Aren’t your activities limited by the properties of things?
People/things are divided because they have divisibility.
People/things are compared because they have comparability.
People/things are connected because they have connectivity.
People/things are disturbed because they have disturbability.
People/things are reordered because they have reorderability.
People/things are substituted because they have substitutability.
People/things are satisfied because they have satisfiability.
Things can be divisable, which are not yet divided. ‘Divisibility’ is a capacity to be divided. My sandwhich is divisible, but it is not divided. Yet.
So ‘People are divided because they have disibility’ is necessarily untrue. Even if it were true that people were ‘divided’ - this could not be due purely to the fact that people were divisible.
Actually, personally I am not ‘divided’ at all - all of my limbs are perfectly intact.
At any rate - all of your propositions suffer the same failure - the relationship proposed is false.
Something fillable is not necessarily full. If it were, I wouldn’t have been able to drink my apartment dry last night. There is a difference between a capacity and actually fulfilling that capacity.
Yeah, on restating:
People/things cannot be divided if they do not have divisibility.
People/things cannot be compared if they do not have comparability.
People/things cannot be connected if they do not have connectivity.
People/things cannot be disturbed if they do not have disturbability.
People/things cannot be reordered if they do not have reorderability.
People/things cannot be substituted if they do not have substitutability.
People/things cannot be satisfied if they do not have satisfiability.
just a tautology.
no meaningful information is conveyed in this sentence.
Stellamonika, may I observe that what you list are ‘truisms’, that is to say things that are self-evidently the case. There never has been, is, or ever will be, anything that is not possible. Thus it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the impossible has been achieved or realised. An extension of this would be, the observation that all that is - in the Universe of our existence, is ‘natural’ to that Universe; there can be nothing that is ‘un-natural’ or ‘super-natural’. Mind, the word “natural” and its cognates have a breadth of application that can be confusing. I have used it simply in the sense of elements of a set; others refer to all that does not owe its existence to human activity, while others reify “Nature” and accord it a quasi-consciousness … and so it goes.
Interestingly, it is a fundamental condition of existence that differentiation be possible, that “is” may be distinguished from “is not”. This gives rise to the fundamental paradox, keenly observed (if rather wildly described) by Nietzsche, that what exists does so in inextricable tandem with its opposite. To wit: Rid the world of War and there is Peace no more!
Addendum: In response to the headline question - ‘activities’ are both enabled and limited by the properties of things.