Can't be described as one or many?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mohd Abdullah
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conceptualization of entities in physics that cannot be classified as either singular or multiple. Participants explore examples from quantum mechanics, infinity, and the nature of time and space, questioning the implications of countability and the definitions of "one" and "many."

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that concepts like infinity and certain physical entities may not fit neatly into the categories of "one" or "many."
  • It is suggested that countability plays a crucial role in defining whether something can be described as one or many, with non-countable sets potentially falling into the category of "neither."
  • Participants discuss the nature of space and time, questioning whether they can be considered countable or if they represent unique continua.
  • One participant expresses the view that atoms and subatomic particles should be considered countable, while others argue that they may not fit the binary classification of one or many.
  • There is a contention regarding the interpretation of "uncountable" as equivalent to "one" or "absolute oneness," with differing opinions on the appropriateness of this perspective.
  • A later reply challenges the relevance of discussing hypothetical scenarios, such as multiple universes, in the context of the original question.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the classification of various physical entities and concepts, with no consensus reached regarding the definitions of "one," "many," or "uncountable." The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding and definitions, particularly regarding the countability of concepts like time and space, and the implications of discussing unique continua.

Mohd Abdullah
Messages
99
Reaction score
3
In physics, are there such things that aren't one or many? For example quantum mechanics, etc. and so on?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
 
Drakkith said:
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

I mean things that can't be described as one or singular, and many or multiple. Infinity, perhaps?
 
The word "many" usually describes a countable quantity. If a type of object is countable, then it can be described, at least in principle as one or many. If we are talking about something that is not countable, then "neither one nor many" may apply. If the elements of some set can be put in correspondence with the real numbers, they would not be countable. However it's still possible to talk about one or many real numbers. "Many" unspecified real numbers always corresponds to a type of infinity. In terms of physical concepts, if "space" is not quantized, it might satisfy the concept of neither one nor many if we are not talking about particular spaces.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
SW VandeCarr said:
The word "many" usually describes a countable quantity. If a type of object is countable, then it can be described, at least in principle as one or many. If we are talking about something that is not countable, then neither "one" nor "many" may apply. If the elements of some set can be put in correspondence with the real numbers, they would not be countable. However it's still possible to talk about one or many real numbers. "Many" unspecified real numbers always corresponds to a type of infinity. In terms of physical concepts, if "space" is not quantized, it might satisfy the concept of neither one nor many if we are not talking about particular spaces.

Thanks for the response. Other than "space", what are other things that can be described as "not one or many/one and many"? Perhaps there such things in quantum physics, etc. and so on?

One more question, are "time" really limited and finite?
 
Mohd Abdullah said:
Thanks for the response. Other than "space", what are other things that can be described as "not one or many/one and many"? Perhaps there such things in quantum physics, etc. and so on?

One more question, are "time" really limited and finite?

You can simply think of concepts that don't admit countability. Is time countable? We can invent units of time. We have units of volume, even for empty space. But any unique continuum can be considered non-countable. That's what a continuum is. If we don't admit multiple instances of some type of continuum (like space or time), this would seem to answer your question. That's about the best I can do.

EDIT: For your second question, I have no idea in general, but I know mine is.
 
Last edited:
SW VandeCarr said:
You can simply think of concepts that don't admit countability. Is time countable? We can invent units of time. We have units of volume, even for empty space. But any unique continuum can be considered non-countable. That's what a continuum is. If we don't admit multiple instances of some type of continuum (like space or time), this would seem to answer your question. That's about the best I can do.

EDIT: For your second question, I have no idea in general, but I know mine is.

In my opinion, I think atoms, subatomic particles and the like is/are not one and many. Space and time, we can say can't be described as one and many. Or even universe itself is/are not one or even many, perhaps.

But some people said "uncountable" are equal to "One", "absolute oneness/singularity" and "utterly unique" and so on. Do you think it is appropriate? What's your opinion?
 
Mohd Abdullah said:
In my opinion, I think atoms, subatomic particles and the like is/are not one and many. Space and time, we can say can't be described as one and many. Or even universe itself is/are not one or even many, perhaps.

But some people said "uncountable" are equal to "One", "absolute oneness/singularity" and "utterly unique" and so on. Do you think it is appropriate? What's your opinion?

I disagree with you about atoms and at least the stable "elementary" particles. The periodic table is based on the number of electrons/protons in an atom and atoms are countable. Isotope numbers are based on neutron counts.

To say uncountable is equal to one is somewhat meaningless IMO. There is only one (continuous) electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore it makes no sense to distinguish one from many when speaking of unique continua. This argument could only make sense if we considered multiple universes with different physics. Since we can't discuss something hypothetical, it makes no sense to consider it in the context of your question.
 
Last edited:
This is not a scientific topic. I'm not sure it's even a topic.
 

Similar threads

Graduate How Many People Can Perform Quantum Mechanical Calculations?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate Can ChatGPT Handle Complex Physics Questions Accurately?
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
17K
Undergrad What are the biggest recent advances in physics?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Gerard't Hooft Interview
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Kurt Gottfried: Physicist, Author & Co-Founder of UCS Dies at 93
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Popular future physics beliefs that are completely wrong?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Do ensemble-based predictions truly describe real finite systems?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
High School The Purposes of Physics: Understanding the Fundamentals of Nature
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad How much impact mass does a boxing strike need to compensate for slower speed?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Graduate The correct interpretation of QM.... according to a "language model" AI
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K