Does quantity exist in the universe?

[Anonymous No.8360558]

So, I've had conversations with a couple of people who have an immensely better understanding of mathematics and physics than I, and they claim that quantity does not exist in the universe. That the universe does not operate in quantities, and the the concept of quantity is an unnecessary one.
Now, in spite of having been given few and vague arguments supporting this, they have made me inclined to believe them, especially taking into account how commonplace it is for the human brain to interpret things incorrectly.
But I am not satisfied with the arguments I have been given, and I want to more fully understand what the implications of this might be for our understanding of reality, seeing as the concept of quantity is so deeply hardwired into our brains that we cannot understand things otherwise.
So, I'd love to hear a detailed explanation from anyone who has a better understanding of this, and can prove this to be correct(or incorrect) without using complex math.

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.8360601]

>>8360558
No yeah the mole concept is a big pharma conspiracy to overcharge you on drugs

[Anonymous No.8360606]

>physics graduates get so used to work on one-particle system they start actually thinking that's all there is
I dunno man those guys sound full of shit to me. Then again I'm just a lowly solid state physicist.

[Anonymous No.8360610]

>>8360558
more of a philosophical question than a scientific one i suppose. you could say the entire universe is a big pool of energy flopping around, and any observations or concepts you base on observations are abstractions from the real deal. if you assume that you could say that quantity is just a concept to separate a blob of energy you're interested in from the rest, and isn't "the real deal". doesn't make it less useful though

[Guy that figured it out. No.8360624]

>>8360558
Math has nothing to do with reality as such.
There are no real boundaries in reality. Only the imagination creates that illusion.

Lets take an apple
What you see is one apple.
That is created by imagination.
In reality there is no apple if you break it down logically. There is no boundary between the apple and everything.
everything is everything.
there is no seperation.
everything is in complete connection.
everything consists of everyrything else. Both inwards and outwards.

That is not saying that the concept of quantity is not useful.
The reason we use the concept of quantity and define boundaries is because it is useful to us.

[Anonymous No.8360663]

>>8360624
What about particles?

[Guy that figured it out. No.8360682]

>>8360663
They consist of ever smaller particles.

[Anonymous No.8360684]

>>8360682
There's no way of proving that.
But, even so, if that were true, if you can keep 'separating' particles into smaller particles, that doesn't go in favor of the idea that there is no separation.

[Anonymous No.8360693]

>>8360624
Well, yeah, but one could argue that in spite of all of this particles interact with one another, and thusly influence their behaviour. Wouldn't that mean that particles -do- in fact discriminate single particles?

[Guy that figured it out. No.8360695]

>>8360684
>There's no way of proving that.
I know.
There is no way of proving anything.
Reality goes much deeper than such.
It is a paradox.
All that we see is also resonance.
Interlocking harmonics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z4QdiqP-q8

[Anonymous No.8360700]

>>8360695
that's some pretty stuff

[Guy that figured it out. No.8360709]

>>8360693
>Well, yeah, but one could argue that in spite of all of this particles interact with one another, and thusly influence their behaviour. Wouldn't that mean that particles -do- in fact discriminate single particles?

I will say that there is a difference in the structure and the interlockings of the particles. Their resonace will be different.
The particular structure will have resonant harmonics interlocking with other particles of similar structure.
a specific particle consists of smaller particles, some of similar, some of different structure to the specific particle.
We can call it a particle. but it is not solid as such. it is broken up into smaller particles by harmonics.

[Anonymous No.8360713]

>>8360558
Quantity is a thought construct.

It's a useful tool for us to study things. But when you try to make claims about quantities being "real," things get fuzzy. As this anon >>8360624 pointed out, quantities are relative to whatever you're talking about.

[Guy that figured it out. No.8361297]

>>8360558
>what the implications of this might be for our understanding of reality.
There is no morality.
There is no property.
Man is the measure of all things.
Any kind of body is a focal point through wich its relation towards its invironment is reflected.
The laws of nature are old patterns. They are habits if you will, and not fixed. The forces are interlocked by resonance, and can be dissolved by resonance.

[Anonymous No.8361592]

>resonances
>harmonics
>vibrations
Everyone in this thread is either some sort of new age hippie, or a string theorist.

[Anonymous No.8361684]

>>8360624

[Anonymous No.8362494]

>>8361684
a circuit must be complete to flow

[Anonymous No.8362501]

>>8360624
wait a goddamn minute, noob here

are there atoms literally everywhere? Are there places where there's literally just nothing or am I led to believe that outside the apple is air atoms and outside the atmosphere there are other things?

[Anonymous No.8362509]

>>8362501
empty space isn't really

think of pixels on a screen, sometimes nothing is illuminated from one PoV

[Anonymous No.8362523]

>>8360624
But I've deliberately defined my system as separate from its surroundings.

[Anonymous No.8362530]

>>8362523
But could you define it in any other way?

[Anonymous No.8362536]

>>8362530
yeah, dude what if... *passes blunt

[Anonymous No.8362555]

>>8362501
Air is a gas containing molecules such as N2, O2, CO2 and so on

[Anonymous No.8362564]

>>8362555
yeah but what about space? What about when you remove the air under a big glass bell? Pressure goes down but is it "empty"?

[Anonymous No.8362591]

>>8362564
Unlike in solids, there's much more "space" between gas particles, which is why gases can be compressed. What this empty space consists of, you're better off asking someone else or looking up yourself.

[Anonymous No.8363550]

>>8362501
"Nothing" is nowhere. As of definition it does not exist.

There are bodies and void. But the "boundary" in-between is infinitely fine.

Bodies are in the void.
Bodies pass through the void instantly, as there is no resistance in the void.

The boundary of bodies to the void, is saturated with infinitely minuscule bodies, as a film around it, expressing its surface:

"Again, there are outlines or films, which are of the same shape as solid bodies, but of a thinness far exceeding that of any object that we see. For it is not impossible that there should be found in the surrounding air combinations of this kind, materials adapted for expressing the hollowness and thinness of surfaces, and effluxes preserving the same relative position and motion which they had in the solid objects from which they come. To these films we give the name of “images” or “idols.” Furthermore, so long as nothing comes in the way to offer resistance, motion through the void accomplishes any imaginable distance in an inconceivably short time. For resistance encountered is the equivalent of slowness, its absence the equivalent of speed." - Epicurus letter to Herodotus

[Anonymous No.8363551]

>>8362501
>>8363550


The films are of infinite complexity and fineness, and as such; with infinitely infinitesimal resistance, it moves both inside and around whatever it expresses:

"We must also consider that it is by the entrance of something coming from external objects that we see their shapes and think of them. For external things would not stamp on us their own nature of color and form through the medium of the air which is between them and use or by means of rays of light or currents of any sort going from us to them, so well as by the entrance into our eyes or minds, to whichever their size is suitable, of certain films coming from the things themselves, these films or outlines being of the same color and shape as the external things themselves. They move with rapid motion; and this again explains why they present the appearance of the single continuous object, and retain the mutual interconnection which they had in the object, when they impinge upon the sense, such impact being due to the oscillation of the atoms in the interior of the solid object from which they come. And whatever presentation we derive by direct contact, whether it be with the mind or with the sense-organs, be it shape that is presented or other properties, this shape as presented is the shape of the solid thing, and it is due either to a close coherence of the image as a whole or to a mere remnant of its parts. Falsehood and error always depend upon the intrusion of opinion when a fact awaits confirmation or the absence of contradiction, which fact is afterwards frequently not confirmed or even contradicted following a certain movement in ourselves connected with, but distinct from, the mental picture presented—which is the cause of error." - Epicurus letter to Herodotus

[Anonymous No.8363657]

>>8360558
How do they define quantity? What's their argument?

Usually a quantity is understood to be a real number along with a unit. However, the units you use are somewhat arbitrary, so the number itself only has meaning when the quantity is dimensionless. So for example you could say that you're going 60 mph or ~100 km/h, it's equivalent, and the number itself is not "real." However, if you compare your speed to someone else's the ratio itself will be real, in the sense that it doesn't depend on the units you use.

If you mean that numbers themselves don't "exist" then yes, people have speculated that the standard continuum of real numbers is built from something more fundamental. But this is still a hypothetical; no one has provided a model of physics that doesn't fundamentally use the real numbers in some way.