> If there were no smallest-possible particle, and everything were infinitely divisible, then a grain of sand would contain infinite particles. The entire universe would also contain infinite particles. But the universe and a grain of sand are clearly not the same size — they’re not both infinite. Therefore, there must be some smallest, indivisible particle. An “atom.”
This is a very bad argument. It also "proves" that space and time are made of "atoms". Which may or may not be true, we don't know. But this argument doesn't help us to know.
You might wish to investigate the opponents to both the Epicureans and the Stoics: the Pyrrhonists. The Pyrrhonists agree with you that "you can’t find any “good” or “bad” written into the universe." Their complaint with the Epicureans and particularly the Stoics is that they came to rash conclusions in their doctrines and that there was no way to tell whether those conclusions were correct, especially given how they were contradicted by the doctrines of other schools.
Thank you for a brief, condensed exposure to Philosophy. A lovely and unexpected surprise from a statistician. more correctly a statistical analyzer of data. Amazing that someone living in those times could think and write like this, when the main goal every morning upon arising for most people was "what can I find to eat today or tomorrow?"
The argument for atoms could be used to "prove" that the amount of real numbers in an interval is non-infinite, because the "size" of 1..2 is smaller than 1..10. So the argument isn't sound.
Still interesting that he had a rational approach to these questions, thanks for sharing.
> If there were no smallest-possible particle, and everything were infinitely divisible, then a grain of sand would contain infinite particles. The entire universe would also contain infinite particles. But the universe and a grain of sand are clearly not the same size — they’re not both infinite. Therefore, there must be some smallest, indivisible particle. An “atom.”
This is a very bad argument. It also "proves" that space and time are made of "atoms". Which may or may not be true, we don't know. But this argument doesn't help us to know.
Very fun and thought provoking write up, thanks for sharing.
You might wish to investigate the opponents to both the Epicureans and the Stoics: the Pyrrhonists. The Pyrrhonists agree with you that "you can’t find any “good” or “bad” written into the universe." Their complaint with the Epicureans and particularly the Stoics is that they came to rash conclusions in their doctrines and that there was no way to tell whether those conclusions were correct, especially given how they were contradicted by the doctrines of other schools.
Thank you for a brief, condensed exposure to Philosophy. A lovely and unexpected surprise from a statistician. more correctly a statistical analyzer of data. Amazing that someone living in those times could think and write like this, when the main goal every morning upon arising for most people was "what can I find to eat today or tomorrow?"
The argument for atoms could be used to "prove" that the amount of real numbers in an interval is non-infinite, because the "size" of 1..2 is smaller than 1..10. So the argument isn't sound.
Still interesting that he had a rational approach to these questions, thanks for sharing.