What is "spacetime" really?

[Pyrotex]

And nor will I contribute any more. Even though I really enjoyed it. :singer:

 

I thought AnssiH's last (BIG) post was spectacular in its clarity of reasoning and just sheer brilliance.

 

I thought Michael made a valiant effort to prove his point, but missed the mark by only the teensiest bit. Good show, Michael!! :singer:

 

Michael, I REALLY wish and hope that you don't go away mad. You are an excellent debater and you know your stuff. In fact, I hope you don't go away at all. If there was EVER a worthier opponent in Hypography, I didn't bump into them. :)

 

We all have to understand that debating cutting-edge and slicing-fringe science is not easy, not for the squeamish, and certainly not for those who cannot tolerate disagreement.

 

A word to Michael (really, to ALL of us): I notice that when the debate gets really fast and furious, many of us (me included) tend to read our opponent's posts ONLY for the word-bites that we disagree with, and respond to those. As we get caught up in the "battle" we tend to ignore, more and more, those statements that we would agree with, might agree with, should have agreed with. And we all lose an opportunity when this happens.

 

Michael, please stick around with us. We might grow on you! ;)

[Michael Mooney]

I am making an exception to my own suggestion: "...that contributors make a single point in each post"... cuz this could well be my last post... but whether or not... each post will be as if it were my last."

 

First I will contrast ontology with rhetoric. Then I will review some recent "what is space?" debate and interject commentaries."

 

Wiki on ontology:

"Ontology in philosophy... is the study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations"...

 

(and on rhetoric):

 

Rhetoric is the art of using language as a means to persuade. ... The very act of defining has itself been a central part of rhetoric..."

 

AnssiH:

.

" you can never tell for sure, 2. every ontology contains entirely epistemological facets, including a semantical idea of an identity of each defined object."

 

The ontological question afoot here is,"Is there absence of "stuff," however stuff is defined, between the defined stuff? Answer: Of course.

 

(My asterisks added):

A:

"Atoms *can be said to* "communicate" with each other through electromagnetic vibrations, but just as well you *can define an atom* as an entity that is the whole size of its influence, and *by that definition* all the atoms are overlapping each others and *by that definition there is no empty space anywhere.*"

 

Me: So you are making a rhetorical case that one can "define" reality in such a way as to deny all "empty space." You just "lost the debate" by reason of positing an obvious absurdity... 'there is no emptiness anywhere.'

 

A:...

"What I am trying to place your focus on is not "which one is true". I'm focusing on the fact that we can ALWAYS see the same thing in many different ways..."

 

M:... And create a universe with no empty space, like (closest reality) an all/everywhere neutron star or black hole (compressed matter) kind of universe.

You can create whatever you like in your mind, but it is absurd to call such a universe "real."

 

A:

"the only way to reach any resolution is to understand the epistemological reasons for our ability to always build alternative ontologies. What you need to understand is exactly why chosen ontology is all about the definitions in our head."

 

But if you believe that, for instance an 11 to 26 dimensional cosmology (like string/M-theory) is ontologically real, it behooves you to show/ explain what each "dimension" is in "the real world" (their actual referents.) Otherwise there is no difference between imaginary sci-fi and serious science. M-theory is fantasy physics, but you seem to endorse it as "science." No problem if it's all in our minds!

 

Me:

"You can not have it both (or all) ways and just say that ontology is all about definitions and we can argue forever with no resloution."

 

...Well there is empty space between objects, and "empty" means absence of things, as in nothing in between things. Things or objects occupying space render the space occupied no longer empty!..."

 

Now, back to Einstein for a moment:

 

Einstein:

"I wish to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning."

 

Me:

"Amen to first sentence!

What do you suppose he means by "Physical objects are not in space"?"

 

Seriously!

 

So what shall we call that which is ordinarily called "space" and thought of as relatively empty volume both sub-atomically and on mega-scale between the "things" we can observe like planets and stars and galaxies? (stray "atoms" and dust particles are not the issue here.)

Would coining a new word help, or can "space" have some common meaning?

 

A reprise of my definition of atoms as "things" and its logical conclusion:

"Then you have the atomic density question of how these little swarms of energy are distributed in space. If you say that there is no space between (ed: these little swarms)... even in "deep space" where there is maybe one hydrogen "atom" every few light years... then we have nothing more to say to each other. (Ed: ... and it looks like we really don't.) You say there is no "empty space,"... that it's all "filled" with energy/matter manifestaion, whatever you prefer to call it. I have just defined "things" as I understand energy/matter(and plasma) manifestations, and I *know* that there is "empty space" within "atomic" nuclei, between energy shells and electron "manifestations" within shells, between the "atoms" of say H and O in water, and on out to the molecular and macro-body levels on cosmic scale.

 

So if you deny such "empty space" and I know there is such space between these "manifestions" on all scales, then there can be no meaningful conversation between us. (Ed: And so it is.)

 

... I am tired of talking to people who deny that emptiness is even possible as the lack of manifestation of anything... both in between and beyond...

 

Now, again, the "black hole earth" comparison as a real case of "space within matter":

If all such space (as above) is squeezed out of Planet Earth, as for instance down to the Swarzchild radius for earth becoming a small black hole , then earth would become about the size of a pea or small marble.

 

The difference in size between "earth as a black hole" and earth as the big beautiful planet we know and love is the *empty space" within it on all scales described above.

 

This is an attempt to "get real" in this discussion of what "empty space" means."(End self-quote.)

 

NO REPLY. This is not a "real" dialogue!

 

AnssiH:

"What I did find curious is that your position is that your chosen definitions are ontologically real. But, you should recognize that your position as an ontological assertion is just as undefendable as anyone elses."

 

Not really. Denying the possibility of empty space is absurd. Equal "reality quotient" for all things anyone can imagine is absurd. Positing that it's all in our minds is absurd.

 

So what is that lack of things between things which, if compressed out would make earth the size of a pea... or that which we call "deep space" between objects "in space" (notwithstanding Einsteins denial of objects existing "in space?")

 

Do we need a new word/phrase or is "empty space" still what is left where there is no-thing... or is "no-thing" simply impossible?

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Pyrotex:

And nor will I contribute any more. Even though I really enjoyed it

 

Sorry to see you go. I was really hoping you would reply to my challenges.

... Like the dogma that curved space is a requirement for gravity to bend light, or your definition of a straight line as a photon's path, no matter its curvature... or my confrontation of your lasts smirky post on defining 'thing-ness."

I thought you were much more than the forum joker.

Michael

[maddog]

You need to think this through really carefully now. I don't want to put in the time to undergo a long back and forth conversation, so I'll just lay it down here and you take it for whatever it is worth.

 

...

 

Look up "noumenon", and re-read my post about map and territory. Also please re-read my post about the definitions of space.

AnssiH,

Hazaah to you and this post. I appreciate you, and the making this post all that it covers so clear, succinct and to the point (even as long as it was). I don't think there is anything I

can add that would increase it's value other than my praise for what was said.

 

BTW, I will look up the word -- "noumenon". I like to learn new things. :singer:

Next, reading the other posts in this thread, I am quite surprised that your viewpoint is so strongly naive realistic. I.e. the idea that "reality is how we perceive it". You need to understand the epistemological aspects of our perception before you can appreciate how meaningless your ontological assertions really are.

Nor have I. I am quite baffled by this.

First you should realize that, if you accept the invariance of the speed of light as ontologically real, and then work out the necessary logical consequences, you will come to see simultaneity as relativistic (like Einstein did when he worked out the logical consequences of that exact assumption)* ...

*Let me be more accurate; I have not been able to see any alternatives to that (Maybe alternatives exist by letting go some tacit assumptions).

 

You commented that your IQ is very high, I suggest you use that IQ to really look at DD's analysis. If you can follow it, I'm sure you would find it quite rational and satisfactory explanation.

As cautioned by others, I won't comment on Michael's IQ other than his behavior does not seem congruent with boast. :singer:

 

maddog

 

ps: I never did figure out who was his higher than ??

[maddog]

Re: The implicit assumption of "space curvature" as an ontological error... projecting the successful coordinate system and attending math of GR as an assumed "real medium," space as, for example, being "space curvature around the sun" as in the quote above offered by Modest.

I have not seen where stated any assumption that has been made "implicitly", let alone

any made as an "ontological error". What makes "projection of a coordinate system successful" ? How can math be "attending" ??? If you delineate SPECIFICALLY what

your objection is "in the form" of Predicate Logic (ie. If P then Q, etc), I might be able

to follow your logic. At the moment you hop around to much.

Over and over... No one here is arguing against this "great success." Yet no one here seems to understand the leap from the success of the analytical system, (hammered on again in Modest's quote), its math and Epistemology to the ontological error or false assumption: 'Therefore the space around the sun is curved.'

I have already told you -- you will not comprehend any reference to Non-Euclidean Geometry

as long as the 5th Postulate of Euclid must be upheld. It is not gonna' happen... :shrug: :eek_big:

Can anyone here (besides Doctordick and AnssiH) see this discrepancy, this ontological error of assumption?

I for one have not seen it yet. Not as you have laid it out.

 

Now what AnssiH made in his most recent post does address aptly where your thinking definitely falls short of the mark. I did see that and appreciated the clearing of some confusion.

Look: "Curved space" is posited to make up the difference here, *assuming* that gravity can not pull on massless light... yet the momentum of light (at ultimate velocity) gives it inertia as if it had mass. This remains a great mystery to science. All the cards are not yet on the table in this inquiry into gravity curving the path of light. Anyone here familiar with the "box of mirrors" experiments (which I've summarized repeatedly) demonstrating the inertial component of light? (I'll look it up again if no one has a clue what that's about.)

You seem to forget the famous equation by Einstein of [imath]E = mc^2[/imath].

Thus any energy density is affected by Gravity (as if it had mass). Thus light even though

massless can be affected by Gravity.

What is "it" again, for the thousandth time, that "has curvature around the sun?"

Beyond the comprehension of anyone who adheres to Euclid's 5th Postulate as an intrinsic

Axiom of Penultimate Truth! :naughty:

 

maddog

[maddog]

Well... this is becoming a chore because of false assumptios folks are making about my meaning. But, just because its no fun anymore is not a good reason to quit.

The Reality of Spacetime (or not!) is at stake.

This is where we differ the most. You take that there is some underlying Reality that "Exists" (Ontological or not I am not sure).

I however, question/challenge (as you put it) whether there is a Reality to Reality

(I do mean this in Phenominalogical sense more than Ontological).

Maybe the most basic square one misunderstanding is the most obvious. I understand that "things" including "atoms" are not solid little pieces of matter. "They" are miniature energy fields with various "shells of energy" defined by each nanosecond of "observation" but constantly changing... "location" of electron "clouds" for instance, being energy potentials/manifestations in constant dynamic change.

Maybe you were asleep for the whole of AnssiH's post. Vast difference between "Reality" of "atoms" being energy fields, etc than the concept of what your, I or anyone

thinks of this.

So if you deny such "empty space" and I know there is such space between these "manifestions" on all scales, then there can be no meaningfull conversation between us.

"empy space" is a concept as you define it. I challenge the Metaphysical nature of such.

I'll leave it here for now. I am tired of talking to people who deny that emptiness is even possible as the lack of manifestation of anything... both in between and beyond... as in infinite space... there being no possible "boundary" or "end"... with what beyond... *nothing?*... or unknown cosmi?...

This to me is separate from your undeniable adherence to Euclid's 5th Postulate.

Oh, one more thing... I have read what you wrote (links yo previously offered) and understand your position. I disagree, as our debate illustrate, but this is not to be taken as "michael's ignorance" of what you said, as you seem to imply.

I would take it as this -- exactly! :singer:

And I have in fact "scanned" the" DD" material you again reference above. I find it verbose and buried in detail without a clear framework for overview. Your insinuation that I am not applying my high IQ as you think I should I find offensive. I've lived with such presumptious judgments all my life.

I bet you have...

Note to maddog: "18 IQ points on him"... Einstein. It was an obvious reference to the quote immediately above it, but you don't seem to see things "in context" very well anyway in the more general sense of your hot headed misunderstandings of my presentation here.

I was wondering if your were refering to him. No, it was not Obvious at all. Quite

Obfuscating. Of course that is your manipulative nature. I do see context when fully

made. Your meaning often dances around and rarely drives anywhere.

Let's see, so that puts your IQ just short of Mensa material, I bet you hate that...

 

maddog

[maddog]

An afterthought on the space within and between those little swarms of semi- discrete energy we call "atoms":

 

If all such space(as above) is squeezed out of Planet Earth, as for instance down to the Swarzchild radius for earth becoming a small black hole , then earth would become about the size of a pea or small marble.

 

The difference in size between "earth as a black hole" and earth as the big beautiful planet we know and love is the *empty space" within it on all scales described above.

 

This is an attempt to "get real" in this discussion of what "empty space" means.

 

Comments?

Michael

Let's see not sure where to start. Were we talking about the space between nucleus

of an atom and it's surrounding shell ? Or were we talking about space between

atoms ? Space between quarks ? I suppose if just the first one, a back of the envelope

guess would put it closer the size of about a water molecule (H2O) ~ 1/2 nm^3 or so.

of course I could of 5 orders of magnitude. Not everything was taken into account.

Your point ? Whether it is pea size or atom sized to me is irrelevant.

 

maddog

[maddog]

I am making an exception to my own suggestion: "...that contributors make a single point in each post"... cuz this could well be my last post... but whether or not... each post will be as if it were my last."

Personally, go/stay, to me it doesn't matter. I just wish that with each you have made

here that you had made clear a definition of your "terms". You haven't, and have

continued to banter about without really coming to a conclusion. You have put us to

a challenge. It seems only so that you can vent and diatribe on and on....

I am personally sympathetic to Pyrotex. I don't see him as "defeated" nor has anybody

here -- even you.

The ontological question afoot here is,"Is there absence of "stuff," however stuff is defined, between the defined stuff? Answer: Of course.

I though this thread started with "what is spacetime ?" Now how did we get "Is there absence of - stuff" ? Different topic, somewhat.

[Me: So you are making a rhetorical case that one can "define" reality in such a way as to deny all "empty space." You just "lost the debate" by reason of positing an obvious absurdity... 'there is no emptiness anywhere.'

I could make such a definition, though I don't think that was what AnssiH was driving at.

It all is determined by definitions. If I define whether "empty space" did in fact existed by

the absence any energy field (say gravity) and gravity fall off at 1/r^2 then for any body

of mass the gravity potential doesn't go 0 until r = infinity. Hence no empty space.

I didn't say this is true though based on my "assumptions" it is Valid!

M:... And create a universe with no empty space, like (closest reality) an all/everywhere neutron star or black hole (compressed matter) kind of universe.

You can create whatever you like in your mind, but it is absurd to call such a universe "real."

See above; depends on terms/definitions. Conclusions follow.

But if you believe that, for instance an 11 to 26 dimensional cosmology (like string/M-theory) is ontologically real, it behooves you to show/ explain what each "dimension" is in "the real world" (their actual referents.) Otherwise there is no difference between imaginary sci-fi and serious science. M-theory is fantasy physics, but you seem to endorse it as "science." No problem if it's all in our minds!

There you go with the "real world" crap again. Face the world isn't in and of itself --

Real. It is you who makes it so.

Do we need a new word/phrase or is "empty space" still what is left where there is no-thing... or is "no-thing" simply impossible?

