You will find them everywhere in everything

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

You will find them everywhere in everything

If you search for divisibility,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for comparability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for connectivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for sensitivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for transformability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for substitutability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for satisfiability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the divisibility of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the comparability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the connectivity of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the sensitivity of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the transformability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the substitutability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

Doesn’t science search and study the conditions which could be satisfied (satisfiability) by atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities? Yes, science searches for it everywhere in everything!

What will you do if nothing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and statisfiability?

What would your knowledge be if nothing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and statisfiability?

2

Inhuman.

If you search for magic,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

The question is this – Are those characteristics of reality by nature, or do we apply them to reality for our own benefit?

3

They are realities.
for example, if divisibility is not reality, how would one divide things?

4

I get that it is part of reality, but is it something that exists inherently or that we ascribe to reality? If we had no desire or use for divisibility, would it still be a reality?

The short answer is that we wouldn’t. Your answer begs the question…

It’s like saying “If edibility were not a reality, how would one eat things?”
I’m essentially saying “Given edibility, one can eat”
The premise is implied in the proposition.

Given divisibility, one can divide. OK, but why must we divide and why is divisibility a ‘given’?

5

They are all part of reality.

6

#-o

7

These are all nouns created from adjectives.
These adjectives were all created from conjugating verbs.
Verbs are references to nouns in action or condition.
They are not a physical thing.
They are the state or condition of a physical thing.

They are a reference to a thing by categorized label of the name of the thing in a conceived action.

All of these in this list are dependent upon conception to exist as anything at all.
An ant can exist without conception of the ant.
Divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and statisfiability cannot.

So far; these actions are only observed in the conception of humanity and nothing else.
Take away humanity, and like music theory, they cease to exist at all.

8

ON the other hand, it can be argued, with success, that nothing has divisibility, etc. We lay the foundations for what counts as an object and “divisibility” is one of the instruments, a rather blunt one, for assembling the objects we project onto the world.

9

Haha, well at least someone else noticed. Needless to say, I chose to abandon ship after the second reply.

In short, I think it fair to say the qualities being discussed here are human inventions – utilities by which we gain understanding. That they seem to logically correspond to reality is why they work; that much was wholly intentional.

I can eat without having a concept of ‘edibility’ the same that I can compare without a concept of ‘comparability.’ We are simply lending designations to those tools that seem most fundamental to our understanding (which doesn’t imply that those designations are fundamental to ‘existence’ or ‘reality’).

10

You will ‘initially’ find them everywhere in everything, its all about the processes ~ by drawing a distance betwixt things our perspective becomes spatial so we will see divisibility and absolutes, if we let that go [perspective] then they don’t exist. Reality matches this and in the process we get the illusion of material reality.

If I am wrong it’s a most interesting conundrum, would we not have to conclude that we find contradiction everywhere and that this is true/real ~ that to make a contradiction is to tell a truth?

nice thread idea.

11

seems to me as if every argument i’ve ever had boils down to this

12

They have divisibility.
They show divisibility.
You see divisbility.
Divisibility is the antecedent of the action ‘division’.

13

Those aren’t things.
Those are actions possible by conception of the action for the usefulness to ourselves; just like edibility.

If you remove us, then a thing isn’t divisible; it just is.
These things are everywhere we look because we are everywhere we look.
This is no different than words; words aren’t the things in which they describe, but they are everywhere we look.

These things you are bent on are incredibly useful to us for articulation, and they have great meaning, but they are not a thing unto themselves absent of ourselves.

14

trick question…the opposite of existence is existence :slight_smile:

15

This leads to the conclusion:
You will never have the knowledge which excludes the universal laws of nature!

16

:slight_smile: …knowledge is only possible because of God :slight_smile:

17

Which should, hopefully, lead to the realization that perceived ‘universals’ regarding the nature of Earth do not necessarily, or even probably, apply universally to all of nature.

‘Universals’ are only made possible through perspective.

That is good information about your personal beliefs, but nothing remotely useful with regard to ‘objective’ reality.

18

Do universals have to be omniversal? Surely they don’t apply to all of nature but to their part of it. For example; there is the universal of ‘balance and polarity’ but it only applies universally to that which work by it, then there are other universals to which other thing not part of that universal work.

all of nature is the universal of ‘universe’, but god knows how we would define that, the collection of universals, specifics and non-specifics perhaps?

19

Is “omniversal” a word? I think the intended meaning of that term is actually the meaning of “universal” – so, to answer your question, I’d say yes.

They do by my working definition (which is the standardized definition), which, I think, resolves the ‘omni’ distinction:

.

Well then it isn’t “universal”, it is conditional. We can talk about something being “universal” in a specific context, but describing something as “universal” for practical purposes doesn’t actually imply true universality. My computer is objective as far as I can tell, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it truly is objective reality.

That is an interesting question, but one I’m reluctant to give serious thought because I am still unsure that any true ‘universal(s)’ even exist.

20

It is not but I think it is what the term universal is generally seen as, but I was attempting to give it a more qualative context, like universals are relative to groups of similars rather that trying to describe ‘all’ [hence ‘omni‘], so all of a kind is more what they represent.

Can mean everywhere, where the universal applies and to all relevant cases. Obviously the universal of balance and polarity does not apply to things which are non polarised, but it does apply to ‘all’ things which are.

Good point but why not universal and conditional? That is not to say that there is no thing which is universal because nature ~ the universe is universal, but to define it we would have to apply a myriad of specifics and non-specifics and the collection of universals.

Its an interesting question you pose; ‘how do we define the universal of the universe?’