RoR: Forum

Hi Sam,

A location can't contain an object and the locations are in the universe because in order to determine a location relative to another one has to measure the distance.

"Contain" was poor word choice on my part. "Be occupied by" is what I meant. A location can be occupied by an object. I hope we agree. But can a location (within the universe) not be occupied by an object? Well, if there are no objects occupying a location, then I'd say nothing/space occupies it.

The measuring stick is a physical object and in the process of measuring the location it exists at those two locations.

Ya lost me. So the locations don't exist until they're measured with a physical object?

Jordan

Post 61

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 10:05am

Jordan:

"A location can be occupied by an object. I hope we agree."

A location can be occupied part of an object. However, an object must have finite dimensions therefore there must be an infinite number of locations to completely identify the position of the entire object.

"Well, if there are no objects occupying a location, then I'd say nothing/space occupies it."

Yeah, I'd also say that the location isn't within the universe.

The measuring stick is a physical object and in the process of measuring the location it exists at those two locations.

"Ya lost me. So the locations don't exist until they're measured with a physical object?"

That's where the argument goes. If something can't be measured then it doesn't exist. Distance must be measured by a measuring stick. Perhaps you want to say that distance can be measured by radar but in order to do that the radar waves have to be reflected by something and they can't be reflected by a location or point (that has no dimensions). It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle the process of measuring changes the phenomenon being observed. As soon as the measuring stick reaches the coordinates then the location exists as the location of some part of the measuring stick. If something already existed at the location then our argument wasn't necessary.

Now you're going to ask, "Can a measuring stick have only one dimension, i.e. length, and thus not be a physical object?" My response is, "No, because then it would be a line and because a line is merely a continuous stream of locations it gets us into a circular argument."

Edited for grammar.
(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/02, 10:06am)

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/02, 10:09am)

Post 62

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 11:36am

UNCLE!

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 12:39pm

I previously wrote:

I define "space" very simply in terms of entities as: space is where entities aren't.

It now occurs to me that I was defining ~empty~ space. Non-empty space, of course, is were entities ~are~. So, "space" in general would have to be defined as: where entities can be.

This sounds suspiciously like the definition in terms of locations ("where"), but it does so in a way that recognizes the primacy of entities.

Roger Bissell

Post 64

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 1:39pm

I'll go with that, Roger.

Entities cannot exist without space, and space cannot exist without entities.

Michael

Post 65

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 1:52pm

Roger:

Merriam-Webster Online defines entity as:

1 a : BEING, EXISTENCE; especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence b : the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes
2 : something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality

You said: "So, "space" in general would have to be defined as: where entities can be."

I'm not arguing with you I'm trying to sort things out for myself here. I want to bring the universe into this. I would say that the universe consists of entities and nothing else and it is meaningless to talk of something outside the universe. It is part of reality because it is comprised of "things" (An existent is a thing, attribute or action: Rand) but it is not all of reality because attributes and actions (conceptual realities) are also part of reality.

So, is space an attribute? If so, of what? It must be an attribute of some-thing. Perhaps it's an attribute of all things. But if that is so what about all that part of the universe that isn't comprised of entities (if such a thing exists)? That's what is normally thought of as 'space'. Is it a thing? No, it is no-thing. It isn't an action.

Sam

Post 66

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 2:07pm

Michael:

"Entities cannot exist without space...."

Why not? What if the universe consists only of entities separated by distance? Distance is merely a measure of the degree of separation of the entities.

I know I'm not in concordance with the following. I'm trying to demolish the concept of 'space'.

Merriam-Webster definition of space:

4 a : a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction b : physical space independent of what occupies it -- called also absolute space

Universe

1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated

Sam

Post 67

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 6:29am

Anything which has a physical presence in the universe "exists". That which lacks physical presence does not. If something exists, it is AN existence. Note the singular. Something cannot "be" multiple existences it can only be a single entity - often called a fundamental particle. Multiple particles "create" a composite - NOT an "existence". A composite is a collection of individual existences, each with its own identity and unique history.

Many believe only matter "exists" and space is nothing. Many also believe that miniscule eruption we detect within our tiny neighborhood of the universe (called the big bang - a.k.a. the 'known' universe) "creates" space on the fly. How can any rational individual believe in conjuring? Why would it not be just as logical to presume it also creates matter on the fly - or jelly donuts?

There are two principal phenomena of nature: 1) existence and 2) change.

Mass is a property. It is the ability of or propensity for resisting change - inertia. Relatively few (volume of space vs. volume of matter) of the existences in the universe possess this property, yet due to the ease of its detection by our primitive senses, many posit that only those entities which possess this rare property "exist". Energy is also just a property. It is the ability of or propensity for creating change. Like mass, its existence is not separate and apart from the entities in which it resides - including space.

Air was once thought of in much the same way as modern scholars now consider space. To primitive man air was 'nothing'. It wasn't visible. It offered little resistance to motion. It seemed to have no discernible attributes other than its inertness. They were mystified by the invisible forces of wind.

Other than the minute particles which permeate it, space seems to be considered by contemporary science as nothing. You can't see it, taste it or feel it. Space propagates electro magnetism, but not sound. We are mystified by the invisible forces of gravity.

Space and matter are two very different forms of physical manifestation. Space is ethereal in nature and matter is material in nature. Both exist, and the fact that the only property of space 'modern' science can discern is its inertness is no more remarkable than the fact 17th century science couldn't detect microbes.

Post 68

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 4:32pm

Sam,

The so-called non-physical existents are always in relation to physical entities - or to things related to physical entities. They always boil down to the physical. Relationship. Attribute. Action. Mental event. Space. Time. Change. And so on. All of them.

Even life.

I wish you luck on your demolition derby. I think the only thing that will be demolished if you persist in using logic, however, is your own argument.

Existence should be seen as an indivisible totality and a concept like space as a facet of that totality. As concepts integrate physical sensations, then integrate themselves, it becomes easy to go on abstracting until you can imagine something like a point without any dimension, despite such being a physical impossibility. This only can be imagined, though, and does not represent an actual existent.

Jack,

Good to see a kindred spirit. Wait until you get a gander at some of the characters around here. They might show up any minute, so get your raincoat and umbrella.

Be careful with "change" too. It is an axiomatic concept, but a corollary, not on equal footing with existence. Something must exist before it can change. The contrary does not hold.

Michael

Post 69

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 4:34pm

Thor:

I respect many of your comments but your entire argument for the existence of space is based on the proposition that something might possibly be discovered about its properties that have not been recognized before, as in the case of air or microbes.

"Space is ethereal in nature and matter is material in nature. Both exist, and the fact that the only property of space 'modern' science can discern is its inertness is no more remarkable than the fact 17th century science couldn't detect microbes."

Well, at one time everyone thought that the 'aether' existed. If we discover some properties of space I'll alter my views.

(God I love this thread)

Jordan: If I can't keep this up you may have folded too soon.

Sam

Post 70

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 4:44pm

Michael:

"I think the only thing that will be demolished if you persist in using logic, however, is your own argument."

Goddam it then, I'll use emotion, you pusillanimous little piece of excrement.

:o)

Sam

Post 71

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 5:06pm