Is Existence Possible?

Farid7 · Oct 9, 2023

Hello everyone,

I just would like to share something about existence.

Suppose, there is a one inch object. We Traverse 0.5". That is the endpoint of the first half. The beginning of the next half cannot be next to 0.5", since there is no such a thing as a next point in space, unless space is not infinitely divisible. That means the endpoint of the first half and beginning of the second half has things in between. This would hold true about every part of the object, which would make it impossible for the object to have a part bigger than zero inches. Which would make it impossible to exist.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 9, 2023

Real numbers exist, and measurements are real numbers, so therefore an inch long object exists. So therefore, existence is possible.

Plus: cogito, ergo sum.

The IbanezerScrooge · Oct 9, 2023

Farid7 said:
Hello everyone,

I just would like to share something about existence.

Suppose, there is a one inch object. We Traverse 0.5". That is the endpoint of the first half.

None of what you said makes any sense to me.

Farid7 said:
The beginning of the next half cannot be next to 0.5",

Why?

Farid7 said:
since there is no such a thing as a next number.

What does that mean?

Farid7 said:
That means the endpoint of the first half and beginning of the second half has things in between.

What things?

Farid7 said:
This would hold true about every part of the object, which would make it impossible for the object to have a part bigger than zero inches.

What?

Farid7 said:
Which would make it impossible to exist.

Obviously not, since, as Warden pointed out, things that don't exist can't be measured or traversed.

Farid7 · Oct 9, 2023

The IbanezerScrooge said:
What does that mean?

Please see this link on the discussion about the next number:

There is no Such a Thing as a Next Number

There is no such a thing as a next number. What do I mean by that? Let's use 1 as an example. 1 does not have a number that is next to it. You might think 2 is the next number, but 1.5 is actually in between them. You might think 1.5 is the next number, but 1.25 is between them. This goes on...

www.christianforums.com

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 9, 2023

Farid7 said:
Please see this link on the discussion about the next number:

There is no Such a Thing as a Next Number

There is no such a thing as a next number. What do I mean by that? Let's use 1 as an example. 1 does not have a number that is next to it. You might think 2 is the next number, but 1.5 is actually in between them. You might think 1.5 is the next number, but 1.25 is between them. This goes on...

www.christianforums.com

Which as was pointed out to you, next numbers do exist, because there is such a thing as real numbers.

It also wasn't a discussion. It was you posting the OP, replying to two people then never commenting on the thread again.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 9, 2023

Farid7 said:
Hello everyone,

I just would like to share something about existence.

Suppose, there is a one inch object. We Traverse 0.5". That is the endpoint of the first half. The beginning of the next half cannot be next to 0.5", since there is no such a thing as a next number. That means the endpoint of the first half and beginning of the second half has things in between. This would hold true about every part of the object, which would make it impossible for the object to have a part bigger than zero inches. Which would make it impossible to exist.

.......what's a philosophy of math thread doing in the middle of a science forum???

JeffP · Oct 9, 2023

Farid7 said:
Hello everyone,

I just would like to share something about existence.

Suppose, there is a one inch object. We Traverse 0.5". That is the endpoint of the first half. The beginning of the next half cannot be next to 0.5", since there is no such a thing as a next number. That means the endpoint of the first half and beginning of the second half has things in between. This would hold true about every part of the object, which would make it impossible for the object to have a part bigger than zero inches. Which would make it impossible to exist.

Thank you for sharing this intriguing thought experiment. It indeed evokes a reminiscent line of inquiry similar to Zeno's Paradoxes which delve into the philosophical and mathematical conundrums of motion, division, and existence. However, there are some fundamental distinctions between the theoretical or philosophical realm and the physical or empirical reality that might be worth considering:

Division and Measurement:
- In both mathematics and the physical world, dividing an object into halves or segments is a well-defined operation. For instance, in your scenario, the point of division at 0.5" is clear and precise.
Infinite Divisibility:
- Although there's an infinite number of points between any two points on a number line, this concept doesn't negate the existence of segments or objects with definite sizes. It rather reflects the continuous nature of space or, in mathematical terms, the properties of the real number line.
Existence of Objects:
- The existence and measurability of objects are not typically challenged by their theoretical divisibility. In the physical world, objects with definite dimensions exist in space, and their sizes can be measured with a high degree of precision, irrespective of the abstract notion of infinite divisibility.
Conceptual vs. Physical Reality:
- The argument seems to traverse the boundary between conceptual or mathematical abstractions and physical reality. While it's a fascinating exploration, the physical existence of objects remains intact despite the philosophical intricacies of infinite divisibility.
Practical Implications:
- Practically speaking, objects can be measured, divided, and interacted with in space regardless of the philosophical or mathematical dialogues concerning infinite divisibility.

