altonhare

You can't move unless you take a measurement? Once again, an object doesn't care about reference frames. Do you two honestly think a block of wood looks around and decides which inertial frame to be in? If one object in the universe moves, every other object moves by definition, because they were at at least 2 locations. How hard is this!? Additionally, despite all the disagreeing with me, not a single person has reconciled "instantaneous" with "motion" or "velocity". Quite the opposite. I've presented copious arguments and not a single valid counterargument. Not a single person has defined "instantaneous" and "velocity" or "motion" such that the two words are not mutually irreconcilable.

Hey Travis, I've read your 4 part article on Objective Science. You're an excellent writer and your thoughts are clear and coherent. Also, thanks for the review. I am immediately skeptical of any theory which posits 'a' wave as its hypothesis. Of course a wave is not what something is, but what something does. Relying on the wave without reference to the fundamental thing which is moving reduces the "theory" to a mere description of observations. Waving is what the needle on the oscilloscope does, so to speak. In Oism entities are causal primaries, and 'a' wave is not an entity anymore than 'a' jump is a man. The main problem in physics today is skipping the early steps of the sci meth, namely the definitions and the hypothesis. In the hypothesis we must assume some entity exists for the purposes of the theory (such as an atom, 'a' aether, 'a' space-time, etc.). We cannot do this until we've defined the terms "entity" and "exist" unambiguously. In my experience very few people actually know what they mean when they use these terms, and very few explicitly agree on their meanings. How can we productively communicate about entities, which exist and which do not, without agreeing beforehand on what it means? In many cases it's not an issue, my existence, this computer's, this table's, etc. are self-evident. But what about entities nobody has seen, such as light? Of course we are familiar with the effect we know as light. But does a 2D plane "wave" exist? Or a wave-packet? These are descriptions, they just tell us what we observed already. First and foremost we need one or more structure(s) responsible. Then we can talk about the motion of this entity, up and down, waving, helical, whatever. The only objective definition of entity is: shape. The objective definition of exist is: shape and location. http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1GAE.pdf Not all definitions have to ultimately be circular. This mistake is made because *conceptualizations* are ultimately circular, up is the opposite of down, down is the opposite of up for instance. Humans understand the universe through conceptualization so it's easy to become convinced of the inevitability of circularity. However the definition of concepts like "up" are predicated on the thing which is up or down (in relation to another thing). Concepts such as these describe/modify an object compared to another object (if one thing can be described as up, the other can be described as down". All concepts, save one that I know of, follow this kind of reciprocity. Now, what is a thing? Bill says shape, i.e. finite. This opposite of finite is infinite. For an object to be finite, must another be infinite? Of course not, objects are defined as finite. An object may be up or down, but not both, while another object is the other. An object also cannot be both finite and infinite, but also other objects cannot be infinite because objects cannot be described as infinite. We don't point to one object and say "this one is finite" and point to another "as compared to this one, which is infinite". That's absurd. The reason is that the finiteness of a thing doesn't depend on comparison. It's an essential quality. Infinite contradicts the definition of object. "Something" without shape is the opposite of something, it's the absence of some particular thing(s). This is why "shape" is primitive, self consistent, and non circular.

The definition of "motion" or "motionless" has nothing to do with measurement. Do we have to perform a measurement for an object to move? Of course not! If all humans died object still move. The definition of motion is simply "2 locations of an object". Nobody has to do any observing or measuring. Nature doesn't care about measurements, rest frames, preferred frames, etc. If the object was at 2 or more locations, it moved by definition, whether anyone was around to see it do so or not. Velocity and time invoke measurements and reference frames. Velocity demands a consciousness to record/remember the locations, and possibly look at their watch or a clock. A human needs to define an inertial frame, a coordinate system, etc. Nature doesn't. An object has location all on its own. Is it possible to "measure one location"? Since location is "the set of distances from an object to every other object" it's doubtful that a human will ever measure location at all. What we do measure is "distance-traveled". The distance-traveled by the leading edge of my tape, my ruler, a runner, etc relative to the table, the road, etc. We use distance-traveled to infer velocity. The man ran 4 miles while the long hand moved 2*pi radians, we have two distances-traveled of two objects respectively. We have *TWO* sets of distances traveled: (0,0) ; (4,2*pi) The point is that instantaneous invokes a single location whereas motion invokes at least 2. The words are mutually irreconcilable.

What is this "thing" you call time that is engaged in the action of "progressing"? Do you mean the clock hand is moving around? Or the atom is shooting a photon at your eye? Or the pendulum is swinging back and forth? Absolutely! Change=rate=motion, the quantification of which we call "velocity". So the "instantaneous velocity" is the velocity an object *would have* if it is later at an infinitesimal distance from its current location? So we're talking about two locations, not one, i.e. location x and x+dx. We can make dx arbitrarily/infinitesimally small, but never 0! When dx=0 we are not dealing with motion or velocity anymore, but with the static concept location i.e. the object is at x. When dx>0 we have TWO locations x and x+dx and we are dealing with the dynamic concept motion and its quantitative counterpart velocity. Instantaneous, by definition, involves only one location. Therefore the so-called "instantaneous velocity" is a contradiction and is more aptly termed "infinitesimal velocity". Instantaneous velocity: A single location of two locations of an object. Of course! A different position/location is a second one. But this is not "instantaneous". I'm sorry you must have had a terrible calc experience sometime. Your teacher probably didn't make clear the difference between dx=0 and dx>0.

Grames, You said motionless is "0 distance-traveled over any time interval". The problem is, the term "time interval" invokes motion. How did you measure this time interval? You watched a clock hand, or a photon went from an atom to your eye, or whatever. Therefore, the object in question moved relative to *something* (the clock hand, the photon, etc.) even though it may not have moved relative to your ruler. In order for an object to have 0 velocity relative to anything (like a ruler) it must have a finite velocity relative to something (like a clock hand). The object it physically at TWO locations and may have 0 velocity relative to the ruler but not relative to everything! Ironically in order to have 0 velocity relative to anything an object must have a finite velocity relative to something. Which of course means it's not motionless, by definition. No I am not falling into the Fletcher's paradox. That's moronic and I don't even care to go into the fallacies in it. I reiterate. Motionless is defined as ONE location of an object. That's it. As soon as you say anything about a "time interval" you are invoking motion (2 locations) and the object is no longer motionless by definition. Saying anything about "time interval" or "0 velocity" in the definition of "motionless" is a nonsensical contradiction. Both of them imply that the object in question is moving relative to something.

Motionless is defined as one location of an object. Static is just a synonym. It is the conceptual opposite of motion. You're not getting it. This is not an issue of measuring, this is an issue of definitions. zero "time interval" is another way of saying a single location. There is not motion at a single location by definition. There is no "time" without motion either, by definition. 0 vs. 0 _0 How hard is this? y_feld, do you have any justification for anything you said? Can you define "instantaneous" such that it is not contradictory with "motion" or "velocity"? You said: "The instantaneous velocity of an object is, for some particular moment in time, the exact velocity of that object at that exact instant in time." Can you possibly illustrate for us velocity at an instant? Is this velocity: 0 ??? Or is this: 0 _0 ??? If you can visualize an object moving without moving, two instants in a single instant, you must have special eyes.

Show me where I ever said such a stupid thing as "0 dist divided by 0 time equals 0 velocity". I, and others in this forum, maintain that it is as you said, "undefined, does not compute, etc." Static and motionless mean a single location of an object, as opposed to dynamic/motion which is 2 or more locations of an object. I put time in quotes in this definition intentionally because, in fact, as you pointed out "time" is actually undefined without motion. I'm glad you understand so well! Instantaneous velocity is a self contradiction and an oxymoron.

You are failing to think in the most essential language. I have not claimed to "debunk" the equations nor disagree with their practical value. Just because some celebrities and/or "learned men" uttered these sounds "instantaneous velocity" or inscribed these symbols on paper, are they now sacrosanct? Of course not. In order to learn something we have to think in the most essential language. Newton and Leibniz may have been rigorous in their mathematics, but they were loose with their language. They did not care to define their terms because they were not interested in the *qualitative* aspects of their work, but only with the quantitative aspects. They worked out the quantitative aspects perfectly, but missed the translation into the qualitative language of physics. They have perfect rationalism but without reason, i.e. they did not connect their logical framework to physical essentials. Object: shape Motion: Two or more locations of an object Instantaneous: Static, a single location, 0 "time", motionless Velocity is the measurement/quantification of motion. Therefore velocity requires at least two locations of an object. Instantaneous motion/velocity is an oxymoron. On the other hand: Infinitesimal: Arbitrarily small, the act of incessantly reducing some measurement, etc. Infinitesimal velocities are fine. We are saying, here, that we can measure the object's two locations as close as we want. Is the logical statement x=0 the same as the statement x->0? In the latter case x is always finite, no matter how small we imagine it. These statements are explicitly, qualitatively different. Newton and Leibniz (and others that came before them, less formally) calculate the velocity as the change in location GOES TO 0, never when it is 0! Never ever! Newton himself would scoff at calculating velocity without at least 2 locations, i.e. calculating the velocity of something motionless. They simply confused "infinitesimal" with "0". But it's exactly this distinction which makes their calculus possible in the first place. They didn't truly understand the physical, qualitative connection.

How about this. Define "instantaneous" and "velocity" such that "instantaneous velocity" is not an oxymoron.

Exactly. Velocity "at an instant" is undefined, precisely as I said. "Instantaneous" velocity/motion of an object: ----- 0 ----- Motionless object: ----- 0 ----- So "instantaneous" velocity is the same as "motionless"? Moving object: ----- 0 _0 ----- Any questions? How is the concept "motionless" anything like the concept "motion"? How is the concept "location" anything like the concept "velocity"? Motion and motionless are conceptual opposites. "Instantaneous velocity" makes no more sense than "downward up" or "square circle". Differentiation "works" because you start with an equation that expresses at *least* two values of the dependent and independent variables. x=k*t+b expresses as many values as you care to plug in. Just try to take 4=k*3+1 and get a velocity. You cannot, because this expression gives you only ONE location at ONE instant. On the other hand the expressions: 4=k*3+1 ; 5=k*4+1 gives you TWO instants. Now you can calc a velocity = 1. The object WAS at 4, then it WAS at 5. What if you make dt (or dx) equal 0? Let's see: 4=k*3+1 ; 4=k*3+1. Velocity = 0/0, i.e. undef This is elementary level stuff. Something does not move when it sits still and it doesn't sit still when it moves.

John, "contradicts what is taught in every calculus and physics class" Am I in the right forum? I thought this was objectivism, where we think for ourselves. Most calc/physics classes aren't taught by objectivists, nor are they even often taught by people with a strong capacity for reason. Motion: TWO or more locations of an object In calculus we examine when these locations because arbitrarily close, the difference becomes infinitesimal. Never zero! In science, motion demands a minimum of 2 locations. "Instantaneous" implies a single "time", i.e. a single location. Instantaneous motion (or velocity) is contradictory. What is meant by this term is "infinitesimal motion". "is calculated as dt goes to zero" Right, never at 0. Just try evaluating it at 0... you always get 0, obviously. "The concept of velocity... is well defined" Of course it is. Instantaneous velocity is the contradictory term, velocity is fine. For future reference you can spare me the freshman calc/physics lectures. Grames: I'm not sure what you mean by GR "working", but the differential equaitons involved are dealing with, as I said, infinitesimal motion. Not instantaneous motion. Instantaneous motion is a contradiction in terms. Motion (2 instants): --------- 00 --------- --------- 0 0 --------- Motionless (1 instant, "instantaneous"): --------- 0 ---------

A description of locations of parts? So we needed the parts first in order to describe their location. Without the parts (with shape) we could not describe these locations. Shape comes first. We can imagine shape without location but not vice versa. Are you proposing that the situation described in the 1st law (an object in motion is not acted upon) is ever reflected in reality? Perhaps you are deceived by your calculus text into thinking something can move without moving because you have not thought on the matter carefully. You said velocity is "ratio of distance traveled per time *interval*". A distance-traveled necessarily invokes TWO locations and a time interval necessarily invokes TWO times. Instantaneous is a SINGLE time and a SINGLE location. Instantaneous velocity is an explicit contradiction, the two words are mutually exclusive. The derivative is the change in location with time as the change *approaches* 0, never when it is 0! Infinitesimal is NOT zero. To equivocate the two is reification of 0. Grames, we're talking about ONE object here, not every object that exists (universe). Every object is finite because it has shape. This is self evident and ubiquitous, besides being the only definition of "thing" that can be used consistently.