I already covered this earlier. Your "no-thing-ness" or absense of thingness is a tunnel

wherein there is no cheese! I can create contradictions all day.

 

maddog

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex: ... or my confrontation of your lasts smirky post on defining 'thing-ness." I thought you were much more than the forum joker.

Michael

I bent over backwards being nice to you. I gave you the benefit of considerable doubt. I turned the conversation around when you UTTERLY FAILED to get anybody to understand what you meant by ontology. The others would have deserted the thread if I hadn't gotten it back on track for you and explained your point for you.

I have allowed you to step (ever so slightly) over the line in being rude to others. I sincerly congratulated you on a well-fought debate, and even invited you to stay.

 

And you call me the "forum joker". And my comments, "smirky". Nice.

 

You have NO idea how much I have pulled my punches with you. :naughty:

 

You may be smart Michael, but you're no gentleman.

 

And there is no "nothingness". Space is just a different kind of "stuff".

[Michael Mooney]

I bent over backwards being nice to you. I gave you the benefit of considerable doubt. I turned the conversation around when you UTTERLY FAILED to get anybody to understand what you meant by ontology. The others would have deserted the thread if I hadn't gotten it back on track for you and explained your point for you.

I have allowed you to step (ever so slightly) over the line in being rude to others. I sincerly congratulated you on a well-fought debate, and even invited you to stay.

 

And you call me the "forum joker". And my comments, "smirky". Nice.

 

You have NO idea how much I have pulled my punches with you. :naughty:

 

You may be smart Michael, but you're no gentleman.

 

And there is no "nothingness". Space is just a different kind of "stuff".

 

I got a pop-up notice about another infraction, but i couldn't retrieve it for some technical reason I don't understand.

I see that I have offended you deeply. I am sorry. I am a "natural born Truth (as I see it, of course) teller" and being polite is not very high on my priority list. Yet I vowed to be civil here, and I thought I had fulfilled that vow.

 

I have often appreciated your sense of humor as well as knowing your credentials as a "rocket scientist." (Hence the comment about knowing you are more than the forum joker... tho I too am a joker and did not consider that an insult in the context of what "more" you are. So I was disappointed in your lack of response to the "challenges" cited above. And your post on 'things and stuff' was really funny, but who could take it seriously?... so I called it "smirky." If you were serious, I would have assumed you would have responded to my one-liner reply.

 

Your last statement above denies the possibility of emptiness between the things/stuff that do occupy space. What... there is no "space" because it's all things/stuff? I honestly can not take that belief seriously.

 

You clearly see yourself as the tolerant hero who saved this thread from oblivion.

I would be satisfied with merely honest answers to the challenges I have presented here.

 

It is true that I am no gentleman. Honesty is first. Being "polite" is way down the priority list, as I said. But I have agreed to civil dialogue in this forum... no more "flipping the bird" or the like, which got me the last citation. (Please tell me the content of this one as I can not retrieve it.)

 

Also, as a moderator, is there any way you can get the rabid dog off my case and banned from this thread? He is so obviously a troll just on this thread to bash me.

 

Michael

[freeztar]

It is true that I am no gentleman. Honesty is first. Being "polite" is way down the priority list, as I said. But I have agreed to civil dialogue in this forum... no more "flipping the bird" or the like, which got me the last citation. (Please tell me the content of this one as I can not retrieve it.)

 

I'll send you the infraction notice via private message. Please review it before posting again.

Also, as a moderator, is there any way you can get the rabid dog off my case and banned from this thread? He is so obviously a troll just on this thread to bash me.

If you have a problem with a member, please report the offending post or contact one of the moderators directly via PM.

[modest]

Denying the possibility of empty space is absurd.

 

While this is the crux of the argument Michael is putting forward it does not appear to be derived by any formalism so far given or lead to deductive predictions about reality. It appears to be a statement of fact with no foundation or proposed consequences. I would caution against basing one’s worldview on such a thing.

 

The alternative view is substantiated by several scientific theories and lines of reasoning. Quantum field theory proposes the existence of quantum fields which permeate all of space—even the hardest vacuum. This leads logically to a vacuum expectation value which can manifest (in one example) as the Casimir effect. General relativity is another example where the properties, the nature, and even the existence of space and time are intimately tied to the matter near it. In the words of Faraday written more than 150 years ago:

The field, though nearly as ethereal as the ether itself, can be said to have physical reality. It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum. We must then be content to define the vacuum of everyday discourse as a region free of matter, but not free of field.

 

Great physicists: the life and times ... - Google Book Search

If denying the possibility of empty space is absurd then a very large portion of modern science is built on an absurdity.

 

I think the first step in getting a grip on the ontology of space is recognizing that any reproducible and useful definition of space must fundamentally be a description of matter or energy. The distance between objects reduces to the amount of matter that can be placed between them as with a ruler. Or, the number of times some material process repeats itself (i.e. a clock) while light bounces between the objects and finds its distance. There is no means of understanding space but through material particles. Furthermore, general relativity shows us that the amount of space itself is a function of the matter affecting it.

 

Space then is at least intimately tied to matter and at most a property of it. This is analogous to mass. We would not say mass has an independent existence but rather that it is a property depending on matter / energy. It is harder for people to see space in the same way because of our intuitive human concept of space as a sort of empty separation between things, but ontologically I see space very much like mass in its reliance on matter.

 

If this is the case then rather than saying “space is nothingness” and following that up with “nothingness is empty and it exists between things” it might be more appropriate to say space and distance are not ontological elements with their own independent existence. Space is more a description of how matter exists in relation to itself. The distance between the earth and moon is not an ontological thing. Rather: the ontological elements of the earth and moon have the property of spatial separation. While I advocate this because it makes sense to me, I recognize it is not the only ontology which does make sense.

 

But, what does not make sense (and I believe cannot make sense for being internally inconsistent) is the following:

1. Space is essentially distance (which we might think of as being measured with a ruler or timed with light rays)
   
2. Time is essentially duration (which we might think of as being measured with a clock or any regularly repeating phenomenon)
   
3. Space and time are Euclidean
   
4. The speed of light (which is #1 divided by #2) is invariant
   

Any ontology which leads to those definitions is internally inconsistent as has been shown in this thread repeatedly.

 

I was going to explain why a photon defines a straight line in relativity and why light deflection disagrees with Newtonian gravity and Euclidean space, but this post is too long already.

 

~modest

 

PS... Michael, don’t worry too much about the infractions (by this I mean please don't view them as an attack on you). Just put more effort into avoiding anything that other members might consider rude. I know many of the Hypography members are enjoying this debate and learning a lot of philosophy from it. They appreciate (as do I) the energy you put into advocating your view. If we all direct our argument at the subject rather than at other members then we can avoid wasted hostility and continue investigating the subject usefully and pleasantly.

[watcher]

What is "it" again, for the thousandth time, that "has curvature around the sun?"

 

could be of the following ..

 

1. space density (could be amount of energy per volume or amount of space itself per volume)

2. tensors or what the math implies/infers

3. aether

4. curved by mighty thor, the god of thunder.

 

If all such space(as above) is squeezed out of Planet Earth, as for instance down to the Swarzchild radius for earth becoming a small black hole , then earth would become about the size of a pea or small marble.

 

instead of earth, why not reduce the whole universe into a pea.

what "input" and the "mechanism" do you need to squeeze the space out.

then let us analyze if the space displaced by the earth/universe previously occupied is ...

 

1. still empty space

2. nothingness

3. undefined

4. god knows what.

[maddog]

Your last statement above denies the possibility of emptiness between the things/stuff that do occupy space. What... there is no "space" because it's all things/stuff? I honestly can not take that belief seriously.

I am beginning to find it hard to take you seriously.

Also, as a moderator, is there any way you can get the rabid dog off my case and banned from this thread? He is so obviously a troll just on this thread to bash me.

I take this to mean that "I Am" your "rabid dog" ?!? :xparty:

 

As to Rabidity, I have done no more than what level you have taunted others, even less.

So for one, who is calling "enough!", I find it odd for one who is often breathing fire at

others, yet can not take the "heat of the kitchen". You are now taken to talking to me

in "3rd person". I guess that means that you have no effective rebuke to my statement

(at least any of merit). I take that silence to mean my statements are sound and valid.

 

maddog

[maddog]

While this is the crux of the argument Michael is putting forward it does not appear to be derived by any formalism so far given or lead to deductive predictions about reality. It appears to be a statement of fact with no foundation or proposed consequences. I would caution against basing one’s worldview on such a thing.

My understanding of Michael's theories is that he has true disdain for any modern,

pragmatic (post Bacon) scientific method used. He prefers the methodology utilized by

the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, etc in the Classical Greek Period. The tenent

"anything that appears to be so, is so" [paraprased from Plato].

But, what does not make sense (and I believe cannot make sense for being internally inconsistent) is the following:

1. Space is essentially distance (which we might think of as being measured with a ruler or timed with light rays)
   
2. Time is essentially duration (which we might think of as being measured with a clock or any regularly repeating phenomenon)
   
3. Space and time are Euclidean
   
4. The speed of light (which is #1 divided by #2) is invariant
   

Any ontology which leads to those definitions is internally inconsistent as has been shown in this thread repeatedly.

All that matters is that it makes sense to Michael.

 

maddog

[Pyrotex]

My understanding of Michael's theories is that he has true disdain for any modern, pragmatic (post Bacon) scientific method used. ...All that matters is that it makes sense to Michael...

I think you are spot on, maddog.

 

If MM really had the probing intellect that he claims, perhaps he would have gotten a degree in Physics (or other science) rather than Philosophy. Now, I have debated physics with a philosopher before, and we both had a real good time seeing how they conflicted "here" and supported each other "there"--and I know I learned a lot from the encounter. But MM's approach is dissonant and grating. He attempts not to persuade us, but rather to bludgeon us into submission.

 

Well, let him have his philosophy and his IQ --

and the ontological "space" between his ears. :xparty:

[Pyrotex]

... I am sorry. I am a "natural born Truth (as I see it, of course) teller" and being polite is not very high on my priority list....

Your last statement above denies the possibility of emptiness between the things/stuff that do occupy space. What... there is no "space" because it's all things/stuff? I honestly can not take that belief seriously....

It is true that I am no gentleman. Honesty is first. Being "polite" is way down the priority list, as I said...

Also, as a moderator, is there any way you can get the rabid dog off my case and banned from this thread? He is so obviously a troll just on this thread to bash me.

Apology accepted.

 

There are no "natural born Truth tellers", not in our species.

However, there are many "natural born opinion tellers".

 

So, being polite is not high on your list?

I think it was Tacitus, historian of the Roman Empire, (?) who once said,

Speaking the Truth, without attention to etiquette, is an act of war.

 

Why should we pay respect to your ideas, when you make it

so difficult to respect your behavior?

 

All beliefs can be taken seriously. That is, it is possible for the human mind

to believe anything, however absurd the belief may be. (Voltaire, I think)

Whether or not the belief is itself valid or empirically verifiable is quite

another matter.

 

I have no doubt at all that you believe that "nothingness" exists.

But I have substantial reasons for doubting its validity.

 

Arguing against physics using philosophy as your weapon --

isn't that a bit like going to a gun fight with nothing but a switchblade?

 

There are no "rabid dogs" on this thread. You default to insult and

baiting once again. If you cannot seem to get your ideas across,

repeatedly, consistently, then folks with a love of truth and reason

will naturally gravitate to you, demanding better explanations.

And if you cannot supply them, they will let you know.

It's the price you pay for muddy exposition.