Your post certainly provides a stimulating platform for delving into the philosophical aspects of existence and the nature of space and division. It's always enriching to engage in such thought-provoking discussions that challenge our understanding and perception of the world.

Bradskii · Oct 9, 2023

Farid7 said:
...since there is no such a thing as a next number.

So I guess there aren't any posts after number 1. And so this post can't exist. I would have been better off not sweeping the yard rather than not writing this.

Farid7 · Oct 12, 2023

Bradskii said:
So I guess there aren't any posts after number 1. And so this post can't exist. I would have been better off not sweeping the yard rather than not writing this.

Yes, it does exist because the post numbering system only use certain numbers called integers. If you include all numbers, the next number cannot

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Which as was pointed out to you, next numbers do exist, because there is such a thing as real numbers.

It also wasn't a discussion. It was you posting the OP, replying to two people then never commenting on the thread again.

Like I said above, integers can have next numbers. If you pick and choose other set of numbers, they can also have next numbers. But, if you include all the numbers, it won't be possible.

Farid7 · Oct 12, 2023

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Real numbers exist, and measurements are real numbers, so therefore an inch long object exists. So therefore, existence is possible.

Plus: cogito, ergo sum.

I never claimed that numbers don't exist. I understand it might be hard to make sense of all this. I am not here to debate. I just wanted to share the post. I am going to leave what people will conclude from this to themselves. Some might believe it's wrong, some might not.

If you believe this is wrong, then you're obviously saying that space has a limit. You're saying that there is a space so small, that it is the smallest and that it cannot within it contain smaller space.

stevil · Oct 12, 2023

Farid7 said:
Please see this link on the discussion about the next number:

There is no Such a Thing as a Next Number

There is no such a thing as a next number. What do I mean by that? Let's use 1 as an example. 1 does not have a number that is next to it. You might think 2 is the next number, but 1.5 is actually in between them. You might think 1.5 is the next number, but 1.25 is between them. This goes on...

www.christianforums.com

When it comes to reality there are limitations.

Have you ever heard of Plank's constant? or Plank's length?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 12, 2023

Farid7 said:
Like I said above, integers can have next numbers. If you pick and choose other set of numbers, they can also have next numbers. But, if you include all the numbers, it won't be possible.

But you're also relying on non-natural numbers and non-natural measurements. Real numbers and real measurements show that things have an existence since they can be measured. Even if it's something as small as a micron, it exists. Things exist.

Farid7 said:
I never claimed that numbers don't exist. I understand it might be hard to make sense of all this. I am not here to debate. I just wanted to share the post. I am going to leave what people will conclude from this to themselves. Some might believe it's wrong, some might not.

Will not lie: that does come across as a little bit cowardly.

Farid7 said:
If you believe this is wrong, then you're obviously saying that space has a limit. You're saying that there is a space so small, that it is the smallest and that it cannot within it contain smaller space.

Things have limits and things also do not have a limit. Anything small, then we get into metaphysics and that's beyond my pay grade. But what you said that I said is not what I said. I simply said:
"Real numbers exist, and measurements are real numbers, so therefore an inch long object exists. So therefore, existence is possible.

Plus: cogito, ergo sum."

Things can be measured, so by that simple fact, things exist.

Farid7 · Oct 12, 2023

Will not lie: that does come across as a little bit cowardly

Unless, you want me going around telling people they are wrong without basis, I don't see any problem with not debating. This is a complicated matter and has remained a mystery for a very long time. I just simply cannot explain why mathematically existence is impossible, yet things do exist. Science doesn't always have answers, but there is nothing cowardly about admitting that you don't have all the answers, scientists do it all the time.

Things have limits and things also do not have a limit. Anything small, then we get into metaphysics and that's beyond my pay grade. But what you said that I said is not what I said. I simply said:
"Real numbers exist, and measurements are real numbers, so therefore an inch long object exists. So therefore, existence is possible.

Plus: cogito, ergo sum."

Things can be measured, so by that simple fact, things exist.

Yes, you make sense. Obviously, people can see that things can exist. But, they might not believe that there is such a thing as a next number, or a space which does not contain smaller space.

Farid7 · Oct 12, 2023

stevil said:
When it comes to reality there are limitations.

