The True Nature of Matter and Mass

[JSS]

There would appear to be nothing to prevent infinite division and without a cause,

Nothing except the rules of formal logic.

I have asked for you to explain what those are .. in detail.
Can you explain exactly what logic forbids infinite division?
Nothing else really counts for me. I seriously don't care what anyone in the past has said or said that they proved.
Nullius in Verba

What is the actual logic?

.. and it does no good to talk about what someone says that someone else did to prove whatever. I need to see the actual, verbatim, point by point logic that dictates that infinite division is LOGICALLY impossible, because quite seriously I don't believe such logic exists.

[JSS]

... Science is about WHY things are happening, not merely that they are. ...

I'd have thought it about HOW things are happening? Of course if how is good enough for why then why it is.

Yes, "how" is sufficient. Our question words are not perfectly distinct.

"How is it that spots of nonexistence can "exist" in our universe?

[JSS]

It just is

That is what Moses said. When you can't explain something merely say "it just is what it is".

And that is fine for religions. But for science, not so much. Science is about WHY things are happening, not merely that they are. People die, "it is what is it is". But science is about why they are dying .. what is killing them.

The quote's out of context. My point was that reality - the ontological reality - is not limited by our knowledge, nor our ability to probe it. We can say "this is what we have observed" but we cannot be sure that we have all the relevant information.

??
Our own ontology is not limited by our own knowledge???
How could that possibly be?
We create our ontology by our guesswork as to what reality is like. Our guesswork is based on our presumed knowledge. Our ontology has no other input but ourselves .. unless you are going for divine intervention.

Re: the possibility of dynamics occurring on the Planck scale:

In fact, they aren't. But that isn't my point.

Since you can't possibly know what happens at the Planck scale with current tech

You happen to be wrong with that hypothesis. I take it that you believe that no one can actually KNOW anything for certain? How could you now that? In fact, I know that you would be wrong about that.

Simple logic: Neither of us could ever know you to be right. But I could possibly know you to be wrong.

If there is a Plank level to existence, which there certainly is not, WHY is it there? What is going on such that there would be such a thing?

How do you know nothing exists at the Planck scale that affects our reality? One day we'll be able to test the idea.

Now you seem to be arguing the in my favor .. ??
I am saying that there really is something that is a part of existence not only at the Plank level, but also below it .. in infinitesimal scales. And frankly happens to be the cause of what we call the "magnetic field".

[Obvious Leo]

Can you explain exactly what logic forbids infinite division?

Sure. An infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one, as proven in Cantorian set theory. This means that if time were infinitely divisible the apple falling from the tree would never hit the ground. If matter were infinitely divisible it would have infinite mass. There are many such examples but I'm sure you get the picture and this is a completely uncontroversial argument. Infinity is a mathematical abstraction which can have no analogue in a physically real universe. I caution you that infinity is not a concept to mess with unless you want to suffer the same fate as poor Georg Cantor. It was ultimately the different orders of infinities which drove Georg barking mad, although neither was his relentless religious mysticism conducive to his mental health.

I don't believe such logic exists.

Ultimately what you choose to believe or disbelieve is exclusively a matter of your personal conceptual taste and is irrelevant to either science or philosophy. Exactly the same rule applies to me and to anybody else.

"How is it that spots of nonexistence can "exist" in our universe?

Perhaps you'd now like to explain what you mean by an existent non-existent.

[Obvious Leo]

Our ontology has no other input but ourselves .

Your first and most important exploration into the arcane mysteries of philosophy will be to understand the difference between ontology and epistemology. There's no such thing as a subjective ontology. Try Kant.

And frankly happens to be the cause of what we call the "magnetic field".

The philosophy of foundational physics is probably not the best starting point for entry-level punters. A "field" is not an ontological construct.

[JSS]

Can you explain exactly what logic forbids infinite division?

Sure. An infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one, as proven in Cantorian set theory. This means that if time were infinitely divisible the apple falling from the tree would never hit the ground.

Emmm... no. Seriously?

Cantor proved only that a real number system line had infinity^2 points. He was ridiculed even beyond the grave for his effort. They literally mocked him on his gravestone.

But I supposed what you are trying to say is that if I have a one inch line, it is logically impossible that it has an infinity of anything within it (points)?
Is that right?

If matter were infinitely divisible it would have infinite mass.

Emm.. no.

What if it had an infinity of infinitesimal portions?

A chosen standard infinity (say "infA") times it's co-variant infinitesimal, "1/infA", is going to equal exactly one, just as it should.

I take it that you are not familiar with the resolutions to Zeno's paradoxes and the process of calculus?
..not to mention hyperreal mathematics ( Edwin Hewit 1948)?

[JSS]

Perhaps you'd now like to explain what you mean by an existent non-existent.

Well that is easy:
What physically exists is that which has physical affect.

Existence == Affectance.

If something is proposed to have absolutely no affect upon anything physical at all, then it doesn't physically eixst.

That is an ontological rational declaration of definition. In other words, I don't care if you want to define something such that it could have absolutely no affect upon anything yet you still want to say that it exists.

[Obvious Leo]

But I supposed what you are trying to say is that if I have a one inch line, it is logically impossible that it has an infinity of anything within it (points)?
Is that right?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. A line is a mathematical object not a physical entity. You can do what you like with a mathematical object but this doesn't mean that what you've done translates into anything physically real. You can take 5 apples out of a mathematical fruitbowl which has only two mathematical apples in it and you'll then have -3 mathematical apples left. Try it with real apples and see what happens.

I take it that you are not familiar with the resolutions to Zeno's paradoxes and the process of calculus?
..not to mention hyperreal mathematics ( Edwin Hewit 1948)?

