Indivisibility, Empty Space

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

An object, indivisible may have the condition of being adimensional but appear as 3 dimensional to our perception.

My head hurts. How can something have the condition (that is, it cannot exist without having the property) of being adimentional yet still "appear" as being three dimensional to our "perception" (that is, our senses can pick up its manifestation, in other words: the object reflects electromagentic or sound waves or has smell which can be perceived and interpreted by our brain or other instruments) when the object isn't really there. An adimensional object, by definition, does not and can not possibly physically exist in any single, bi or three dimensional space, at any given time. It is but a mental construct.

Holiday20310401 wrote:

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

So the object doesn't have shape or dimensions, but just appears to ? How can you call it an object and assign properties like mass speed and velocity to it ? :brickwall: Maybe I should stay away from the metaphysical forum.

So what are you saying is our mind's understanding of the surroundings is subjective and maybe stuff isn't really stuff ? That a photon that collides with the object at point Charlie then goes into our eye is an illusion ? The photon doesn't collide ? And if I send 2 photons towards this object, one to point Charlie and one to point Holiday, there won't be 2 collisions ? Because the object is as you say "indivisible" and can't have the property of "is being shone light upon" but in its entirety, simply because it can't be divided in multiple parts ? But at the same time it can have speed and mass like in your first post ? My head hurts.

@Holiday20310401,

Cute video, but it has nothing to do with string theory

Leaving the 26 dimension theory aside

The 10 dimensional theory is different.

Dimensions are between energy and matter or frequency and time or electric and magnetic.

And even this is theoretical.

The video takes into account that the 4th dimension until the 10th dimension is time. Who said?

Our very own 3 dimensions could be divided into two, an electric dimension and a magnetic dimension and all things exist and variate within both.

Or the 4th dimension could be wormholes between universes within space and not time.

These are all theoretical ideas. No proof exists of other dimensions, and time is only considered a dimension for calculation purposes.

Holiday, keep thinking, it's good. what you are refering to is a point particle. Even in the video it showed a 0 dimensional point. The point particle exists in all of the dimensions but is itself a 0 dimensional object. Just as we are 3 dimensional but exist in the 10th dimension.

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

what you are refering to is a point particle.

Exactly. It can have no lenght, height, width, size, shape, structure, mass, etcetera, etcetera. So you can't attribute "motion" to it, as in the first post.

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

Exactly. It can have no lenght, height, width, size, shape, structure, mass, etcetera, etcetera. So you can't attribute "motion" to it, as in the first post.

Point particles cant have any Height, Depth, or Length. They can have mass, and charge.

An electron is an example of a point particle.

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Are you saying that point particles are indivisible, because they must be, and that electrons are so as well?! Can point particles have entropy and/or inertia?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Are you saying that point particles are indivisible, because they must be, and that electrons are so as well?! Can point particles have entropy and/or inertia?

They do.

Even light has momentum and it is considered a massless particle

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

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".

You asked this a while back. Well I think it is obvious that adimensional objects will not appear to us as adimensional objects. I don't think that an object inherently decides its shape or dimension as if those are some sort of independent variables. Objects take on their shape from other variables guided by fundamental forces of nature I presume. And dimension is a force on the mind of the mind.

This means that dimension only fits a defined context in reality. Reality is what we perceive. So while an object may not appear as adimensional, it can have the same intrinsic properties.

And we can only peceive the 3D and experience time, but I'm saying that the inherent property of an adimensional object (even though thats not exactly how we see it, but we do see it, just as our relevant dimension) is indivisibility which lets us know it is a point particle.

@Holiday20310401,

I'd like to say two things:

1) Percieving something without extension is possible. It just cannot be observed. The definition of perceptio, the word to percieve was derived of, is a movement in the mind: grasping, gaining an insight. Or at least that is how Descartes, Spinoza and Kant use it. Before them Aristotle. I understand the different usages, but when you go here you are forced to check out the nuances. The nuance is: are you sure that you cannot think of something without extension?
2) When one thinks of extensionlessness one must come to the conclusion that something which has no extension simply lacks that sort of limits; that sort of definitions. Is extensionlessness in that sense not a form of all-one-ness? Is it not true that extension and conditionality exist on ontological different levels?
Is it not true that a dimension has no extension because it is extension in a certain way? Are we not percieving dimension now? And is it not true that in effect that which is exists as a whole and is all-one?

My two cents

@Arjen,

I wonder if reality is just an ontological system of the mind, and actuality is a separate ontological system from which realities are just substituents of actuality, sort of.

I mean, actuality is nothing to be perceived so through all constituents of actuality that are possible for the infinitely possible minds/potential, we substituate that oneness of actuality into a separate ontological system as reality. And through that process, potentiality links and there is the need for things to appear seem naught what they truly are. It serves as an organizing and potential as they must be interconnected.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

I wonder if reality is just an ontological system of the mind, and actuality is a separate ontological system from which realities are just substituents of actuality, sort of.

I mean, actuality is nothing to be perceived so through all constituents of actuality that are possible for the infinitely possible minds/potential, we substituate that oneness of actuality into a separate ontological system as reality. And through that process, potentiality links and there is the need for things to appear seem naught what they truly are. It serves as an organizing and potential as they must be interconnected.

The only way any information can be transfered from one domain to another is through interaction. Our eyes interact with light, our ears interact with pressure, our scientific instruments interact with various different readings. Our reality is based solely on interaction.

Is it possible that there exist things that don't interact with us? Yes. But existance only occurs when it has some effect on our system. So, for anything to exist it must interact with some aspect of reality.

You could therefore argue that the mind exists because it interacts with reality at all times.

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Hmmm.... I still seem to be on a different page when it comes to actuality. I must ask, if you were to give a detailed relation between reality and actuality what would you write?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Hmmm.... I still seem to be on a different page when it comes to actuality. I must ask, if you were to give a detailed relation between reality and actuality what would you write?

I'm assuming that you are implying that reality is subjective? If so, then reality is our own personal experience of actuality. In actuality things dont have colours and there is no solidity to substance. Reality is just the way we interact with actuality.

Is that what you were looking for?

@Binyamin Tsadik,

No. Actuality to me, has no interaction with reality. Interaction is with two constantly changing 'things' for lack of a better word. Actuality does not really change to me, it is always the same monistic system. So potentiality is taking a snapshot of the neverchanging actuality and applied symbiotically to our reality, which is the potentiality of actuality.

Something like that, its hard for me to word what I'm trying to convey.

Philosophy Forum

Indivisibility, Empty Space

Quick Links

My Account

able2know