Philosophy Now Forum

Based on what I've been reading and hearing for the past several years, my answer is no and the reason is quantum fluctuations. I would suggest you do an internet search to explore this topic.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 3:03 pm Based on what I've been reading and hearing for the past several years, my answer is no and the reason is quantum fluctuations. I would suggest you do an internet search to explore this topic.

PhilX

I agree also the answer is "No", because an empty space is merely observing a deficiency in some other relative space. For instance an "empty" cup may be "empty" of its intended relation (liquid), but that does not mean it is empty of air, electromagnetic frequencies, etc. Emptiness is an observation of relation, and not a phenomenon in itself.

Considering in a separate respect, using the cup example again, the form will change through time (ie the cup will be broken or crushed), we understand of emptiness can simultaneously be argued as potential movement. The cup cannot break unless there is space, emptiness, through which it can break. In these respects "emptiness" is fundamentally an observation of time. Emptiness becomes potential localization, which always exists from a larger angle of perception, as time.

Hence "emptiness" observes the potential nature of time and acts as a barrier in which further localization occurs. Potentiality, as a negative barrier to an actual locality, fundementally becomes a locality in its own right from a larger angle. So the cup exists because of its actual objective nature of clay and the space which composes it. The cup as a locality in its own right, exists because of the localization of the clay and the potential movement of the clay as emptiness. So even when the cup breaks, or changes form because of its potential nature of empty space which composes it, this dualism of "actuality" and "potentiality" defines the cup as a further actuality and potentiality.

In these respects all finite objects are dependent upon an inherent division as a dualism.

At both the classical and quantum level space can be empty : at the classical level because of vacuum and at the quantum level because
of absolute nothing [ though only infinitesimally so ] Most of the Universe is empty space because 99 per cent of an atom is empty space

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 4:21 pm At both the classical and quantum level space can be empty : at the classical level because of vacuum and at the quantum level because
of absolute nothing [ though only infinitesimally so ] Most of the Universe is empty space because 99 per cent of an atom is empty space

Actually it's 99.99999999% empty space - or rather "nothingness".

And they call it "physics"!

QuantumT wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 6:23 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 4:21 pm At both the classical and quantum level space can be empty : at the classical level because of vacuum and at the quantum level because
of absolute nothing [ though only infinitesimally so ] Most of the Universe is empty space because 99 per cent of an atom is empty space

Actually it's 99.99999999% empty space - or rather "nothingness".

And they call it "physics"!

We are still stuck with the "problem" of matter considering it exists as the boundaries of space which give space "meaning". Matter, as the boundaries which allow us to observe this 0 dimensional space, appears to be composed of space itself; hence what we understand of space relegates itself fundamentally to movement where:

1) Localized space, through matter, is "active" in the respect it is moving.
2) Non-localized space, potential material movement, is potential in the respect is may move.
3) Space is the foundation of all being, hence physics (I argue), through a dualism of active locality (movement) and potential locality (non-movement).

We have to keep in mind that "nothingness" cannot be seen on its own terms but rather through the active localization of some barrier or boundary which gives it "meaning". This meaning as the center origin of movement, which we can observe in physics and geometry as the point, exists fundamentally as an object of relation where the boundaries (lines and various other phenomenon) exists through it and allow its observation.

It appears, from this perspective, that zero dimensional space summated through the point is the foundation for quantum entanglement in the respect that a 0d point in "x" locality is the same as the 0d point in "y" locality.

In these respects, through the 0d point, "x" and "y" locality are connected. The question of connection further occurs in respect to "equality" as what is equal implies in one respect a seperation (as a phenomenon cannot be equal to itself without first observing a seperation, such as A = A observe "A" seperated into "A,A".) in one respect but a connection through space in another (Again A = A observes "A,A" connected through "="). This connection implies that while "A" may be seperated through space/time it maintains an equal nature through the "ratio" in which a connection is made which curves the space around it.

Using the above paragraph as an example we can observe that the letter "o" as a locality in its own right is equal, yet seperate, to the various other "o'"s in the paragraph. While the "o" may be seperated, its fundamental relations "curve the conceptual space" of the paragraph into the localized entity for what it is. In simpler terms, if we are to measure the concept above by observing "o" as the beginning measuring point it may be implied that the localization of "o" causes the potential nature of the paragraph to take form as its own locality as "o" bends the "conceptual space" around it to form the paragraph as its own localized concept.

