Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:23 pm**

Philosophy Explorer wrote: The topic is space, not fluid

PhilX

How is space not fluid?

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:23 pm**

I'm adding this on to show you where this discussion has led and I hope Leo doesn't take me personal. When he says this world doesn't exist, then he's saying he doesn't exist either since he would be part of this world. Furthermore I really can't be having a discussion with him if he's right about the world not existing (which I don't believe for one second).

PhilX

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:30 pm**

Obvious Leo wrote:Try and pay attention, Phil. Where did I say that the world doesn't exist? I just said that the world which we observe doesn't exist, which is hardly a controversial statement considering that the finite nature of the speed of light is an irrefutable FACT. If the world which we observe doesn't exist then neither does the space which we observe. QED.

You did say this is a world that NO longer exists which means the same thing.

PhilX

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:34 pm**

Arising_uk wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote: The topic is space, not fluid

PhilX
How is space not a fluid?

Here's a definition of fluid:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fluid

Also a fluid is something that flows. Does space have those properties? So the question really is: how is space a fluid?

PhilX

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:44 pm**

In my travels on the internet over the past day, I've learned a reason for space not being empty is due to QM which makes sense which I'm making part of this thread. However there is more to the story than that.

PhilX

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:12 pm**

Philosophy Explorer wrote:In my travels on the internet over the past day, I've learned a reason for space not being empty is due to QM which makes sense which I'm making part of this thread. However there is more to the story than that.

PhilX

How does QM make sense?

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:20 pm**

Philosophy Explorer wrote:... scientists have been saying that space is never empty.

So you think it a solid?

And yet you say this,

Philosophy Explorer wrote: I'm talking about physical space, the kind that has physical distance between two points, ...

Which is what I said, it's the stuff you can move through. Do you think we can move through solids?

the that is said to be expanding (although it doesn't seem to have a boundary), ...

Heat a fluid.

... the kind of space that makes one wonder in an expanding space how the new space is being formed (and where is it coming from?) ...

Heat a fluid and you don't have to wonder where anything is coming from it will still expand. Of course you might wonder where the heat is comoing from but it could just be the chemical make-up of the fluid.

I think with everything I've mentioned, I'm entitled to ask the question.

Do you now.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:42 pm**

Arising_uk wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:... scientists have been saying that space is never empty.
So you think it a solid?

And yet you say this,
Philosophy Explorer wrote: I'm talking about physical space, the kind that has physical distance between two points, ...
Which is what I said, it's the stuff you can move through. Do you think we can move through solids?
the that is said to be expanding (although it doesn't seem to have a boundary), ...
Heat a fluid.
... the kind of space that makes one wonder in an expanding space how the new space is being formed (and where is it coming from?) ...
Heat a fluid and you don't have to wonder where anything is coming from it will still expand. Of course you might wonder where the heat is comoing from but it could just be the chemical make-up of the fluid.
I think with everything I've mentioned, I'm entitled to ask the question.
Do you now.

Never said it nor implied space being solid. You're trying to twist my words. And how would you move through space and know you're moving through it? You're also confusing a fluid with space which are two different things.

PhilX

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:45 pm**

Arising_uk wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:In my travels on the internet over the past day, I've learned a reason for space not being empty is due to QM which makes sense which I'm making part of this thread. However there is more to the story than that.

PhilX
How does QM make sense?

Do you know what QM is? Not just what the abbreviation is, but what the science is?

PhilX

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:07 pm**

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The question is simple, but the answer may not be. For example, in more recent times, scientists have been saying that space is never empty. We know that space can be modeled so that it gets bent and twisted by matter to create gravity. So I ask again, what is space?
PhilX

I am lazy to explain it again, you can find most answers for your questions here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654
sorry, if you have already read it :(

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:11 pm**

Cerveny wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:The question is simple, but the answer may not be. For example, in more recent times, scientists have been saying that space is never empty. We know that space can be modeled so that it gets bent and twisted by matter to create gravity. So I ask again, what is space?
PhilX
I am lazy to explain it again, you can find most answers for your questions here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654
sorry, if you have already read it

Please, don't be lazy. A short summary will do.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:16 pm**

Cerveny wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:The question is simple, but the answer may not be. For example, in more recent times, scientists have been saying that space is never empty. We know that space can be modeled so that it gets bent and twisted by matter to create gravity. So I ask again, what is space?
PhilX
I am lazy to explain it again, you can find most answers for your questions here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654
sorry, if you have already read it

Cerveny,

Due to the MM experiment, that put a final nail into the coffin to the aether theory for me. The surface tension history of the universe doesn't make sense to me in connection with the law of conservation of mass and energy. Sorry

PhilX

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:17 pm**

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Never said it nor implied space being solid. ...

You said 'science' said it was never empty presumably you agreed? ...

You're trying to twist my words. ...

No, just taking them at face value.

And how would you move through space and know you're moving through it? ...

Do fish know they are moving through water? Do you know you are moving through a fluid?

You're also confusing a fluid with space which are two different things.

How would you know as you say you don't know what space is?

Which of those fluid definitions you posted doesn't fit space?

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:18 pm**

Obvious Leo wrote:The deep intuitive understanding of fundamental physics which the pre-Socratics had is quite remarkable, considering that they pre-dated the Pythagoreans and the invention of mathematics. To Heraclitus, Anaximander, Democritus and company space was just a conceptual placeholder representing a nothing separating two somethings. However these somethings were not objects but EVENTS. This world-view is completely consistent with all the discoveries made by science ever since, because the fact that the speed of light is finite proves that the universe is not a place in which objects move in space. It is a PROCESS in which events occur in time and it is only the observer who constructs this process into a cognitive MAP of events which have already occurred in his own past. The reason why the current models of physics make no sense is because it conflates this cognitive map of the observer's past with the territory it's supposed to be mapping.

OK, thanks, I'm seeing the interaction of ancients with questions about the universe an' all. I still don't get why we have a 'philosophy of science' which seems to me just to be asking questions which only scientists can answer.

I asked PhilX this:

I guess my difficulty lies in that I don't get the 'philosophy' of it all. What are the philosophical implications of knowing the nature of physical space, if that was even possible?

Perhaps I should start a thread: 'What is the philosophy of science?' for dummies.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:21 pm**

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Do you know what QM is? ...

Sure it stands for Quantum Mechanics which is a theory and mathematical model from Physics to explain observations of the very small.

Not just what the abbreviation is, but what the science is?

Depends what you mean by 'the science'? But no I'm not a Physicist, are you?

Philosophy Now Forum

What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?

Re: What is space?