For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
The problem is that you cannot have half of a monad.Impenitent wrote: half a monad is no monad at all
-Imp
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 wrote: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?
I think you are talking about virtual particles. We cannot observe them as real particle.Terrapin Station wrote: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 wrote: 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?
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."bahman wrote:I think you are talking about virtual particles. We cannot observe them as real particle.Terrapin Station wrote: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 wrote: 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?
Well, I think we cannot prove or disprove this. I need to think about this.Terrapin Station wrote: ...Nothing logically precludes things simply popping in and out of existence.
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 wrote: Yeah, it's just a logical possibility (via it not being logically impossible, which would be the case were we able to disprove it)
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.bahman wrote: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 wrote: Yeah, it's just a logical possibility (via it not being logically impossible, which would be the case were we able to disprove it)
Terrapin Station wrote: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."bahman wrote:I think you are talking about virtual particles. We cannot observe them as real particle.Terrapin Station wrote: 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.
Nothing logically precludes things simply popping in and out of existence.
Pay attention to who wrote what, please.Wyman wrote: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'
Intelligent Design mixed with pure nonsense and babble!bahman wrote: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?
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 wrote: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.bahman wrote: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 wrote: Yeah, it's just a logical possibility (via it not being logically impossible, which would be the case were we able to disprove it)