How valid is 'division' and 'divisibility'?

[Consul]

If the universe is one extended simple material substance, then it doesn't have any substantial parts but (possibly infinitely many) spatial parts.

Using Thomas Holden's terminology, such a universe is formally and intellectually divisible but not physically or metaphysically.

[PoeticUniverse]

If the universe is one extended simple material substance, then it doesn't have any substantial parts but (possibly infinitely many) spatial parts.

Yes, if the base is just one quantum field.

[Atla]

But those elementary parts still all seem to be inseparably connected to each other throughout the universe, with no known counterexample.

The other issue is that even elementary parts themselves may still be infinitely divisible, when they behave as "unobserved waves" and seem to be spread out across the entire universe in every possible way all at once, interfering with themselves.

The so-called elementary particles would be the quanta of their specific quantum fields, of which there are many types, and each of these fields would be indivisible. These fields ever remain as themselves since the elementary particles are stable kinks of excitation, which is also why all elementary particles of a type are identical. As the fields are everywhere, the elementary particle can go on to move anywhere and build into something more complex. Presumably, all the types of fields are distinct but can still affect other fields' doings.

I'd say they always affect other field's doings so they can't be viewed as distinct.

[PoeticUniverse]

I'd say they always affect other field's doings so they can't be viewed as distinct.

Yes, and so I agree with you and, in retrospect, with how I put it, and so the All is indivisible, as it ought to be, it not having a beginning, unmakeable and unbreakable, and ever remaining as itself, the elementary particles being the rather stable quanta of field excitations.

Good one!

[Pattern-chaser]

If the universe is one extended simple material substance, then it doesn't have any substantial parts but (possibly infinitely many) spatial parts.

Thanks to your efforts, the question I asked will soon be so sharply defined that someone will cut themselves on it. I really don't mean to sound ungrateful, especially as almost no-one else has seen fit to try helping. But I don't think my original question was that difficult to understand.

Is it justified or justifiable to consider a galaxy, a human, or a virus as distinct, separate and independent of the rest of the universe? Or are they all undivided and indivisible parts of the universe-as-a-whole?

I think that's easy enough to understand. Will anyone attempt an answer?

[Pattern-chaser]

I'd say they always affect other field's doings so they can't be viewed as distinct.

Yes, and so I agree with you and, in retrospect, with how I put it, and so the All is indivisible, as it ought to be, it not having a beginning, unmakeable and unbreakable, and ever remaining as itself, the elementary particles being the rather stable quanta of field excitations.

Having just complained that no-one is attempting an answer, I am proven wrong. Thanks to both of you.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'd say they always affect other field's doings so they can't be viewed as distinct.

Yes, and so I agree with you and, in retrospect, with how I put it, and so the All is indivisible, as it ought to be, it not having a beginning, unmakeable and unbreakable, and ever remaining as itself, the elementary particles being the rather stable quanta of field excitations.

Having just complained that no-one is attempting an answer, I am proven wrong. Thanks to both of you.

I think this topic has achieved such interest as it is going to. Time to wind up, I think.

From your contributions, I guess that you - Atla and PoeticUniverse - generally agree with me, that the actual universe is one thing, and cannot correctly be seen as a collection of disparate parts that exist independently and separately. But my only 'justification' for this view is Occam's Razor, a rule of thumb (i.e. method that helps us to guess), to recommend the simplest of the 2 assumptions (that the universe is or is not divisible). So my position is based on guesswork; I suppose this isn't really a surprise.

Thanks to those who have contributed, even if no conclusions could be drawn.

[Atla]

I'd say they always affect other field's doings so they can't be viewed as distinct.

Yes, and so I agree with you and, in retrospect, with how I put it, and so the All is indivisible, as it ought to be, it not having a beginning, unmakeable and unbreakable, and ever remaining as itself, the elementary particles being the rather stable quanta of field excitations.

Having just complained that no-one is attempting an answer, I am proven wrong. Thanks to both of you.

I think this topic has achieved such interest as it is going to. Time to wind up, I think.

From your contributions, I guess that you - Atla and PoeticUniverse - generally agree with me, that the actual universe is one thing, and cannot correctly be seen as a collection of disparate parts that exist independently and separately. But my only 'justification' for this view is Occam's Razor, a rule of thumb (i.e. method that helps us to guess), to recommend the simplest of the 2 assumptions (that the universe is or is not divisible). So my position is based on guesswork; I suppose this isn't really a surprise.