Have you ever heard of Plank's constant? or Plank's length?

Yes.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 12, 2023

Farid7 said:
Unless, you want me going around telling people they are wrong without basis, I don't see any problem with not debating. This is a complicated matter and has remained a mystery for a very long time. I just simply cannot explain why mathematically existence is impossible, yet things do exist. Science doesn't always have answers, but there is nothing cowardly about admitting that you don't have all the answers, scientists do it all the time.

First off: how did you quote me without my name on it? That's new to me. Also does make it hard to respond to since it doesn't show as you actually quoting me.

Secondly: there's a difference between saying that you don't know a thing, and making a claim such as the one you made in the OP and doing nothing to actually defend it or even explain it further. Posting and running is not a behaviour that is looked well on. And as someone above pointed out, this is not really actuall science, it's philosophy of mathematics.

Farid7 said:
Yes, you make sense. Obviously, people can see that things can exist. But, they might not believe that there is such a thing as a next number, or a space which does not contain snalle

But again, your idea falls apart in the very fact that, if something can be measured then, by the physical laws of science, it can be measured, and thus can be shown to exist.

Farid7 · Oct 12, 2023

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
First off: how did you quote me without my name on it? That's new to me. Also does make it hard to respond to since it doesn't show as you actually quoting me.

Secondly: there's a difference between saying that you don't know a thing, and making a claim such as the one you made in the OP and doing nothing to actually defend it or even explain it further. Posting and running is not a behaviour that is looked well on. And as someone above pointed out, this is not really actuall science, it's philosophy of mathematics.

But again, your idea falls apart in the very fact that, if something can be measured then, by the physical laws of science, it can be measured, and thus can be shown to exist.

You can just copy the text you want to quote, then click on the three dots and then the parenthesis icon in the reply box and paste.

But again, your idea falls apart in the very fact that, if something can be measured then, by the physical laws of science, it can be measured, and thus can be shown to exist.

Yes, my idea does not have merit if it's possible for space to not have smaller space within it, at the Planck scale. Which is very hard to believe. Obviously, any one can just claim it is true, though.

Yes, if I claim that Zeno is wrong. Most people might agree with me. Obviously, because they can see change with their eyes. But, they might disagree about my explanation of why he is wrong.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 12, 2023

Farid7 said:
You can just copy the text you want to quote, then click on the three dots and then the parenthesis icon in the reply box and paste.

Huh. You might be using a different UI then I am since I've got none of that stuff. Anywho...

Farid7 said:
Yes, my idea does not have merit if it's possible for space to not have smaller space within it, at the Planck scale. Which is very hard to believe. Obviously, any one can just claim it is true, though.

Yes, if I claim that Zeno is wrong. Most people might agree with me. Obviously, because they can see change with their eyes. But, they might disagree about my explanation of why he is wrong.

Okay, but even if we regard either of those, what you put forward is not really an actual scientific comment though. It's metaphysics and mathematically phiolosphical too. It's not a physical or a life science.

stevil · Oct 12, 2023

Farid7 said:
Yes.

So then you must understand we live in a somewhat pixelised existence and not an infinity divisible one.
Your original post assumes an infinitely divisible one which doesn't match with reality.

Farid7 · Oct 12, 2023

stevil said:
So then you must understand we live in a somewhat pixelised existence and not an infinity divisible one.
Your original post assumes an infinitely divisible one which doesn't match with reality.

Yes, as hard it is to believe Zeno, it's similarly hard to believe space at the Planck scale cannot contain smaller space within it.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Huh. You might be using a different UI then I am since I've got none of that stuff. Anywho...

Okay, but even if we regard either of those, what you put forward is not really an actual scientific comment though. It's metaphysics and mathematically phiolosphical too. It's not a physical or a life science.

In the reply box, there are three 3 dots you can click to expand more options. Click the second one to the left.

Science does have a limit to how scientific it can get. What I am saying may not be perfect in every aspect, but scientific enough to be interesting.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 12, 2023

Farid7 said:
In the reply box, there are three 3 dots you can click to expand more options. Click the second one to the left.

Ah, so you're not using the quote/reply function you get when you highlight something. Gotcha!

Farid7 said:
Science does have a limit to how scientific it can get. What I am saying may not be perfect in every aspect, but scientific enough to be interesting.

Now that I will concede.

Is Existence Possible?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Unscrewing Romans 1:32

Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Active Member

Active Member

Godless and without morals

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Godless and without morals

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads