Honestly, this video might have been better placed before the electron configuration one, because it made that one make a lot more sense to me. Anyway, thanks for this series, it's great!
Paradoxes of atomism If it were possible to continue the division of matter indefinitely, I would have thought it more probable that this process could be carried out to infinity (thesis of infinite divisibility, contrary to atomistic antithesis). The problem is that we can not and do not have the colossal force to do this, because we are physically limited, we can only at most split up to a few fractions of sand, because we can not get the pieces too small to be divided again and so on , only the cosmic forces of the universe could make or a God out of infinite power. It results in unsustainable paradoxes and absurdities to defend the thesis of the existence of indivisible material entities / elements, the atoms, as they considered Democritus and Leucippus, a thesis that Aristotle correctly rejected. Why do we have to accept the existence of atoms if experience shows us that all compound bodies are divisible indefinitely to our last tactile-sensitive limits? If all the material elements are breakable into smaller parts, from the softest to the hardest, an iron bar when we hit it kneads and looses small pieces of metal and sparks of fire - energy, revealing its divisibility to us, why then do we have to to accept that atoms (indivisible fragments of matter) exist? This atomistic thesis leads us to the paradox well demonstrated by Anaxagoras and Aristotle, that the parts are greater than the sum of the whole, for the components of the self are indivisible and not eternal. The results are the only and most perfect to be realized in all corpus of corruptible and mortal, which results in the refutation of atomism by reduction to the absurd. Another paradox reveals itself is not a fact of existing atoms but is not necessarily indivisible, it is not necessary to prepare an atom for its existence, for who can be indivisible, the ultimate of existence, eternal, indestructible, immune to all sorts of shocks and destructions. Existing and eternal exist, to probe and to separate the various clusters in concentrated points without space, resulting in an inexistence of cohesion / physical concretion and consequent non-existence of visualizing the bodies and material bodies! In what results in a further logical - qualitative refutation of atomism, by a new reduction to the absurd. And finally, indivisible and eternal atoms unite with other equally indivisible and eternal atoms, through connections made of finite and divisible matter as is our physical - corporeal composition and that of all the animate and inanimate bodies of the world, is an absurd total in this thesis, for where would arise a divisible and finite matter that binds atoms, if these same atoms are all indivisible, eternal and indestructible particles? Of the very primordial atoms that gave birth to the whole universe? But would a finite and divisible matter arising from indivisible and eternal atoms not be an unacceptable corruption of the eternal and indivisible essence of atoms? An indivisible atom that gives rise to a divisible matter would not have to possess the germ of divisibility in its essence, revealing in the truth that it is no atom, but a corruptible and perfectly divisible matter, which would refute the very Democritean thesis of existence of atoms? Do you perceive so much of metaphysical absurdities, paradoxes, and idiosyncrasies that the theory of atoms has borne since over 2600 years ago? In the antithesis to the atomist theory, we can not observe and test the process of division ad infinitum, because obviously we have spatial and physical - temporal limits, but at least it is indirectly based on ordinary experience, being a much more rational and scientific hypothesis than considering the hypothesis of finite divisibility in final and eternal atoms, for we have no example of phenomenon or object observable in experience that is indivisible, indestructible, incorruptible, and eternal, whereas for the philosophical hypothesis of indefinite or infinite divisibility we have the support of a sensory experience that all objects, bodies and physical phenomena are divisible or decomposable into smaller, corruptible and destructible parts!
Honestly, this video might have been better placed before the electron configuration one, because it made that one make a lot more sense to me. Anyway, thanks for this series, it's great!
Great! Also helped for my Theory of Knowledge course, how we know what we know!
Good vid
Mannot
Paradoxes of atomism
If it were possible to continue the division of matter indefinitely, I would have thought it more probable that this process could be carried out to infinity (thesis of infinite divisibility, contrary to atomistic antithesis).
The problem is that we can not and do not have the colossal force to do this, because we are physically limited, we can only at most split up to a few fractions of sand, because we can not get the pieces too small to be divided again and so on , only the cosmic forces of the universe could make or a God out of infinite power.
It results in unsustainable paradoxes and absurdities to defend the thesis of the existence of indivisible material entities / elements, the atoms, as they considered Democritus and Leucippus, a thesis that Aristotle correctly rejected.
Why do we have to accept the existence of atoms if experience shows us that all compound bodies are divisible indefinitely to our last tactile-sensitive limits?
If all the material elements are breakable into smaller parts, from the softest to the hardest, an iron bar when we hit it kneads and looses small pieces of metal and sparks of fire - energy, revealing its divisibility to us, why then do we have to to accept that atoms (indivisible fragments of matter) exist?
This atomistic thesis leads us to the paradox well demonstrated by Anaxagoras and Aristotle, that the parts are greater than the sum of the whole, for the components of the self are indivisible and not eternal. The results are the only and most perfect to be realized in all corpus of corruptible and mortal, which results in the refutation of atomism by reduction to the absurd.
Another paradox reveals itself is not a fact of existing atoms but is not necessarily indivisible, it is not necessary to prepare an atom for its existence, for who can be indivisible, the ultimate of existence, eternal, indestructible, immune to all sorts of shocks and destructions. Existing and eternal exist, to probe and to separate the various clusters in concentrated points without space, resulting in an inexistence of cohesion / physical concretion and consequent non-existence of visualizing the bodies and material bodies! In what results in a further logical - qualitative refutation of atomism, by a new reduction to the absurd.
And finally, indivisible and eternal atoms unite with other equally indivisible and eternal atoms, through connections made of finite and divisible matter as is our physical - corporeal composition and that of all the animate and inanimate bodies of the world, is an absurd total in this thesis, for where would arise a divisible and finite matter that binds atoms, if these same atoms are all indivisible, eternal and indestructible particles? Of the very primordial atoms that gave birth to the whole universe? But would a finite and divisible matter arising from indivisible and eternal atoms not be an unacceptable corruption of the eternal and indivisible essence of atoms? An indivisible atom that gives rise to a divisible matter would not have to possess the germ of divisibility in its essence, revealing in the truth that it is no atom, but a corruptible and perfectly divisible matter, which would refute the very Democritean thesis of existence of atoms?
Do you perceive so much of metaphysical absurdities, paradoxes, and idiosyncrasies that the theory of atoms has borne since over 2600 years ago?
In the antithesis to the atomist theory, we can not observe and test the process of division ad infinitum, because obviously we have spatial and physical - temporal limits, but at least it is indirectly based on ordinary experience, being a much more rational and scientific hypothesis than considering the hypothesis of finite divisibility in final and eternal atoms, for we have no example of phenomenon or object observable in experience that is indivisible, indestructible, incorruptible, and eternal, whereas for the philosophical hypothesis of indefinite or infinite divisibility we have the support of a sensory experience that all objects, bodies and physical phenomena are divisible or decomposable into smaller, corruptible and destructible parts!
very good
hey its our friend einstein
Yes it was
hello class
3:02
Darren
Rajani Kant Nirala Me Pro government polytechnic college jatwara janshad muzaffarnagar UP
말이 너무 빨라서 뭐라고 하는지 모르겠네
m charu .. plz read my mail that i had send u n plzz... plz... reply..
I hate Shehzad Shah >:(
Me too.
I as well!
Yes, he is trash.