Philosophy Now Forum

This is believed to be the shortest distance between two points in space so-called Plank length. What is between two points? It cannot be nothing since otherwise two points obviously coincide. Therefore, there is something between the two points. This means that space is a substance. Following the same logic, it follows that time also is a substance.

It could be "nothingness" in the sense of a vacuum where the closest possible particles would have spatial extension from each other that would be measured as a Planck length. Space isn't a substance in this case. It's merely a way of talking about extensional relations.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:19 am It could be "nothingness" in the sense of a vacuum where the closest possible particles would have spatial extension from each other that would be measured as a Planck length. Space isn't a substance in this case. It's merely a way of talking about extensional relations.

What is the vacuum? How does the vacuum if it is nothingness could have properties like vacuum constants?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:37 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:19 am It could be "nothingness" in the sense of a vacuum where the closest possible particles would have spatial extension from each other that would be measured as a Planck length. Space isn't a substance in this case. It's merely a way of talking about extensional relations.

What is the vacuum? How does the vacuum if it is nothingness could have properties like vacuum constants?

I mean where it wouldn't have any properties. Again, it would be nothingness, where the area is defined by objects "outside" of it, by their spatial extension.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:24 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:37 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:19 am It could be "nothingness" in the sense of a vacuum where the closest possible particles would have spatial extension from each other that would be measured as a Planck length. Space isn't a substance in this case. It's merely a way of talking about extensional relations.

What is the vacuum? How does the vacuum if it is nothingness could have properties like vacuum constants?

I mean where it wouldn't have any properties. Again, it would be nothingness, where the area is defined by objects "outside" of it, by their spatial extension.

You can safely remove it if it has not any property. That is true since something which does not have any property cannot affect anything.

Moreover, another question that is valid is that if it is a vacuum, the minimum distance between two objects, then why it is that number and not any other number.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:58 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:24 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:37 am
What is the vacuum? How does the vacuum if it is nothingness could have properties like vacuum constants?

I mean where it wouldn't have any properties. Again, it would be nothingness, where the area is defined by objects "outside" of it, by their spatial extension.

You can safely remove it if it has not any property. That is true since something which does not have any property cannot affect anything.

Moreover, another question that is valid is that if it is a vacuum, the minimum distance between two objects, then why it is that number and not any other number.

You'd not be able to remove it without affecting the extensional relation of the particles in question though.

Re why that would be the minimum distance between particles, presumably it would be due to some sort of repulsive force of the particles.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:47 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:58 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:24 am
I mean where it wouldn't have any properties. Again, it would be nothingness, where the area is defined by objects "outside" of it, by their spatial extension.

You can safely remove it if it has not any property. That is true since something which does not have any property cannot affect anything.

Moreover, another question that is valid is that if it is a vacuum, the minimum distance between two objects, then why it is that number and not any other number.

You'd not be able to remove it without affecting the extensional relation of the particles in question though.

Re why that would be the minimum distance between particles, presumably it would be due to some sort of repulsive force of the particles.

Planck length is the minimum distance between two points in space. It is not a matter of having particles or not.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:25 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:47 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:58 am
You can safely remove it if it has not any property. That is true since something which does not have any property cannot affect anything.

Moreover, another question that is valid is that if it is a vacuum, the minimum distance between two objects, then why it is that number and not any other number.

You'd not be able to remove it without affecting the extensional relation of the particles in question though.

Re why that would be the minimum distance between particles, presumably it would be due to some sort of repulsive force of the particles.

Planck length is the minimum distance between two points in space. It is not a matter of having particles or not.

In reality it can only be the minimum distance between particles. There are no real points. (And space is not a substance; space is simply the extensional relations of matter.)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:25 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:47 pm
You'd not be able to remove it without affecting the extensional relation of the particles in question though.

Re why that would be the minimum distance between particles, presumably it would be due to some sort of repulsive force of the particles.

Planck length is the minimum distance between two points in space. It is not a matter of having particles or not.

In reality it can only be the minimum distance between particles. There are no real points. (And space is not a substance; space is simply the extensional relations of matter.)

Space deforms and carries information within the curvature. It is a substance.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:47 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:25 pm
Planck length is the minimum distance between two points in space. It is not a matter of having particles or not.

In reality it can only be the minimum distance between particles. There are no real points. (And space is not a substance; space is simply the extensional relations of matter.)

Space deforms and carries information within the curvature. It is a substance.

No, it isn't a substance. That view is incoherent ontologically.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:01 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:47 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:32 pm
In reality it can only be the minimum distance between particles. There are no real points. (And space is not a substance; space is simply the extensional relations of matter.)

Space deforms and carries information within the curvature. It is a substance.

No, it isn't a substance. That view is incoherent ontologically.

Gravitational wave was observed.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:01 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:47 pm
Space deforms and carries information within the curvature. It is a substance.

No, it isn't a substance. That view is incoherent ontologically.

Gravitational wave was observed.

How would you say that that amounts to observing space as a substance?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:10 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:01 pm

No, it isn't a substance. That view is incoherent ontologically.

Gravitational wave was observed.

How would you say that that amounts to observing space as a substance?

Space-time according to general relativity theory bends. This theory is confirmed experimentally, the last observation being the existence of gravitational waves. It is empirically proven that space is something that bends, carries information, therefore it is something. It has properties as I mentioned.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:10 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:03 pm
Gravitational wave was observed.

How would you say that that amounts to observing space as a substance?

Space-time according to general relativity theory bends. This theory is confirmed experimentally, the last observation being the existence of gravitational waves. It is empirically proven that space is something that bends, carries information, therefore it is something. It has properties as I mentioned.

Do you not buy instrumentalism? (just in case you need a reference, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/instrumentalism or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:20 pm Do you not buy instrumentalism? (just in case you need a reference, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/instrumentalism or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism)

As somebody who rejects logics without the identity axiom despite their instrumental value, do you think you buy instrumentalism?