• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

You will never have the knowledge which excludes the universal laws of nature

exvirgin

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
5
Location
Tiruchirappalli
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
You will find them everywhere in everything

If you search for divisibility,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for comparability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for connectivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for sensitivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for transformability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for substitutability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for satisfiability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the divisibility of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the comparability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the connectivity of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the sensitivity of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the transformability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the substitutability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the conditions which could be satisfied (satisfiability) by atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

What will you do if nothing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and statisfiability?

What would your knowledge be if nothing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and statisfiability?

Oh, beloved men and women,
You will never have the knowledge which excludes the universal laws of nature. Can you refute?

You will find them everywhere in everything
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Science is a systematic approach in which a hypothesis is formed and then tested. If the hypothesis fails, then it is rejected and a new hypothesis is formed.

That is pretty much it. Science isn't a religion, it is just a methodological way of looking at the world.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,111
Reaction score
4,744
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Science is a systematic approach in which a hypothesis is formed and then tested. If the hypothesis fails, then it is rejected and a new hypothesis is formed.

That is pretty much it. Science isn't a religion, it is just a methodological way of looking at the world.
essentially, man created science.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Science is a systematic approach in which a hypothesis is formed and then tested. If the hypothesis fails, then it is rejected and a new hypothesis is formed.

That is pretty much it. Science isn't a religion, it is just a methodological way of looking at the world.
Or even a method of discovering the physical universe around us in detail.
 

exvirgin

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
5
Location
Tiruchirappalli
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Science is a systematic approach in which a hypothesis is formed and then tested. If the hypothesis fails, then it is rejected and a new hypothesis is formed.

That is pretty much it. Science isn't a religion, it is just a methodological way of looking at the world.
What do you mean?
Do the scientific methods exclude the universal laws of nature?

What is the scientific method which excludes the universal laws of nature?

If science is the pursuit of definable and measured facts, then there is none which could exclude the laws of nature. Without the laws of nature, nothing else exists. Not even science.
 
Last edited:

exvirgin

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
5
Location
Tiruchirappalli
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Repetitive post is repetitive.
Thinking is the repetition of what is known.

//
It has always been the case that some philosophers and scientists have used scientific conclusions to attack Christianity, and religion in general. There are men at various ends of the spectrum that deny miracles but allow the existence of God, and others who are completely naturalistic and deny any “god” whatsoever. To a certain extent, the theologians who reply to these attacks are at a disadvantage. When a scientist or philosopher argues against religion, he almost never has enough information about that religion, and knows little about it. It is not as though a scientists has made a life-long study of all the world’s religious beliefs and then says that science rules them all out. Rather, he simply uses science as a sounding board for what he believes is right. The theologians, on the other hand, must know quite a lot. He is supposed to have enough knowledge to discuss space, time, motion, energy, the solar system, natural law, quantum theory, relativity and other scientific ideas. However, when dealing with the refutation of a naturalistic science, really, one does not need to go into all of that. Rather, a person only needs to be able to prove how science cannot explain the simplest of things – like a marble rolling across the table, or the fact that when one picks up one end of a pencil, the other end comes along with it.
Science begins with a study of motion. If there was no motion there would be no need for science. Nothing would materially exist. Everything, in one-way or another, in this universe has motion. Plants grow, birds fly, volcanoes erupt, the earth rotates, and motion is seen all over the planet.
Zeno begins scientific history with a quaint little puzzle about motion. If point “A” to point “B” is five feet, and a person was going to walk from point A to point B would this be possible? Is movement an illusion or is it real? Suppose the distance is divided in half? It should be self evident that the person walking must get to the halfway mark before they reach the end. But what if we divided each half into quarter, and then each quarter into eights and so on? How could the person walking actually move through an infinite number of points before getting to the end? Is motion illusionary? Well, the answer to the puzzle is a bit more complex than some think. How could a person pass through each point and actually move from one point to the other? Think about that for a moment. After thinking that through the reader should make the connection that none ever passes through one point at a time, rather, they pass through them all in one step. It is not that each point is considered, rather, they are all considered. Zeno confused a collective “all” with an individual “each.” The puzzle actually is a logical fallacy.
 

exvirgin

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
5
Location
Tiruchirappalli
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
contd...
How does Zeno’s puzzle help science? It really does not. It only serves to state that motion has always been contemplated. If all things change and are in a constant state of change, then what follows this change? Is there anything? Does science have an answer? Aristotle said, rightly, that if all things are changing, then nothing really exists and knowledge would be impossible. Thus, going back to a first cause, Aristotle came up with the unmoved mover. All motion requires a subject that remains unchanged while that which is affected moves. Motion presupposes an unmoved substratum. But, how does one know that there is motion and that there is an unchanging substratum? Motion must be defined if the truth is going to be known. Aristotle used the undefined terms “potentiality” and “actuality” to define motion. Something not actual is potential, whatever that means. Aristotle actually says potentiality cannot be defined (it seems he is going in a vicious circle). Motion is never really, or helpfully defined.
During the Renaissance the scientific method emerged. Hopefully the scientific method can use some of what Aristotle came up with, but give a helpful definition of what motion is really about, and for that matter, what life is about. Newtonian science emerged to help Aristotle understand why a falling body falls. Why does motion happen? Bodies fall because they are heavy. Is this adequate? Bodies fall faster when they have more time to fall. Now there are more problems to consider. What makes them fall faster? This is where Newton’s laws of inertia came into play. Planets move. This was not denied by anyone. Some, like Copernicus said that certain planets move certain ways – like the earth revolving around the sun. But it really makes no difference which plant revolves around any other since the question remains as to how planets move at all. What makes the planets move? It seems that Newton’s “discovery of gravity” was the answer. But then, what causes gravity? Because in looking at the universe through a telescope, there are these anomalies called comets that zig zag about the universe with no path, and no rotation. What makes them move? It may be that all this seems a bit confusing. But think of this way: if someone says “Why does this rock fall to the ground when I let it go?” And another answers him by saying “Gravity,” has that person really answered him? What makes the stone fall to the ground instead of it just sitting in mid air? This is where science meets philosophy. The scientists can say how a stone falls – thirty-two feet per second – but cannot tell anyone why it falls.
Whenever one asks “why” to a “how” they are asking about significance. Science must be able to offer significance to its claims if it is to be trusted at all. This is where scientific philosophy must take over. Science must have a philosophy of life. If it does not, then it cannot furnish anyone with any real information about anything at all. A statement of fact is not an explanation. It is the very thing that needs to be explained. In this way, science explains nothing at all.
Scientists have attempted to rid themselves of the dilemma that science explains nothing. Some embraced the mechanistic model to cover their tracks. This taught that the universe worked a certain way and as a result of this “mechanistic” model, universal laws could be established. However, can science establish the truth of anything? W. K. Clifford said, “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” If this is true, then how can science possibly ascertain the sum total of a given “thing” (whatever that “thing” may be) in order to verify it? If science is contained in a laboratory setting, how can it possibly give universal laws of nature an absolutism? How can they possible describe how nature works as a whole? Actually, the scientists knows he cannot, but he gives his best guess. Guess? Yes, just a guess. Theories. Even in mathematical equations about a given “fact” the actual weight of an object or length of a measurement is never perfect. It is always plus or minus some amount, no matter how small that measurement may be. So science is never working with a perfect environment, not a universal environment. Can science tell men anything? Not really. Scientists simply choose from an infinite number of possibilities what they think is best for the situation at hand. If mathematical equations alone could describe nature, for instance, the chance that the scientist will choose the correct formulation is one in infinity (or zero). Therefore, in reality, all the laws of physics are false.
Because of this great conundrum of absolutes, science does not claim to have “absolute truth.” This is especially true of the 21st century secular thinker. If earlier scientists would have claimed to found absolute truth, and it was verified in some way, then science today would not continually be revamping laws and ideas to suit new information. Einstein’s law of relativity now replaces Newton’s law of inertia. Mechanistic determination, then, is not, nor ever was, based on scientific observation, but on some other a priori idea. This sounds more like philosophy 101 than science 101.
So science attempts to creates laws that are not really true to justify itself while it investigates the universe. Yet, even in these temporary ideas, the laws of physics, for example, do not describe how nature goes on. It just supplies men with some facts (some guesses) about what is going on right now. Operationalism attempted to prove the laws of nature and to erect scientific principles of nature and religion upon them. But as the mechanistic theories collapsed, so does Operationalism under the hard facts of guessing science. Really, all science does is lead to skepticism about everything.
Science leaves men guessing about the nature of the universe, and as a result, the philosophy of science collapses immediately. Operationalism is offered as the best guess science can offer. But this is nothing more than asking people to believe what some hope to be true, and cannot prove it, or ever prove it. Science, then, can never determine its own value because it cannot make any universal judgment about ultimate reality. Science does make “things” possible. Men have nuclear missiles to blow up other men. That is possible. But science cannot offer any explanation on why one should blow up other men or not. Can science determine that life should be extended as something good? Not at all. The only answer that is really available, since no empirical scientific conclusions can be made about anything, is to turn to a Christian philosophy of theism.
Even in the early Genesis narrative, culture has adopted agriculture, the arts, and industry. This is part of the cultural mandate to dominate the world for the glory of God. Science has its place in Christian theism, but it is subservient to the goal of humanity which is the glory of God. God demonstrates His power in the world through the message of His word and its affirmation in the miracles surrounding the ones He sends to proclaim that word. Science, offers no refutation, no satisfactory refutation, to exclude miracles. There is no scientific basis for the rejection of miracles at all. Any anti-Christian sentiments that rely on science will in a few years or decades be discarded for new one. This demonstrates the irresponsibility of science in its attempt to simply overthrow the Christian faith. If scientific laws really overthrew the Christian faith, then those laws (like Newton’s) would not crumble, ever. Whether or not science believes something now does not mean it will ever believe it in the future. How can science possibly be trusted? Anything that scientists find are not findings at all but simply formulations. Formulations mean nothing without objective truth behind what the formulations are trying to prove. Experimentation, then, never discovers how nature works. Einstein rightly said, as a secular scientist, “We know nothing about it [nature] at all. Our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children…We shall know a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things-that we shall never know, never.” From this point alone, Einstein would be right in stating that science can never disprove Christianity as false; never. Since science is always tentative, it has no basis for ultimate reality. Why do people hold to science then? Science, for secularism, attempts to fill a void that can only be spiritually filled by faith with something that they think is provably tangible. That is because most scientists are not philosophers and do not take time to figure out that science has no answers. Regardless of what science can do, it has no justifiable cause to do it. If it creates something that aids in human life, it has no reason, no basis at all that it should be used. Or if it synthesizes something that would be the destruction of mankind, like a super virus, it has no justification as to why it ought not to be used first on the inventor, and then on the rest of the populace. Science can never speak about ethics. They are putting the cart far before the horse! Is science helpful? To those blessed by divine revelation who have all the non-contradictory and consistent answers to ultimate reality, of course it is. Laws do not need to be completely true in order to be useful. Newton’s laws gave birth to other laws. Newton’s laws were ultimately overthrown by newer “laws”. They were helpful, but in error.
Science is forever incapable of producing valid arguments against the existence of God. It is simply not in a secular humanist, or secular scientists power to do so. They have no valid arguments for arguing against miracles, supernatural revelation, or life in heaven or hell. Science is always false, but is often useful.
//
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,267
Reaction score
50,279
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the crap. On topic or don't post.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Science is forever incapable of producing valid arguments against the existence of God.
It isn't the purpose of science to disprove the existence of God. Science can only test, and therefore science has no use for an untestable hypothesis. God is an untestable hypothesis because it is defined in a way that natural laws do not apply to it. You can no more test the idea of God than you can test the idea of leprechauns and unicorns. Science cannot be said to be false, because it is simply a systematic way of interpreting the world.

The human mind possesses an imagination. This ability allows humans to create abstract concepts that do not and cannot exist in reality. However, we have reason in order to distinguish between the imaginary and the real. I can reason that if I have never, seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted a God, then there is little reason for me to believe in its existence.
 
Last edited:

exvirgin

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
5
Location
Tiruchirappalli
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It isn't the purpose of science to disprove the existence of God. Science can only test, and therefore science has no use for an untestable hypothesis. God is an untestable hypothesis because it is defined in a way that natural laws do not apply to it. You can no more test the idea of God than you can test the idea of leprechauns and unicorns. Science cannot be said to be false, because it is simply a systematic way of interpreting the world.

The human mind possesses an imagination. This ability allows humans to create abstract concepts that do not and cannot exist in reality. However, we have reason in order to distinguish between the imaginary and the real. I can reason that if I have never, seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted a God, then there is little reason for me to believe in its existence.
So you are a master of lawless imaginary science!

Kindly note it down:
Any method which excludes the laws of nature is not science.

If science is the pursuit of definable and measured facts, then there is none which could exclude the laws of nature. Without the laws of nature, nothing else exists. Not even science.

If it does not include the laws of nature, then it is not science. It is theology.

Oh, beloved men and women,
You will never have the knowledge which excludes the laws of nature!

Stick to the focused argument!
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Stick to the focused argument!
Your argument is that divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, satisfiablilty, etc. are "natural laws".

They are not.

They are interpretations of observations we make through our sensory perceptions of the physical world.

Science is simply a methodological way of interpreting the observations that we gain through our sensory perceptions of the physical world.

Science is no different that "dividing" or "comparing" aside from that it uses a different interpretation of observations.
 
Last edited:

exvirgin

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
5
Location
Tiruchirappalli
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Your argument is that divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, satisfiablilty, etc. are "natural laws".

They are not.

They are interpretations of observations we make through our sensory perceptions of the physical world.

Science is simply a methodological way of interpreting the observations that we gain through our sensory perceptions of the physical world.

Science is no different that "dividing" or "comparing" aside from that it uses a different interpretation of observations.
They are natural laws.
They are the universal standards with which you interpret and explain the observations. Science is not an exception to that.

What will you do if no thing has divisibility?
What would your knowledge be if no thing has divisibility?
What is the knowledge which excludes the laws of nature?

Why do you teach about divisibility? Can you stop teaching about - divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and satisfiablilty? You cannot. Just give a try.

If divisibility is not a universal law of nature, then what it is?

You have to answer a series of scientific questions if you want to refute that divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and satisfiablilty are not universal laws of nature.

Are you ready for that?

Note:
I know about the Quantum mechanics too! Again it does not refute the existence divisibility of photons.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If divisibility is not a universal law of nature, then what it is?
As I said before, divisibility is an interpretation of an observation through our sensory perceptions of the world.

We make an observation, whether it is distance, mass, matter, etc. and we interpret it in parts.

Without our senses or observations, divisibilty is meaningless.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, technically nothing exists without a mind to perceive it.

I get what exvirgin is saying in sort of a vague way. If you are looking for something you will always see it. It's kind of like if you are down on life and having a bad day, you will only notice the bad things happening around you, vs. a good day. In reality, both exist, but your perception changes that which is seen.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,174
Reaction score
5,629
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You have to answer a series of scientific questions if you want to refute that divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and satisfiablilty are not universal laws of nature.

Are you ready for that?
There is no way to show, much less prove, that divisibility is a "universal law of nature, but I can think of several examples that illustrate why divisibility is not a universal phenomenon:
  • The best example is "empty space" - which is something that cannot be divided. Although science always seeks to identify new particles, fields, and waves found within empty space, it does not search for divisibility of empty space itself. You can't divide zero or nothing into parts. Either empty space "exists", or it does not - we will never know. Its existence cannot be deduced from a "law of divisibility" and it can never be proven with science.
  • Second, properties of systems cannot always be explained in terms of consituent parts, in which case further divisibility is simply not interesting. This is one reason why we have so many different scientific disciplines. Science does not "search for divisibility everywhere" -- on the contrary, in many areas it prefers to make rather sweeping judgments of faith. We assume that my ability to type can be explained by psychology that is explained by biology that is explained by chemistry that is explained by physics - but this has never been a goal of science and will never be proven by science. Scientists in each of these disciplines only search for divisibility as it pertains to their interests. There will never be an effort to explain conscious thought in terms of physics.
So no... divisibility is not found everywhere in everything, and scientists do not look for divisibility everywhere or in everything.
 

exvirgin

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
5
Location
Tiruchirappalli
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
There is no way to show, much less prove, that divisibility is a "universal law of nature, but I can think of several examples that illustrate why divisibility is not a universal phenomenon:
  • The best example is "empty space" - which is something that cannot be divided. Although science always seeks to identify new particles, fields, and waves found within empty space, it does not search for divisibility of empty space itself. You can't divide zero or nothing into parts. Either empty space "exists", or it does not - we will never know. Its existence cannot be deduced from a "law of divisibility" and it can never be proven with science.
  • Second, properties of systems cannot always be explained in terms of consituent parts, in which case further divisibility is simply not interesting. This is one reason why we have so many different scientific disciplines. Science does not "search for divisibility everywhere" -- on the contrary, in many areas it prefers to make rather sweeping judgments of faith. We assume that my ability to type can be explained by psychology that is explained by biology that is explained by chemistry that is explained by physics - but this has never been a goal of science and will never be proven by science. Scientists in each of these disciplines only search for divisibility as it pertains to their interests. There will never be an effort to explain conscious thought in terms of physics.
So no... divisibility is not found everywhere in everything, and scientists do not look for divisibility everywhere or in everything.
1. Is there any scientific proof for the 'claimed fact' that empty space cannot be divided? Space, empty or otherwise, has a definite volume. The volume can be divided into cubic millimeters, etc. How can science enumerate the volume of empty space if empty space cannot be divided into the units of cubic mm or cubic cm?

2. What is that which has been explained (by science) excluding divisibility? Be specific.

3. Psychology, physics, chemistry, biology - again they are the 'divisions' of science.

4. Nothing is not a thing. Nothing excludes divisibility!

Science searches for divisibility everywhere in everything! It divides the space, time, matter, atoms, molecules, ....

Science should not teach about the divisibility of atoms, molecules and other entities, if it does not search for divisibility.

Without searching for divisibility, how could science establish the divsibility of atoms, time, space and other entities?

Is there anyone to categorically prove that science does not search for divisibility everywhere in everything?

All the scientific findings, so far, reinstate the fact that science searches for divisibility everywhere in everything!

--
Come with the evidence, exvirgin is ready to argue it out to any extent!
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Divisibility is a descriptor. It is nothing but interpreted sensory information of the physical world. I don't know why that is so hard to get your mind around.
 

exvirgin

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
5
Location
Tiruchirappalli
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Divisibility is a descriptor. It is nothing but interpreted sensory information of the physical world. I don't know why that is so hard to get your mind around.
Is divisibility merely a descriptor?
Is it not a physical reality?
Is it not a ideal reality?
Is it not a mathematical function?
Is it not a constitutional principle of the universe?
Is it not the foundation of analysis? (analyse - divide and find the relationship)
What relationship can be defined in an undifferentiated, undivided universe?
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,174
Reaction score
5,629
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1. Is there any scientific proof for the 'claimed fact' that empty space cannot be divided? Space, empty or otherwise, has a definite volume. The volume can be divided into cubic millimeters, etc. How can science enumerate the volume of empty space if empty space cannot be divided into the units of cubic mm or cubic cm?
I mean the concept of the vacuum - nothing, zero

4. Nothing is not a thing. Nothing excludes divisibility!
If science is the pursuit of definable and measured facts, then there is none which could exclude the laws of nature.
Science need not be about "things." A vacuum is definable and measureable, having no matter, no energy, no temperature...

The vacuum is a scientific concept that excludes divisibility.

Therefore, divisibility is not universal.
 

exvirgin

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
5
Location
Tiruchirappalli
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I mean the concept of the vacuum - nothing, zero



Science need not be about "things." A vacuum is definable and measureable, having no matter, no energy, no temperature...

The vacuum is a scientific concept that excludes divisibility.

Therefore, divisibility is not universal.
Doesn't vaccum occupy space?

Vaccum is the space which has no matter in it, but it has definite voume!
Again the vaccum can be divided in terms of its volume!

Nothing excludes divisbility.
But, the concept of nothing does not exclude divisibility.
 

other

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
587
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Doesn't vaccum occupy space?
I don't think a vacuum occupies space. It is a characteristic of some spaces.

If you were then to "divide" nothingness, you wouldn't be doing anything. No essential characteristic of the vacuum is altered by division, so it is not divisible. If you divide an apple, you break it into smaller parts, if you attempt to divide a vacuum, you aren't doing anything at all.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom