Philosophy Discussion Forums

Xris wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


How can space is finite and infinite if it is nothing? Of course, you can measure distance but you can't measure space. How do you measure space? Using a ruler? A stick? Of course, space is just a concept not an object, Bill Gaede also agree with it.

You have lost me. I never said it was finite nor infinite. You have implied it can be measured so what exactly are you measuring? I agree with Bill, I thought you were questioning his logic.

I am not implied space can be measured, only distance between objects can be measured. Objects are bounded by their shape with space necessarily contouring object.

So if you can not measure space without objects how do you value space without objects? Space is described by the distance between objects.The concept of infinite has no scientific value.

Xris wrote:So if you can not measure space without objects how do you value space without objects? Space is described by the distance between objects.The concept of infinite has no scientific value.

Remember, actually you're measuring the distance between objects, not the space "itself". Space resolved to nothing. But even if there are no matter around, you can still conceived, imagined and assumed somehow if there is suddenly a lone object started to appear, what make the lone object to retain its shape? Is it nothingness (i.e Space)? Or else?

Space is nothing because without separation there is no room to move. A universe of one object is a universe with no movement, as movement is a concept relating two or more objects. "Two or more" can only be distinguished if the objects are separated. That separation is not itself an object or else we are back to square one. There must be a void to move around in. Space is, by definition, a place (concept of nothing) and not an object.

Yes, the concept of infinite has no scientific value. Of course.

Julius Caesar wrote:

Xris wrote:So if you can not measure space without objects how do you value space without objects? Space is described by the distance between objects.The concept of infinite has no scientific value.

Remember, actually you're measuring the distance between objects, not the space "itself". Space resolved to nothing. But even if there are no matter around, you can still conceived, imagined and assumed somehow if there is suddenly a lone object started to appear, what make the lone object to retain its shape? Is it nothingness (i.e Space)? Or else?

Space is nothing because without separation there is no room to move. A universe of one object is a universe with no movement, as movement is a concept relating two or more objects. "Two or more" can only be distinguished if the objects are separated. That separation is not itself an object or else we are back to square one. There must be a void to move around in. Space is, by definition, a place (concept of nothing) and not an object.

Yes, the concept of infinite has no scientific value. Of course.

You are using terms that are not related. A void is the space between objects but it is not what you can call nothing. I agree it is not an object but a concept. One object can not describe space so the idea that a void can exist without two or more objects is inconceivable. You still not have told me how you measure your concept of nothing.

Xris wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote:
What is your definition of space? Space is the static distance between objects/matter. It is synonymous with nothing, nada, zip, etc.

If space is created by a relationship with objects of mass, aren't if there are no matter around, then we will just see or experience nothing that we called as space? So assuming if there is a lone and single atom in this universe, don't you think it is still contoured by nothing that we called as space?

Sorry but there is no such thing as nothing. This hypothetical single atom does not require or create space.

Xris,

This guy (Julius Caesar) is arguing dishonestly for dishonorable reasons (he is twisting semantics in order to defend a dogma).

Let us ask Julius Caesar the following:

Suppose your single object moves within this contoured fabric, to where is it moving? How can it's movement be measured without an observer (an observer would be a second object, there is no such thing as an Observer that is NOT an object as you have surreptitiously presumed, which is DISHONEST) ?

Xris wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Remember, actually you're measuring the distance between objects, not the space "itself". Space resolved to nothing. But even if there are no matter around, you can still conceived, imagined and assumed somehow if there is suddenly a lone object started to appear, what make the lone object to retain its shape? Is it nothingness (i.e Space)? Or else?

Space is nothing because without separation there is no room to move. A universe of one object is a universe with no movement, as movement is a concept relating two or more objects. "Two or more" can only be distinguished if the objects are separated. That separation is not itself an object or else we are back to square one. There must be a void to move around in. Space is, by definition, a place (concept of nothing) and not an object.

Yes, the concept of infinite has no scientific value. Of course.

You are using terms that are not related. A void is the space between objects but it is not what you can call nothing. I agree it is not an object but a concept. One object can not describe space so the idea that a void can exist without two or more objects is inconceivable. You still not have told me how you measure your concept of nothing.

Okay, what is the difference between void and nothing if space/void is not an object or a concept? Remember, space don't exist.

If there is no any surrounding to this lone atom, how come the atom still retains its shape? Shape is the only intrinsic property of an object such as atom. If an object don't have any shape, then it is no different than nothing (i.e void, space, zip, nada, etc.)

-- Updated March 14th, 2014, 2:42 am to add the following --

King Solomon wrote:

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Sorry but there is no such thing as nothing. This hypothetical single atom does not require or create space.

Xris,

This guy (Julius Caesar) is arguing dishonestly for dishonorable reasons (he is twisting semantics in order to defend a dogma).

Let us ask Julius Caesar the following:

Suppose your single object moves within this contoured fabric, to where is it moving? How can it's movement be measured without an observer (an observer would be a second object, there is no such thing as an Observer that is NOT an object as you have surreptitiously presumed, which is DISHONEST) ?

A single object such as an assumed lone atom don't have any location, motion, whatsoever but the only property that an object have is its shape.

I am not concerned with metaphysical reasoning about imaginary lone atoms that have no relationship. Space can only exist by concerning ourselves with distance between objects. Nothing can not exist because you can not measure it. The lone atom is impossible because it can not be observed or measured. A void is the distance between objects, what in fact fills that space we call a void is to be discovered. Bill Gaede will tell you it is filled with EM ropes that describes the relationship.

Xris wrote:I am not concerned with metaphysical reasoning about imaginary lone atoms that have no relationship. Space can only exist by concerning ourselves with distance between objects. Nothing can not exist because you can not measure it. The lone atom is impossible because it can not be observed or measured. A void is the distance between objects, what in fact fills that space we call a void is to be discovered. Bill Gaede will tell you it is filled with EM ropes that describes the relationship.

Space don't exist, only objects exist. Go ask Bill and his followers, they will say space is which don't have shape. What do you call the space beyond the farthest object? Do you still call it a "something"?One more question, what are your opinions regarding the atom and EM rope, is it an object with shape or what?

Julius Caesar wrote:

Xris wrote:I am not concerned with metaphysical reasoning about imaginary lone atoms that have no relationship. Space can only exist by concerning ourselves with distance between objects. Nothing can not exist because you can not measure it. The lone atom is impossible because it can not be observed or measured. A void is the distance between objects, what in fact fills that space we call a void is to be discovered. Bill Gaede will tell you it is filled with EM ropes that describes the relationship.

Space don't exist, only objects exist. Go ask Bill and his followers, they will say space is which don't have shape. What do you call the space beyond the farthest object? Do you still call it a "something"?One more question, what are your opinions regarding the atom and EM rope, is it an object with shape or what?

Sorry but you are constantly repeating the same questions without taking reference to my replies. There is no space beyond the farthest object. You need two objects to have the distance to measure. Bill will tell you an atom is a concept but a rope is an object. I suggest you make friends with him on FB, he is always available to clarify his position. xris.

13. An object cannot be defined. The only way to present an object during a scientific presentation is to point to it and utter a sound (i.e., name it). The image may be an illustration, a statue, a mockup, or the real thing. After the exhibits phase, an object is treated as a concept for the remainder of the presentation.

I like this point, as it illustrates the limitations of words. Words are not the thing itself, only a sound to represent something which is not a sound. Once a definition is agreed upon, ( I make the sound rock, and you say "yes, we will call it rock" ) we may use that concept without any further pointing to the rock. Man's ability to name things, creates an illusion that we "know" things. Only the man who know's, that he doesn't know, truly knows.

Xris wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Space don't exist, only objects exist. Go ask Bill and his followers, they will say space is which don't have shape. What do you call the space beyond the farthest object? Do you still call it a "something"?One more question, what are your opinions regarding the atom and EM rope, is it an object with shape or what?

Sorry but you are constantly repeating the same questions without taking reference to my replies. There is no space beyond the farthest object. You need two objects to have the distance to measure. Bill will tell you an atom is a concept but a rope is an object. I suggest you make friends with him on FB, he is always available to clarify his position. xris.

Note that you're saying "there is no space beyond the farthest object". You clearly defined space as the distance between two or more objects. Space is actually which don't have shape. Space don't exist.

If there is no space beyond the farthest object, what prevent something from going beyond the farthest object?

*Actually Bill say both atom and EM rope are objects with shape.

-- Updated March 14th, 2014, 7:26 pm to add the following --

Present awareness wrote:13. An object cannot be defined. The only way to present an object during a scientific presentation is to point to it and utter a sound (i.e., name it). The image may be an illustration, a statue, a mockup, or the real thing. After the exhibits phase, an object is treated as a concept for the remainder of the presentation.

I like this point, as it illustrates the limitations of words. Words are not the thing itself, only a sound to represent something which is not a sound. Once a definition is agreed upon, ( I make the sound rock, and you say "yes, we will call it rock" ) we may use that concept without any further pointing to the rock. Man's ability to name things, creates an illusion that we "know" things. Only the man who know's, that he doesn't know, truly knows.

So, in your opinion, are the atom and EM rope are indeed objects with shapes, or what? And what are your thoughts about space, nothing and finite and infinite?

Julius Caesar wrote:

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Sorry but you are constantly repeating the same questions without taking reference to my replies. There is no space beyond the farthest object. You need two objects to have the distance to measure. Bill will tell you an atom is a concept but a rope is an object. I suggest you make friends with him on FB, he is always available to clarify his position. xris.

Note that you're saying "there is no space beyond the farthest object". You clearly defined space as the distance between two or more objects. Space is actually which don't have shape. Space don't exist.

If there is no space beyond the farthest object, what prevent something from going beyond the farthest object?

*Actually Bill say both atom and EM rope are objects with shape.

-- Updated March 14th, 2014, 7:26 pm to add the following --

Present awareness wrote:13. An object cannot be defined. The only way to present an object during a scientific presentation is to point to it and utter a sound (i.e., name it). The image may be an illustration, a statue, a mockup, or the real thing. After the exhibits phase, an object is treated as a concept for the remainder of the presentation.

I like this point, as it illustrates the limitations of words. Words are not the thing itself, only a sound to represent something which is not a sound. Once a definition is agreed upon, ( I make the sound rock, and you say "yes, we will call it rock" ) we may use that concept without any further pointing to the rock. Man's ability to name things, creates an illusion that we "know" things. Only the man who know's, that he doesn't know, truly knows.

So, in your opinion, are the atom and EM rope are indeed objects with shapes, or what? And what are your thoughts about space, nothing and finite and infinite?

I believe space to be infinite. Space is that which is not there. The "is not there ness of space" does not end with the last object in the universe, but continues on for eternity. The universe expands into it and may do so indefinitely.

Present awareness wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Note that you're saying "there is no space beyond the farthest object". You clearly defined space as the distance between two or more objects. Space is actually which don't have shape. Space don't exist.

If there is no space beyond the farthest object, what prevent something from going beyond the farthest object?

*Actually Bill say both atom and EM rope are objects with shape.

-- Updated March 14th, 2014, 7:26 pm to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)


So, in your opinion, are the atom and EM rope are indeed objects with shapes, or what? And what are your thoughts about space, nothing and finite and infinite?

I believe space to be infinite. Space is that which is not there. The "is not there ness of space" does not end with the last object in the universe, but continues on for eternity. The universe expands into it and may do so indefinitely.

But infinite is an adjective, that means it can only be applied to objects but since objects are necessarily finite, infinite objects are oxymoron and contradictory. Bill Gaede and his brethren say we can only say space is just nothing. Nothing is nothing. What are your thoughts?

And what are your thoughts about atoms and the EM ropes? Are those things indeed objects with shape?

Julius Caesar wrote:

Present awareness wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I believe space to be infinite. Space is that which is not there. The "is not there ness of space" does not end with the last object in the universe, but continues on for eternity. The universe expands into it and may do so indefinitely.

But infinite is an adjective, that means it can only be applied to objects but since objects are necessarily finite, infinite objects are oxymoron and contradictory. Bill Gaede and his brethren say we can only say space is just nothing. Nothing is nothing. What are your thoughts?

And what are your thoughts about atoms and the EM ropes? Are those things indeed objects with shape?

The definition of a noun is a person, a place or a thing. To me, space is a place in which nothing (no thing) exist. Therefore, space is a noun. The opposite of space is matter, which could be said to exist, like atoms for example. Space does not need matter, it defines it, just as matter defines space by the distance between it.

Present awareness wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


But infinite is an adjective, that means it can only be applied to objects but since objects are necessarily finite, infinite objects are oxymoron and contradictory. Bill Gaede and his brethren say we can only say space is just nothing. Nothing is nothing. What are your thoughts?

And what are your thoughts about atoms and the EM ropes? Are those things indeed objects with shape?

The definition of a noun is a person, a place or a thing. To me, space is a place in which nothing (no thing) exist. Therefore, space is a noun. The opposite of space is matter, which could be said to exist, like atoms for example. Space does not need matter, it defines it, just as matter defines space by the distance between it.

But in scientific discussion, Bill Gaede, Fatfist and his brethren say we must define our terms unambiguously. They say again, we can say "infinite object" in our everyday, common speech. But in Science especially Physics, we deal mostly with objects with shape. So, the real noun in reality, nature is objects with shape, not "nothing" like place because place is not an object, a "what" rather "it" is a "where". That's why they say we can't say infinite space. But space is neither finite nor infinite. What are your opinions about their reasoning and explanation?