|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2021 20:42:19 GMT
The atom is composed of itself as a particle is composed of particles. The atom as an irreducible entity however negates this. But a paradox occurs as the atom being reduced to a further atom necessitates no reduction happening at all given the atom is present across each reductive phase.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 17, 2021 13:15:31 GMT
Seems that the atom is an impossible concept. I don't believe in realistic version of such metaphysics. I think we should not say whether those deities are indeed "atoms". It's better to say that those deities are rather "concepts of atoms".
So, let's change it:
The concept of atom is composed of itself as a conceptual particle is composed of conceptual particles. The concept of atom as an irreducible entity however negates this. But a paradox occurs as the concept of atom being reduced to a further concept of atom necessitates no conceptual reduction happening at all given the concept of atom is present across each conceptual reductive phase.
This version is a little bit scratchy, but it doesn't seem to be so unimpossible and paradoxical.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 6, 2022 22:09:15 GMT
Seems that the atom is an impossible concept. I don't believe in realistic version of such metaphysics. I think we should not say whether those deities are indeed "atoms". It's better to say that those deities are rather "concepts of atoms". So, let's change it: The concept of atom is composed of itself as a conceptual particle is composed of conceptual particles. The concept of atom as an irreducible entity however negates this. But a paradox occurs as the concept of atom being reduced to a further concept of atom necessitates no conceptual reduction happening at all given the concept of atom is present across each conceptual reductive phase.This version is a little bit scratchy, but it doesn't seem to be so unimpossible and paradoxical. 1. If the atom is an impossible concept then we would not be able to conceive it as to conceive it would make it possible. The atom is "a part of something" and as "a part of something" it exists. The manifestation of parts is the manifestation of a system of measurement. The manifestation of a system of measurement is an observation and as an observation is part of reality given all observations are the result of a series of events which culminate under the phenomenon of consciousness. In simpler terms the evolution of phenomenon into the phenomenon of consciousness necessitates any measurement resulting from consciousness as an extension of the base phenomenon it evolved from. This makes it (the measurement) real. 2. It is paradoxical given any reduction of an atom results in the continuity of the atom. In reducing an atom to another atom the phenomenon of the atom is ever present throughout the change. This necessitates the atom as irreducible given any reduction of the atom maintains the atom as ever present; in reducing the atom a paradoxical absence of reducibility occurs. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jan 12, 2022 9:24:15 GMT
Seems that the atom is an impossible concept. I don't believe in realistic version of such metaphysics. I think we should not say whether those deities are indeed "atoms". It's better to say that those deities are rather "concepts of atoms". So, let's change it: The concept of atom is composed of itself as a conceptual particle is composed of conceptual particles. The concept of atom as an irreducible entity however negates this. But a paradox occurs as the concept of atom being reduced to a further concept of atom necessitates no conceptual reduction happening at all given the concept of atom is present across each conceptual reductive phase.This version is a little bit scratchy, but it doesn't seem to be so unimpossible and paradoxical. I like it |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 13, 2022 22:23:16 GMT
Seems that the atom is an impossible concept. I don't believe in realistic version of such metaphysics. I think we should not say whether those deities are indeed "atoms". It's better to say that those deities are rather "concepts of atoms". So, let's change it: The concept of atom is composed of itself as a conceptual particle is composed of conceptual particles. The concept of atom as an irreducible entity however negates this. But a paradox occurs as the concept of atom being reduced to a further concept of atom necessitates no conceptual reduction happening at all given the concept of atom is present across each conceptual reductive phase.This version is a little bit scratchy, but it doesn't seem to be so unimpossible and paradoxical. I like it Eugene is avoiding the core argument; the paradox points to the fact that in reducing certain things one is maintaining the original form thus no reduction occurs: an atom to an atom maintains the atom as ever present, the same occurs for the concept to a concept, particle to a particle, a line to a line, etc. The very fact that the atom, or "x" phenomenon, is irreducible is maintained as fact given any reducibility maintains the original phenomenon as ever present. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jan 14, 2022 0:52:23 GMT
Eugene is avoiding the core argument; the paradox points to the fact that in reducing certain things one is maintaining the original form thus no reduction occurs: an atom to an atom maintains the atom as ever present, the same occurs for the concept to a concept, particle to a particle, a line to a line, etc. The very fact that the atom, or "x" phenomenon, is irreducible is maintained as fact given any reducibility maintains the original phenomenon as ever present. But it is reducible infact science has decided to make up even more imaginary things so it separated out the atom using the model of the solar system to explain how an atom is built and then they got bored and decided to imagine even more things and then they came up with quark's and I'm waiting for them to come out with what quark's made out of I'm thinking it's going to be Easter bunnies |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 15, 2022 23:19:08 GMT
Eugene is avoiding the core argument; the paradox points to the fact that in reducing certain things one is maintaining the original form thus no reduction occurs: an atom to an atom maintains the atom as ever present, the same occurs for the concept to a concept, particle to a particle, a line to a line, etc. The very fact that the atom, or "x" phenomenon, is irreducible is maintained as fact given any reducibility maintains the original phenomenon as ever present. But it is reducible infact science has decided to make up even more imaginary things so it separated out the atom using the model of the solar system to explain how an atom is built and then they got bored and decided to imagine even more things and then they came up with quark's and I'm waiting for them to come out with what quark's made out of I'm thinking it's going to be Easter bunnies A particle reduces to another particle which reduces to another particle thus making the particle ever present. The same structure of reducibility applies to concepts as well. The paradox is that in reducing something that something maintains a degree of sameness thus nothing is reduced. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jan 16, 2022 20:55:23 GMT
But it is reducible infact science has decided to make up even more imaginary things so it separated out the atom using the model of the solar system to explain how an atom is built and then they got bored and decided to imagine even more things and then they came up with quark's and I'm waiting for them to come out with what quark's made out of I'm thinking it's going to be Easter bunnies A particle reduces to another particle which reduces to another particle thus making the particle ever present. The same structure of reducibility applies to concepts as well. The paradox is that in reducing something that something maintains a degree of sameness thus nothing is reduced. I can agree with that |
|
