irichc

Syllogism:

1) Everything which is divisible in time is caused.
2) Everything which is caused is mobile.
3) Everything which is divisible in time is mobile.

A sensu contrario:

1) Everything which is indivisible in time is uncaused.
2) Everything which is uncaused is still.
3) Everything which is indivisible in time is still.

Justification:

So atomists will ever be wrong, because, although they imagine mobile atoms, they are not able to explain who or what put them in motion.

If atom* can't split up, then:

1) It has a free will and an absolute faculty of self-determination;

2) Or it has to be moved outerly.

If it has a free will, which would mean a total uncertainty, science is helpless to understand this kind of phenomena. They would be an eternal Ignotum (X) for human comprehension.

If it has to be moved outerly, then every atom needs something which is not an atom and acts instead of it as its first cause. Being the motive power and the atom two essentialy different things, the motive power will be infinitely divisible. Thus, the atomist contradicts himself (matter is and isn't infinitely divisible), or he has to presuppose God anyway.

Conclusion:

If real atoms existed, they won't move. Things we call atoms move, so they weren't atoms at all. Therefore, real atoms don't exist, because everything in nature is continuously in movement.

If matter is infinitely divisible, man, which has a finite understanding, will never dominate the cosmos completely (principle of relative uncertainty).

Daniel.

* I call "atom" any alleged indivisible particle of matter.

Philosophy forum (spanish):

http://boards1.melodysoft.com/app?ID=isegoria

cfgauss

Nope. Reality's a bitch, isn't it?

Philosoft

I understand English isn't your first language, but what in Poseidon's deep ocean are those words supposed to mean?

beyelzu

last i checked nobody said that there was an infinite number of atoms. and furthermore your little proof seems to ignore the prime mover god that you argued for in your other post. one force acting on one atom that in turn acts on others. or is that some sort of logical impossibility that i and newton dont understand.

Jobar

irichc:
Syllogism:

1) Everything which is divisible in time is caused.

Whoa. Stop right there. There are two mistakes embedded in that line.

First mistake, by saying 'cause' you are simply assuming what you wish to prove, i.e., God.

Second mistake- this is harder to explain.

Imagine that you are looking at the world through a fence with one board missing. This is the only information about the world you receive, or have ever received. Now an elephant walks by outside the fence.

You see first the trunk, then the head, front legs, then back legs, and then the tail.

It is wrong to say that the head 'causes' the tail. Head and tail are both parts or aspects of one phenomenon: elephant.

Our own senses are like the slot in the fence. What may appear to us as a causal relationship is actually a process- dividing the process into 'cause' and 'effect' is an arbitrary and artificial splitting of a unity into a duality at what seems a convenient place.

And that's just the first line! The only single line that I might be willing to accept as a basis for discussion is #3-

3) Everything which is divisible in time is mobile.

It might be that is a statement of relativity, as in E=mc^2; note that 'cause' has no place here. If it was meant in this fashion, I would be interested to know if a black hole (or an atom in a black hole) is divisible in time, or mobile. Any opinions on that?

irichc

Yeah, the Universe is a whole phenomenon, but everything in the Universe happens in a definite, precise, certain, given, particular way, which excludes other possibilities. So 'causes' are as artificial as reason is.

Daniel.

irichc

I'll post it in spanish next time.

Daniel.

tk

- I -
Science no longer maintains that atoms are indivisible: they are comprised of neutrons, protons and electrons, which in turn may also be comprised of other even smaller entities. The use of the word "atom" is a historical accident.

- II -
"Total uncertainty" and "total determinism" is a false dichotomy.

irichc

Have you read the * in the bottom of my first post?

tk

Did. I'm curious to hear of any particle which science now alleges is indivisible.

"Total uncertainty" and "total determinism" is still a false dichotomy.