In response to "there is something there everywhere". The reason for this is that shape precedes location. We can imagine all kinds of shapes that do not have location. Any image I conjure up in my head is a shape without location. But it is impossible to imagine or conceive of location by itself. The concept of location demands an object. Saying there is something everywhere is analogous to saying all objects that exist have location. In response to quantum and the indeterminacy principle: This is a simpler problem than most realize. The issue here is that location is a static concept and velocity (and by extension momentum) is a dynamic concept. Therefore, at an instant (a specific precise location) velocity is undefined. I don't mean it's 0, I mean it is entirely undefined. There is no concept of velocity without *at least* two locations. On the other hand the location of a movING object is entirely undefined. Of course, a moving object does not have *a* location. Where's a moving ball? The quantum uncertainty principle is simply saying that, when an object moves it doesn't sit still and when it sits still it doesn't move. The quantification of both location and velocity is a matter of assigning each of these "average" values based on a mathematical framework that fits observations (and thus correctly correlates the motions of objects). An object that moves from A to B is assigned some "average location" parameter, the simplest way would be to just give it location (A+;)/2. It is quite obvious that as the distance-traveled (A- becomes large this "average location parameter" describes the physical situation much worse. Imagine glimpsing a race car once, then again a mile down the road. You have two locations (0,1). At each of these locations you have no idea what the velocity is, you only know that it traversed a distance 1 in a single "unit time". So you say its velocity was 1 at location 0.5. Or you could report exactly what happened, that it went from 0 to 1, but then again you don't have a single location parameter (which is what quantum drives at). Then one objects "but it's velocity is precisely defined", but it isn't. All you have are two locations. You don't know if the object accelerated or decelerated. You are *assuming* it moved uniformly between the two measurements and thus assigning it a velocity, which is really just an "average velocity" unless the object really did move *perfectly uniformly* from A to B. Supernatural interpretations like Copenhagen and "infinite extent" of objects are the result of too much math, too little logic, and a poor (or nonexistent) philosophical foundation. The reason that, in a classical sense, there is no theoretical upper limit to accuracy has to do with the mathematical models of light of the time. Light was a continuous entity in the 19th century. Therefore, at any 2 instants I can take a measurement (via light) and record 2 locations. If I think my accuracy is not good enough I can measure between shorter and shorter instants, as long as I want until I'm satisfied. This is because, again, my method of observation is *continuous*. There is no fundamental limit to the interval between observation/detection of light emitted by the object under study. On the other hand, in quantum, light is a discrete entity. It comes in discrete units quantified by h. Therefore when we take a measurement the best we can do is detect 2 "photons" and record the two locations they indicate. That's as good as it gets. We have to wait for the next "unit" of light to come along and tell us where the object ended up. This places a theoretical upper limit on the degree of accuracy we can attain, at least by measurements with light. Indeed you'll hear a lot of quantum mathematicians state that the indeterminacy principle "has to do with bouncing a photon off the object you're observing". So it comes as no surprise that the fundamental upper limit on measurement accuracy is defined in terms of the fundamental unit of light, quantified by h, since light is how we do most of our measuring/observing.

I hope you are not always so quick to say "X is out" before you understand it. In response to your first question about "no evidence". There is no evidence of photons, wave packets, waves, electrons, protons, etc. I see the computer in front of me and a table. If I look very closely I may see little balls and call them atoms. Nobody has ever seen a single electron, photon, graviton, or a magnetic "field". Everything else, the particle models of electrons, protons, and light, and the wave models, are purely hypotheses. They are assumed to exist in order to explain some image on a plate, some reaction, etc. This is what we do in science, we pose structures to explain natural phenomena. You are not yet understanding the theory. In response to your question "how particles pump energy into the system of threads" there are 2 more videos that begin to address this question: The "glaring contradiction" is a misunderstanding of the theory. The rubber band analogy is not used to illustrate the theory but to help convey the concept of tension. It's a bad analogy in my opinion. Gaede doesn't always do the best job and there are some things I disagree with, so let me clarify as I do not want you to be misled. This is the "physics and mathematics" forum and, I believe, the question of this thread is either trivial or is about what unseeable/invisible entity intervenes between two visible entities to cause the effects of gravitation, magnetism, etc. Consider any thread or rope of your everyday life. It is self evident that, when you coil this into a loop, it will straighten itself back out if nothing acts to stop it. This is best seen with a particularly stiff thread. Less stiff ones work too, but it is not as evident because their own weight/inertia keeps them coiled against the stiffness/tension that would normally re-straighten it. Now, the way to visualize an atom under the rope hypothesis is as a loop in a thread. This thread does not have any "weight" because weight and inertia are properties of the atom by virtue of how they interact via the thread. The looped/coiled thread of the atom has a tension on it, as any entity which is not straight would. Therefore it is trying to straighten itself. However, since the ends of the thread are not "free" but rather attached to other atoms, all it can do is pull on every other atom. The thread does *not* stretch like a rubber band. It is purely the tension of the loop that is pulling. The increase of this pull with decreasing distance is a simple matter of geometry. As two objects approach each other the angles the interconnected rope makes with all the atoms increases. You can imagine that two loops in a stiff wire, connected by a rope in between, will not affect each other because there is 0 angle. As objects become very far apart the ropes become nearly parallel to a line through the centers of the two objects, and the angle approaches 0. There is always some constant amount of pull between any two objects because of the tension in the loops, however, so no matter how far you are away from an object such as a star there is some finite pull on you. With magnetism, the model presented in the video fits perfectly.