Yes. I'm thoroughly familiar with this work. It was never intended to be applicable to physically real entities.

[JSS]

Your first and most important exploration into the arcane mysteries of philosophy will be to understand the difference between ontology and epistemology. There's no such thing as a subjective ontology. Try Kant.

So far, you have seriously shown that you are not in a position to be lecturing me on ontology vs epistemology (or anything for that matter .. but we'll see).

Perhaps you'd now like to explain what you mean by an existent non-existent.

Well that is easy:
What physically exists is that which has physical affect.

Existence == Affectance.

If something is proposed to have absolutely no affect upon anything physical at all, then it doesn't physically eixst.

That is an ontological rational declaration of definition. In other words, I don't care if you want to define something such that it could have absolutely no affect upon anything yet you still want to say that it exists.

A "field" is not an ontological construct.

You didn't really say that?
.. geeezz..

[JSS]

But I supposed what you are trying to say is that if I have a one inch line, it is logically impossible that it has an infinity of anything within it (points)?
Is that right?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. A line is a mathematical object not a physical entity. You can do what you like with a mathematical object

Okay. What were to trying to say with:

An infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one

And what do you personally define an ontology as being?

[Obvious Leo]

Perhaps you'd now like to explain what you mean by an existent non-existent.

Well that is easy:
What physically exists is that which has physical affect.

Existence == Affectance.

If something is proposed to have absolutely no affect upon anything physical at all, then it doesn't physically eixst.

That is an ontological rational declaration of definition. In other words, I don't care if you want to define something such that it could have absolutely no affect upon anything yet you still want to say that it exists.

This is better. In order to be definable as physically real an entity must be able to effect change in a physical system. This is pure Leibniz and it was the basis of the biggest clash of ideas in science history between him and Newton. Leibniz used this argument to refute Newton's version of the calculus but he also used it to refute Newton's treatment of the Cartesian space. Unfortunately Newton finished up winning this argument even though he was fucking WRONG but Leibniz was later vindicated by Ernst Mach.

[Greta]

My point was that reality - the ontological reality - is not limited by our knowledge, nor our ability to probe it. We can say "this is what we have observed" but we cannot be sure that we have all the relevant information.

??
Our own ontology is not limited by our own knowledge???
How could that possibly be?
We create our ontology by our guesswork as to what reality is like. Our guesswork is based on our presumed knowledge. Our ontology has no other input but ourselves .. unless you are going for divine intervention.

Stop trying to turn me into a theist! Aren't there enough of them for you to lock horns with?

I'm talking about reality per se - as it is - not what we primates might notice of it.

Since you can't possibly know what happens at the Planck scale with current tech ...

You happen to be wrong with that hypothesis. I take it that you believe that no one can actually KNOW anything for certain? How could you now that? In fact, I know that you would be wrong about that.

Simple logic: Neither of us could ever know you to be right. But I could possibly know you to be wrong.

BTW this has nothing to do with you or me being right or wrong. None of this is "my hypothesis" unless I want to take credit for decades of work by QM and string theory physicists. There are possible hints of observations that may depend on events occurring at about 15 times Planck scale in the CMB but that's a long way from "knowing" what goes on at that level.

You are right that I don't think we can't be certain about anything - in absolute terms. We obviously can be confident of relative cause and effect. As I keep saying, any society 10,000 years more advanced than us would have very different physical models to ours. We like to think that we've worked out most of reality with only details remaining. It's roughly analogous to teenagers believing they know everything.

Now you seem to be arguing the in my favor .. ??
I am saying that there really is something that is a part of existence not only at the Plank level, but also below it .. in infinitesimal scales. And frankly happens to be the cause of what we call the "magnetic field".

Happy to be of service, not that there's any proof of Planck scale entities let alone smaller at this stage. None of this was made clear in these last few posts - I thought you were arguing the standard line of QM to be the baseline of reality. Sure, maybe reality gets smaller in ways we wouldn't expect? Perhaps at that scale size becomes something else? We can't yet know, which gives scientists something of the future something to do.

[JSS]

This is better. In order to be definable as physically real an entity must be able to effect change in a physical system. This is pure Leibniz and it was the basis of the biggest clash of ideas in science history between him and Newton.

Actually, it was pure Me, but go on...

Leibniz used this argument to refute Newton's version of the calculus but he also used it to refute Newton's treatment of the Cartesian space. Unfortunately Newton finished up winning this argument even though he was fucking WRONG but Leibniz was later vindicated by Ernst Mach.

Well, I agree that Newton screwed up in a variety of ways, even got sued. But what exactly are you getting at?

I am asking for the LOGIC behind your proclamation that nothing finite can be infinitely divided.

I very seriously don't care who has said whatever about it or who gets the credit.

WHAT
IS
THE
LOGIC???

[Obvious Leo]

WHAT
IS
THE
LOGIC???

Sure. An infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one, as proven in Cantorian set theory. This means that if time were infinitely divisible the apple falling from the tree would never hit the ground. If matter were infinitely divisible it would have infinite mass.

Twice is enough. If you can't follow this then all hope is lost. An apple takes a finite length of time to fall from the tree to the ground. This time interval can be measured with a clock. If time was infinitely divisible then it would take an infinite length of time for the apple to fall to the ground. Infinity means exactly what it appears to mean.

[JSS]

as it is - not what we primates might notice of it.

You seem to have the right perspective.

It's roughly analogous to teenagers believing they know everything.

And not all that "rough".

We can't yet know..

There you go again with the presumption of doubt.

We actually CAN know. You (as most) merely haven't learn how to know .. yet.

A) Do you know that you cannot know?
B) Or do you know that you might possibly be able to know?

Which allows for doubt and also allows for certainty?
I favor (B).