Page 2 of 2

Re: Dimensionless points

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:57 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
Arising_uk wrote: โ†‘
Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:49 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: I already logically proved it when I talked about QM earlier which says that particles occupy all of space. I'll be awaiting your response before I respond further.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธPhilX๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
If 'particles' occupy all of Space then there is no 'Space' and if they do what need 'dimensionless points'?
I see you and wtf are tag-teaming. Good.

Since through QM the particles occupy all of space, this means that space has dimensionless points for the particles to be matched to as I've said before which you've just admitted to as existing. This also means that space always has dimensionless points since they don't take up space and the dimensionless points then coincide with the particles.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธPhilX๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

Re: Dimensionless points

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:20 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
wtf wrote: โ†‘
Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:06 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:20 am
I already logically proved it when I talked about QM earlier which says that particles occupy all of space.
Didn't you say earlier that you haven't got proof? That you have "evidence" in the form of a claim (unsourced, unlinked, unsupported) that QM implies dimensionless points? How did you get from admitting you haven't got proof to claiming you do?

ps here it is ...
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:25 am
While not proof, it does suggest that dimensionless points do exist since theoretically they would form the center of record players.
How did you get from "while not a proof" to claiming you have proof? And center of record players? What if God has an iPod? I don't see anything here about record players. WTF are you talking about Phil?

pps -- Do you have a cat? Sometimes people's cats type things when their humans aren't looking. If you left your computer on and turned your back, your cat might have typed claims your posts don't support.
I'm talking about something different with Arising.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธPhilX๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

PS No I don't have a cat (what a silly question).

Re: Dimensionless points

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:56 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:20 pm
It's been argued before that dimensionless points can't physically exist to which I disagree. I want to add an additional argument.

Scientists say that empty space can't exist due to QM which spreads mass throughout the universe. With QM the dimensions can be 0 which is supported by science. Therefore you can have dimensionless points, objectively speaking.

Also, from Quora, it was asked whether dimensionless points make sense. This answer was posted:

"This is actually a pretty subtle question, mathematically. The word , as used in the question, only has meaning relative to some conceptual space, i.e. metric space, topological space, etc. Conceptually, dimension is defined using vectors, hence, is really only meaningful in . Vector spaces are defined over and every field has a metric defined on it (generally the ), hence, every vector space is a . In general metric spaces a โ€œdimensionless pointโ€ does make sense; it is most often represented by the .

Some mathematicians may argue that every โ€œpointโ€ is dimensionless but this is not really true. In the context of formal mathematical construction, โ€œpointโ€ is a primitive term, which means it is left undefined and the definition is induced by the construction. So, technically speaking, the null vector is the only dimensionless point since every other point in the space needs at least one non-zero vector, hence, at least one dimension to define it. The dimension of each point in the space, then, is a function of its relation to the .

I believe this gets at the heart of your question "

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฒPhilX๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฒ
My argument:

A dimensionless point can only be observe through the relation of dimensions, ie a 1d line (and I sound like a broken record at this point, lol). As an "no-dimension" it is a an inversion of dimensional, with dimensional being argued as "directed movement through limit". The 0d point is an observation of relation in these respects and a point of inversion where the dimension inverts to another dimension.


In theory there should also be a point with dimension, ie 1 dimensional. Most of our understand of points are based upon axioms that exist through specific frameworks but these axioms, I believe can and should be updated.

Re: Dimensionless points

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:50 pm
by wtf
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:20 pm
PS No I don't have a cat (what a silly question).
You type all this stuff yourself?

Re: Dimensionless points

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:41 pm
by Arising_uk
Philosophy Explorer wrote:I see you and wtf are tag-teaming. Good. โ€ฆ
What are you waffling about?
Since through QM the particles occupy all of space, this means that space has dimensionless points for the particles to be matched to โ€ฆ
Why?
โ€ฆ as I've said before which you've just admitted to as existing.
You are delusional.
This also means that space always has dimensionless points since they don't take up space and the dimensionless points then coincide with the particles.
Waffle and nonsense together.

Re: Dimensionless points

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:34 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:57 pm
Arising_uk wrote: โ†‘
Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:49 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: I already logically proved it when I talked about QM earlier which says that particles occupy all of space. I'll be awaiting your response before I respond further.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธPhilX๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
If 'particles' occupy all of Space then there is no 'Space' and if they do what need 'dimensionless points'?
I see you and wtf are tag-teaming. Good.

Since through QM the particles occupy all of space, this means that space has dimensionless points for the particles to be matched to as I've said before which you've just admitted to as existing. This also means that space always has dimensionless points since they don't take up space and the dimensionless points then coincide with the particles.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธPhilX๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
I agree with the above, well said.