jupiviv wrote:Beingof1 wrote:The atoms that make up sand can also be a sand castle.
The total number of atoms in a sand castle may be said to be identical with the sand castle, but in that case a single atom in the sand castle is not identical with it.
What does this have to do with two things existing in the same place? You are sidestepping the issue.
Of course you can rename anything - that is called language.
B1: The atoms that make up the sun, are the same atoms that make up your body and so on.
Jup: No they're not. They may fall under the same category, but by no means the exact same atoms.
It is not my fault you do not understand this so lets set it aside.
B1: Different material objects can coincide in existence materially
Jup: They are different to the degree they do not coincide.
It is not the properties/differences that is being discussed - please pay attention to what you yourself are claiming. You claimed two things cannot exist in the same place and that is just wrong in so many ways.
Restructure your premise, its not that hard.
B1: The x and y may have different properties(such as form or function) but it is still the same thing measurably and contains an equal amount of energy.
Jup; If they have different forms then they can't contain an equal amount of energy.
Not true again - where do you get this stuff?
It would be better if you just left it alone. I cannot educate you on a forum, do some research please.
B1; Bosons (especially photon) with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles, like a river carrying matter.
Jup: I can't comment on that since I don't know anything about bosons. However, it is logically impossible for two different things to occupy the exact same location.
No it is not - lets just call and end to the discussion until you do your homework.
Bosons are what I and Diebert both said.
B1: Show us how; " The infinite lacks the properties of existence and non-existence." is a logical statement.
Jup: The infinite is not a finite thing, and only finite things possess those properties. And as to your previous question - since a finite thing cannot exist as another finite thing, the totality of all finite things cannot be finite, hence in-finite.
1) The infinite is *not* a finite thing.
2) Finite things possess properties - no idea what you mean?
3) A finite thing cannot exist as another finite thing - is wrong. Even if you change to definition instead of place (as in your original statement) its still not true. Just because you dismiss multiple examples does not mean they are not correct, it means you are dismissive of evidence you do not like. I already pointed out to you that all things - according to your very own syllogism - exist in the same place. They all exist in the same place known as the infinite.
4) The totality of all finite things cannot be infinite.
So we have - the totality of finite things is not finite and therefore lacks the properties of existence and non-existence. Yup, I am positive this is not a logical statement no matter how hard one tries to make it so.
Diebert:
B1; Bosons (especially photon) with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles, like a river carrying matter.
Diebert: Being loves to preach the very things he does not comprehend. Photons are not defined as particle in that particular instance but as a wave with uncertain, fluctuating location (like a wave in some fluid). This is easier to understand if elementary particles are not being conceived to have the same properties as objects in the macroscopic world. It's therefore important not to confuse the word "thing" with "material solid object".
Let me see here - you rephrase what I said, we end up agreeing on what bosons are - but I 'have' to be wrong because????
Look at my statement carefully Diebert - you simply repeated what I said. The only thing I included was that bosons are "often' force particle carriers.
Are you able to focus on the issue rather than the person yet?
Now - to the board. can anyone here demonstrate that the infinite can be conceptualized. Not just claim they can, actually demonstrate that the infinite can be conceptualized?
