Thu 4 Sep, 2008 05:54 pm
@iconoclast,
Yes, yes... that changes everything I would imagine.

For anybody here, I can revise my interpretations if my diction is completely absurd or abstracted to the point it looses meaning.

sarathustrah

Fri 12 Sep, 2008 08:34 pm
@Holiday20310401,
ok... being only a highschool graduate... honestly, the whole thing is above me...

i read the whole thing, and im grasping it best i can...

but im pretty sure i cooooooonstantly think about this most of all but prolly at a more basic level...

i was actually going to make a blog post tonight about my theory of "nothing"... which is what my friends know me most for... so seeing "empty space" im like woah yay!

but then its kinda hard for me to follow, and i wanna read it again, but im so anxious to comment

but i struggle with the concept of empty space... well what IS empty space... i hate the concept of nothing... because if nothing exists... then nothing is something... it all started back when i read The Never Ending Story when i was 10 The description of the nothing infecting fantasia...

so my one claim... is that all the composition of the universe is essentially triangles... but the 3d version... cause a triangle is the only shape that can make any shape, cept circles but i dont think circles or spheres exist.... ok this is so hard to sum up... cause one claim need the description of my view of 5 other things... ahhhhhh

im gonna try to better organize it in a blog post like i planned sometime soon... but essentially i think everything is triangles at the smallest level possible... and that there is no such thing as nothing. that air is full of particles...

the problem i yet am facing is if there is no nothing... how does anything move around at all... so im definitly not of enough education to study and attempt to prove or disprove my own theory... but basically i imagine that everything can be of different states and can move through...

yeah my neighbor came over... im gonna try to find the time to do my blog post tonight though...

Holiday20310401

Fri 12 Sep, 2008 08:52 pm
@sarathustrah,
From how I can see it, infinity is the same as nothing.

We as a consciousness rely on something in order for potentiality to exist. So I could argue that something can come from nothing just to give potential.

I know that could never work out, but in actuality lets say the universe is just waves. What are waves really? Only their behaviour and conditions seem to represent the reality we live in. But waves are not really actuality either. It is a way of viewing something more intrinsic to actuality. We view waves as being the most intrinsic level because it has potential. Anything more intrinsic just doesn't have potential and therefore can't be viewed in reality.

Therefore what is the actual actuality is not something we can have in our environment, thus having no potential, and well; if the most intrinsic, most monistic, most absolute governing of our environment has no potential, then how can it be something? It exists essentially, but really, it is nothing. So everything is nothing without consciousness.

Mon 22 Sep, 2008 03:46 am
@Holiday20310401,
You are speaking about a universe with nothing in it except for you. You are therefore correct that macro-motion does not exist because motion is relative.
The universe is an infinate void and therefore wherever you are, infinity plus a few meters of motion is still infinity in all directions.
This is completely a hypothetical situation, however, because you would die within seconds.

But this is physics and we are in a forum of Metaphysics. Motion in metaphysics is change, which is also referential. Place is a state of being. Being close to something in metaphysics is being similar to it. Metaphysically we could be very close because of the fact that we may be very similar, despite the fact that we have never spoken and may never speak again.

Holiday20310401

Sat 27 Sep, 2008 12:33 pm
Ok that um.. doesn't exactly matter but ok..

Anyways, lets say we have an indivisible object and it goes through an object, or how about a length of space. Does an indivisible object do such a thing at all. Can something indivisible be implied to go through legths? Why should it.

If a piece of an indivisible object is through an object then the rest of the indivisible object is implied as through the object as well because the information as going through the object is instantly in all regions of the indivisible object.

In empty space an indivisible object is going through it. But why does it travel through it? Because the indivisible object, part of it is in one spatial region and the other part is in another spatial region. But say the indivisible object is given a destination. Then it must have direction, so it travels through a spatial region. But if a part of the indivisible object is in a spatial region then it is implied in the rest of the indivisible object. So why must there be movement.

Say you are an indivisible being. And you take a step. The front of you is in a spatial region and the information as conveyed being the spatial region is implied to the rest of your indivisible self. Why shouldn`t it be, when every aspect of your information is the same in every spatial region of yourself. So all of `you` is essentially at the front, but that means, if you have shape, then you`d still have to move up `your front` ahead to remain in front. So it becomes a paradox because you are essentially not indivisible, but in order to neagte such, you'd just move instantly to our destination to keep a single bit of information that was required of the self to have a force.

So indivisible objects either don`t really move at all, or rely on a path to have direction or be forced at all.

So the idea of teleportation is to trick the information center of the universe, even though there probably is no such thing, that you are an indivisible object. Perhaps the information center is the brain, your mind or something. Change in perception to believe this could mean being about to move anywhere.

ariciunervos

Sat 27 Sep, 2008 01:19 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:

Say you are an indivisible being. And you take a step. The front of you is in a spatial region and the information as conveyed being the spatial region is implied to the rest of your indivisible self. Why shouldn`t it be, when every aspect of your information is the same in every spatial region of yourself. So all of `you` is essentially at the front, but that means, if you have shape, then you`d still have to move up `your front` ahead to remain in front. So it becomes a paradox because you are essentially not indivisible, but in order to neagte such, you'd just move instantly to our destination to keep a single bit of information that was required of the self to have a force.

So indivisible objects either don`t really move at all, or rely on a path to have direction or be forced at all.

So you have an object with shape and dimensions that is indivisible, that is, cannot be divided, that is, it contains no parts which can be separated, it can not be taken apart.

Analogies are your best friends. How about a tomato on which we agree it's indivisible. Here it is: o Now let's imagine a line separating 2 mediums. Here it is: / Now let's try and move the indivisible tomato from the first medium to the second: Half here, half there.

Am I missing anything ?

Holiday20310401

Sat 27 Sep, 2008 03:23 pm
@ariciunervos,
Yes. An indivisible object cannot have information relayed on more than 1 area, so it cannot be half on one side and half on the other side.

Therefore it must instantly move to one side, because the information instantly, (or never was) compatable with the notion of interior relative effects on the object in and of itself.

So if a force is applied on an indivisible object, then it must simply move all at once to the area in which the force has the lasting effect on, equating to information unified on the indivisible object.

ariciunervos

Sat 27 Sep, 2008 03:56 pm
@Holiday20310401,
If it has shape and dimensions, what if you shine light on it ?

Holiday20310401

Sat 27 Sep, 2008 08:10 pm
@ariciunervos,
Whatt do you mean? What do you expect?

ariciunervos

Sun 28 Sep, 2008 02:47 am
@Holiday20310401,
I suspect your object is point-like, adimensional. If it has shape and dimensions you will be able to shine light on half of it (or run an imaginary line or plane through it) thus having half of it have different properties than the other, while still being indivisible according to a dictionary definition of the word.

Holiday20310401

Sun 28 Sep, 2008 09:17 am
@ariciunervos,
Well I don't see why we couldn't see a 3dimensional indivisible object and it not carry out the properties of a different dimension almost.

ariciunervos

Sun 28 Sep, 2008 09:43 am
@Holiday20310401,
Because any object other than an adimensional one, a point, can be delimited in at least 2 parts by an imaginary line or plane, even if these 2 parts are inseparable, that is, the objects keeps its property of being indivisible. If you go up in the next dimension, by putting 2 points one next to another, you get a line and i can declare that the first point has property of being blue and the second point has property of being red.

Holiday20310401

Sun 28 Sep, 2008 09:48 am
@ariciunervos,
Yes I see what you mean. Indivisibility can only have coordinates x you say? Yes you'd have to be right I think, but it doesn't have to appear that way. If our perception is 3D then we are only going to be able to perceive the 3D object of its adimensional properties.

ariciunervos

Sun 28 Sep, 2008 10:24 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:

we are only going to be able to perceive the 3D object of its adimensional properties.

The problem is, being adimensional (has no shape, lenght, area or volume) it doesn't exist and thus it can't be "seen" or "perceived". It can however be thought of or symbolically represented on a piece of paper.

ariciunervos

Sun 28 Sep, 2008 10:47 am

Holiday20310401

Sun 28 Sep, 2008 04:56 pm
@ariciunervos,
Ok....

Interesting, but it doesn't denounce the idea that I suggested. An object, indivisible may have the condition of being adimensional but appear as 3 dimensional to our perception.

There is of course a problem with that conception of dimensions the videos posited, in my opinion. It treats dimensions as orderly, which there is no such basis to believe they are. One could say well, we can conceive two dimensions and one dimension. Well can we? A shape with no depth doesn't exist in our perception so no can do. And it treats them in this kind of cycle which is not truly perceiving dimension and to me looks a lot like an unsolved paradox and circular reasoning. I mean every three dimensions there is a new 'branch' of 'shapeness'. And coincidentally, we a perceiving the 3Dness. Dimension sticks purely to spatiality, if duration is such which I'm ok with, then the only ways of organizing the environment dimensionally are in 3, 6, or 9. But see, that must be wrong because we can't seem to get any higher than 10 and ten isn't even to 3. Oh well.:rolleyes:

It isn't true dimension. Dimension is a way that our mind organizes perception. It is not that reality has defined dimensional states.

Though I can see as we draw away from the normal macro world we perceive, the influence of the dimension we perceive has less of an inherent effect on the properties of the objects, in a bell curve fashion.

So objects can have intrinsic conditions enabling dimensional properties but there is no defined spatial appearance that an object should have. What could possibly do that in the realm of monistic actuality if you take my word for it?

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Metaphysics
3. » Indivisibility, Empty Space