Thanks to those who have contributed, even if no conclusions could be drawn.

Not only do I agree with you, but I've been arguing on philosophy forums for the nondual philosophical paradigm, which is based on non-separability, as opposed to the Western paradigm which is based on genuine separation, in its many forms.
People hate it when I say that I think that science has more or less refuted the most fundamental assumption of the Western school of thought, but I really see it that way, and I have not yet encountered any valid counter-argument.

[Terrapin Station]

Re divisibility, I'd say that something is divisible either if:

(a) it's possible for it to be separated or broken into more than one part,
or
(b) it has more than one part, made evident by changing relations or distinct properties between the parts (for example, imagine two elementary particles orbiting each other or even "glued together" where there are clearly different properties such as different charges), although it wouldn't be possible for those parts to be separated or broken into more than one part.

For "separated or broken," that simply refers to the notion that something can be spatially separated where the parts can move around relatively independently--a force could change one part's velocity, for example, and the part could be moved away by huge distances--light years or whatever.

[Pattern-chaser]

Re divisibility, I'd say that something is divisible if...

Yes, there are subtleties to be considered about the precise definition of divisibility, but we all know well enough what is meant by the term, and this topic asks a different question: is division rationally/logically/etc justified or justifiable? Do you have an opinion on this, and is your justification of that opinion any more rigorous (!) than my guesswork-justification of my own position?

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, there are subtleties to be considered about the precise definition of divisibility, but we all know well enough what is meant by the term, and this topic asks a different question: is division rationally/logically/etc justified or justifiable?

I don't really understand what we'd be asking by "Is division(or divisibility) rationally/logically justified/justifiable?"

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, there are subtleties to be considered about the precise definition of divisibility, but we all know well enough what is meant by the term, and this topic asks a different question: is division rationally/logically/etc justified or justifiable?

I don't really understand what we'd be asking by "Is division(or divisibility) rationally/logically justified/justifiable?"

If the part and the whole are divisible, then the part can correctly be considered in isolation without loss of information or understanding. The whole is, in effect, merely a container for the part (and presumably, for other parts too). If they aren't divisible, then the preceding 2 sentences are incorrect.

I could take an axe, and divide your right arm from the rest of you. In that somewhat brutal way, we can say that you and your arm are divisible. But others, perhaps you, might say no, that your arm is an indivisible part of a whole - your body. Your body does not function fully without it. So you and your arm are not divisible, in the sense that we are considering.

What if we apply the same logic to the Milky Way and the universe? Are the two divisible, or is the Milky Way an indivisible part of the universe, just as your arm is an indivisible part of your body?

If you think the Milky Way and the universe are divisible, do you think there is a rational/logical justification for this view?

If you think the Milky Way and the universe are not divisible, do you think there is a rational/logical justification for this view?


It's the justification that this topic is about. Whether you're a Divisionist or an Indivisionist, is there a justification for your view?

[Pattern-chaser]

From your contributions, I guess that you - Atla and PoeticUniverse - generally agree with me, that the actual universe is one thing, and cannot correctly be seen as a collection of disparate parts that exist independently and separately. But my only 'justification' for this view is Occam's Razor, a rule of thumb (i.e. method that helps us to guess), to recommend the simplest of the 2 assumptions (that the universe is or is not divisible). So my position is based on guesswork; I suppose this isn't really a surprise.

Not only do I agree with you, but I've been arguing on philosophy forums for the nondual philosophical paradigm, which is based on non-separability, as opposed to the Western paradigm which is based on genuine separation, in its many forms.

Yes, this discussion is just the Cartesian mind/body separability/duality argument, but in a much broader context (the universe: everything).

People hate it when I say that I think that science has more or less refuted the most fundamental assumption of the Western school of thought, but I really see it that way, and I have not yet encountered any valid counter-argument.

So that I don't misunderstand, can you clarify what it is that science has refuted? [This is probably me being slow on the uptake....]

[Atla]

So that I don't misunderstand, can you clarify what it is that science has refuted? [This is probably me being slow on the uptake....]

The existence of fundamental separateness in the known world.