Quantum entanglement is fundamentally, at least again what I argue, the curvature of space through equal ratios with this "equality" being an observation of a unity through multiplicity. The question occurs as to what makes these "ratios" equal. If looking at the nature of these forms as constructed of inherent boundaries which in themselves are "spatial", at either the abstract or physical level [or both], what we understand of the nature of "equality" is a replication of constant forms or boundaries.

This replication in one respect observes a form of seperation through approximation of a unified form, while simultaneously observes an original causal boundary which in itself remains the same. The boundary reproduces itself constantly with the boundary being its own form of measurement. Hence what we deem as "limit" is a self-measuring system in the respect it moves through itself and is compared to itself. Breaking this down further we can observe the universal limit of time, or what is "finite", being the "line".

The line as straight, when folded in upon itself, results in further lines which are qualitatively equal but seperate in the respect that they become ratios of eachother. A ratio may be implies as a form of the line self-folding through itself as its own stand of measurement. This continual folding may result in frequencies in one respect, with any "curvature" simply being an approximation of frequency which bends through itself. So the curvature of space may simply be a line folded upon itself as a frequency further bending itself through pivot angles, which at a distance is viewed approximately as a "curve".

In these respects the ratio is a connection through equality in form, premised in linear dimensions that are connected through an equality of ratios. The seperation of the these ratios, through 0d space, observes the apparent multiplicity being an "inversion" of this unity where "A" can exist simultaneously in various "localities" while still being the same "A". The multiplicity of the locality of "A" causes the interactions of one "A" to inherently effect the other "A" in the respect that equality implies a simultaneous "connection" that dually exists to its "separation" in a separate respect.

Hence the effect on "A1" may effect "A2" and cause the localization of space between them to form B. Quantum entanglement, in my opinion, is an observation of dual unity and multiplicity through equal ratios premised in boundaries whose origins extend from and through the simple line.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 4:21 pm At both the classical and quantum level space can be empty :
at the classical level because of vacuum and at the quantum level because
of absolute nothing [ though only infinitesimally so ]
Most of the Universe is empty space because 99 per cent of an atom is empty space

Earth space is almost ''empty''
but it is a big theater stage on which the events take place

Atom's space  is almost ''empty''
But it is fulled with electric / nuclear force

Cosmic space is almost ''empty''
but it has enormous matter / stuff

Vacuum space  is almost ''empty''
but ''virtual particles'' exist there, which have possibility
to effect ''normal-matter''.
#
Don't ignore ''Emptiness''
Every emptiness has something important.
====

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 3:03 pm Based on what I've been reading and hearing for the past several years, my answer is no and the reason is quantum fluctuations. I would suggest you do an internet search to explore this topic.

PhilX

Space is a thought, and thought is made of that which knows the thought.

.

socrat44 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:53 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 4:21 pm At both the classical and quantum level space can be empty :
at the classical level because of vacuum and at the quantum level because
of absolute nothing [ though only infinitesimally so ]
Most of the Universe is empty space because 99 per cent of an atom is empty space

Earth space is almost ''empty''
but it is a big theater stage on which the events take place

Atom's space  is almost ''empty''
But it is fulled with electric / nuclear force

Cosmic space is almost ''empty''
but it has enormous matter / stuff

Vacuum space  is almost ''empty''
but ''virtual particles'' exist there, which have possibility
to effect ''normal-matter''.
#
Don't ignore ''Emptiness''
Every emptiness has something important.
====

Tao Te Ching Chapter 11 (written in 500 BC )

"Thirty spokes surround one nave,
the usefulness of the wheel is always in that empty innermost.
You fashion clay to make a bowl,
the usefulness of the bowl is always in that empty innermost.
You cut out doors and windows to make a house,
their usefulness to a house is always in their empty space.
Therefore profit comes from external form,
but usefulness comes from the empty innermost."
- Translated by Isabella Mears, 1916,

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 3:03 pm Based on what I've been reading and hearing for the past several years, my answer is no and the reason is quantum fluctuations. I would suggest you do an internet search to explore this topic.

PhilX

per vacuum energy and GM/GT - "virtual" particles are created via space expansion.

refer to hawking energy, blackhole evaporation.

note; such theories have not been emprically proven yet, so who knows what is what in the real world.

Is space ever empty?

I have discovered it is, there is a part of the universe where, after water was poured over it, it's inner core became zero, nothing.

All it left behind was this image:-

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:09 pm

Is space ever empty?

I have discovered it is, there is a part of the universe where, after water was poured over it, it's inner core became zero, nothing.

All it left behind was this image:-