Paradox of irreducibility

[bahman]

Anything can be divided to its irreducible parts. Any irreducible part cannot be divided further hence it cannot be annihilated or created. It cannot be annihilated because it has no part. It cannot be created since if we go back in time we never see that it is created as sum of parts. So the question is how can an irreducible entity exist?

[Impenitent]

half a monad is no monad at all

-Imp

[bahman]

half a monad is no monad at all

-Imp

The problem is that you cannot have half of a monad.

[Terrapin Station]

Anything can be divided to its irreducible parts. Any irreducible part cannot be divided further hence it cannot be annihilated or created. It cannot be annihilated because it has no part. It cannot be created since if we go back in time we never see that it is created as sum of parts. So the question is how can an irreducible entity exist?

The second sentence doesn't follow, and the idea that creation or annihilation require parts doesn't follow, either. If things can simply pop into or out of existence, no parts are necessary for creation or annihilation.

[bahman]

Anything can be divided to its irreducible parts. Any irreducible part cannot be divided further hence it cannot be annihilated or created. It cannot be annihilated because it has no part. It cannot be created since if we go back in time we never see that it is created as sum of parts. So the question is how can an irreducible entity exist?

The second sentence doesn't follow, and the idea that creation or annihilation require parts doesn't follow, either. If things can simply pop into or out of existence, no parts are necessary for creation or annihilation.

I think you are talking about virtual particles. We cannot observe them as real particle.

[Terrapin Station]

Anything can be divided to its irreducible parts. Any irreducible part cannot be divided further hence it cannot be annihilated or created. It cannot be annihilated because it has no part. It cannot be created since if we go back in time we never see that it is created as sum of parts. So the question is how can an irreducible entity exist?

The second sentence doesn't follow, and the idea that creation or annihilation require parts doesn't follow, either. If things can simply pop into or out of existence, no parts are necessary for creation or annihilation.

I think you are talking about virtual particles. We cannot observe them as real particle.

No, I'm not at all talking about virtual particles. My comments are not (and are never, unless specified) in the context of "Things currently accepted in the sciences."

Nothing logically precludes things simply popping in and out of existence.

[bahman]

...Nothing logically precludes things simply popping in and out of existence.

Well, I think we cannot prove or disprove this. I need to think about this.

[Terrapin Station]

Yeah, it's just a logical possibility (via it not being logically impossible, which would be the case were we able to disprove it)

[bahman]

Yeah, it's just a logical possibility (via it not being logically impossible, which would be the case were we able to disprove it)

From empirical point of view we know that things exist. So that means that things could pop in the universe. We don't however experience that a being, human for example, pop in universe so the only option which we are left to is that elementary things which are irreducible pop in universe. The is however a problem here that why the irreducible things persist to exist. We have absolute void if the irreducible things do not persist to exist, simply pop out.

[Terrapin Station]

Yeah, it's just a logical possibility (via it not being logically impossible, which would be the case were we able to disprove it)

From empirical point of view we know that things exist. So that means that things could pop in the universe. We don't however experience that a being, human for example, pop in universe so the only option which we are left to is that elementary things which are irreducible pop in universe. The is however a problem here that why the irreducible things persist to exist. We have absolute void if the irreducible things do not persist to exist, simply pop out.

I'd actually just say that we don't really know if we experience this or not. Maybe we experience it frequently, but we just don't realize it.

[Wyman]

The second sentence doesn't follow, and the idea that creation or annihilation require parts doesn't follow, either. If things can simply pop into or out of existence, no parts are necessary for creation or annihilation.

I think you are talking about virtual particles. We cannot observe them as real particle.

No, I'm not at all talking about virtual particles. My comments are not (and are never, unless specified) in the context of "Things currently accepted in the sciences."

Nothing logically precludes things simply popping in and out of existence.

If it's 'logic' you are interested in, note that you contradict yourself in your very first sentence: 'Anything can be divided into irreducible parts'

[Terrapin Station]

If it's 'logic' you are interested in, note that you contradict yourself in your very first sentence: 'Anything can be divided into irreducible parts'

Pay attention to who wrote what, please.

[HexHammer]

Anything can be divided to its irreducible parts. Any irreducible part cannot be divided further hence it cannot be annihilated or created. It cannot be annihilated because it has no part. It cannot be created since if we go back in time we never see that it is created as sum of parts. So the question is how can an irreducible entity exist?

Intelligent Design mixed with pure nonsense and babble!

Only in ID they babble about irreducible complexity, which was disproved thus debunked, but mr babbleman uses some bad circular logic.

Mr bahbleman plz shut up and leave this forum, you are but a mere charlatan and demagog!

[bahman]

Yeah, it's just a logical possibility (via it not being logically impossible, which would be the case were we able to disprove it)

From empirical point of view we know that things exist. So that means that things could pop in the universe. We don't however experience that a being, human for example, pop in universe so the only option which we are left to is that elementary things which are irreducible pop in universe. The is however a problem here that why the irreducible things persist to exist. We have absolute void if the irreducible things do not persist to exist, simply pop out.

I'd actually just say that we don't really know if we experience this or not. Maybe we experience it frequently, but we just don't realize it.

I don't understand. I was talking about why things persist to exist. Things can pop in and out of universe but we get net zero unless things persist to exist.

[Terrapin Station]

bahman, you'd said, "We don't however experience that a being, human for example, pop in universe."

I said, "We don't really know if we experience this or not. Maybe we experience it frequently, but we just don't realize it."