Leaderboard

MS & SL, I like the idea of space as a potential for occupancy. Potentials of nature are real things in my book and so are potential things that might be invented and gotten a patent on. Potential are distinct from mere possibilities in my usage. Possibilities are things in the mind that is engaged in thinking. Potentials are already out there as it were, and together with actualities, they compose existence. Potentials, hence space of the world is real. Space, even unoccupied space, is real, is an existent. However, potential for material or field occupancy is not the only potential

When your 12" cube is empty, none of the particles of reality which exist have attributes i.e. coordinates in space, which coincide with the innermost space of the 12" cube. This does not, of course, in any way contradict with the fact that in times previous, many particles possessed such physical coordinates. Nor does it contradict the fact that presently, when empty, particles, systems, and energy outside possess the potential to cause, over time, some particles to again possess coordinates coinciding with the interior of the 12". Stating that the cube is empty, in fact means, of t

You're discussing a section of space. It is not nothing as in a zero. It is nothing as in unoccupied by a material thing. Defining it positively is a real challenge, because it is unlike every thing that exists. It's just space. It's where everything is.

No. Leibniz was too much of a theist and idealist for my taste.

I think space is real, but not a thing, as in an object or body. It's what most people mean when they refer to nothing rather than a mere absence of something. You could look at the space between two trees and say there is nothing there, because you don't see a thing in that space. Then science can reveal that gas molecules are in that space, and with tools we can still see a space between the molecules. We can break the molecules into smaller pieces with space between them, but what of the space? As for whether space is physical, I don't see how it can be. But I'm curious about your idea

An example I was presented with once: Imagine a box floating in outer space. To the box, a vacuum pump is attached. Envisioning a chamber of 12" cubed, the contention is that if everything has been evacuated from the chamber, one is left with a void. There is a context in which this is correct. The 12" cubical void could be filled with a variety of other matter, but it would not satisfy the individual who established the shifting criteria of the thought experiment. So long as the walls of the cube are 12" apart, at least the distance between the walls fill the cavity. The space there

My estimation of Trump’s support led me to believe that he would win re-election and that if he didn’t win , it would be because of vote count manipulation. Sharing that sentiment cemented my conspiratorial nature and had me being branded as beyond naive and prey to vicious lies designed to overthrow the rule of law. I have to say I’m still comfortable in my deluded state and not ready to abandon it. The liars’ lies still seem plausible, the lies only seem to be more and more plausible , are they that well crafted ? Am I still blinded and completely deluded?

The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece I know little about history of Rome. Perhaps others know some good scholarship on it in the league with the preceding book on Ancient Greece.

Huh? Trump has been honest? Now that's hyperbole. I did a double-take on that one, too

I will get into my answer later for intrinsicist, but as a matter of clarification. Rand would probably claim that all that exists metaphysically speaking (apart from your consciousness) is 1. The only universals that exist are 3, with the emphasis that they only exist in the mind. 2 would not be anything valid that exists (there are no universals outside of the mind). Objective thinking (rational thinking) is the way we connect 1 and 3 in a valid way. Connecting 1 with 3 would not require some intermediary existent like 2.