It's interesting that, when I called this thread a physics discussion (Of what does space consist) I was "corrected". Now I'm told that finding out what "X" consists of IS a physics question. Which is it? How about this for succinctly: There is no nothing = There is no no object = There is an object I think we all agree that yes, there is/are objects that exist. This statement is trivial. You're talking about the slit experiment, and the rope model I described explains that: Slit experiment The physical meaning behind Einstein's famous equation is beyond the scope of this thread. From what you (and others) are saying I don't think people are wondering "of what does space consist?", they are wondering what physically connects entities such as atoms.

Thomas, So what you're saying is simply that there is some entity that we cannot directly see/detect. I think this is correct. Moreover, I think it's obvious. Nobody's ever seen light, for instance. Of course they haven't, light is the mechanism by which we see. If people had ever "seen" light then Einstein wouldn't have lamented "These days every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks they know what a photon is. They don't." Nobody knows the structure of light. Inquiry to this effect as far as modern science is concerned consisted of Newton's corpuscle and Huygens "water waves". In the former case we have billiards streaming from a source and in the latter we have some undulation of a fluid-like medium. Physics never moved beyond these two models. Unfortunately the two hypotheses were irreconcilable. Experiments that one successfully explained the other one failed. The corpuscle/particle in particular failed so many tests in the 19th century that it was reduced to an anachronism. Then later the particle was resurrected to explain the photoelectric effect and "radiation pressure" to name a couple examples. Today physics "resolves" the paradox by saying that light propagates as a wave but instantly converts into a particle "upon contact". They expect us to believe in such supernatural phenomena because they were not clever enough to brainstorm a new structure of light. The push for technological innovation meant the person/group with the right mathematical model got funded, not the guy brainstorming and daydreaming about physical structures that justify both behaviors. These days anyone doing physics by posing a structure instead of an equation is laughed off the podium, but it was not always so. This much we know. Light cannot be a particle and cannot be a wave. One property, rectilinear propagation, is compelling. It seems that only some kind of continuous structure between two atoms can explain this kind of behavior. Additionally, light seems to propagate as some kind of torsion vis a vis Maxwellian "waves". It seems reasonable to posit that a 2 strand anti parallel rope interconnecting two atoms resembles this observation. It has a specific number of links per unit length (frequency). If the atom "reels in" integer numbers of links this explains "quantization". I would posit that the structure Thomas is referring to is a 2 strand entwined anti parallel rope that physically connects every atom to every other atom. Even if we evacuate the chamber of all atoms we cannot get rid of these criss-crossing ropes between the walls of the chamber, the walls of the room, and every star.

I think some in here don't quite understand the word "nothing". Nothing: Etymologically it comes from merging "no" with "thing". By this I mean at one time people would say "There is no thing here" or "There isn't something here". Over time the pause between no and thing became so small that it was written as a single word. So, translated: Nothing = No thing = No object So when you say "There is nothing there" you're saying "There is no object there". Some seem confused about this when they say things like "Let's say we evacuated a box of all atoms, etc. Would there be nothing in the box?" The answer is that, of course there is nothing in the box, i.e. there is no object in the box. This is a tautology! Premise: There are no objects in the box (A situation one might define as "perfect vacuum") Question: Is nothing in the box i.e. is there no object in the box? Answer: Read the premise. The concept "space" refers to our understanding of the ubiquitous observation that objects have distinct shapes, distinct from each other. Without the concept "space" to refer to this distinction we lose the identity if individual entities like people, couches, etc. So, space is not an object. It makes no sense to ask "of what does it consist?". This question, translated, means "What objects/entities comprise space?" Well, what objects/entities comprise any concept? Does it make any sense to ask what love, music, or distance is comprised of? Is music built out of the atoms that strike your ear drum? Asking what space consists of is reification of space. Again, these kinds of questions are answered very simply, quickly, and easily by simply asking "Does X have shape? If so what does it look like?". If you can't visualize it, it's not a thing and can't logically serve as the noun of a sentence nor can it be qualified by adjectives like straight, warped, or curved. Neither can it perform actions such as running, jumping, or playing; nor can it have an action performed on it, concepts cannot be stretched, warped, or immolated. In casual conversation we often break these rules. Indeed expressing ourselves would be exceedingly lengthy and difficult if these rules were followed perfectly every time. The purpose of this logical arrangement is not so everyone gets bogged down in semantics, it's for when we reach an apparent contradiction or other difficulty understanding some statement or question. When we reach a conceptual wall in our understanding the first thing we should do is start carefully defining what's an object and what's a concept. This has always guided my thinking to a satisfying conclusion, it has not failed me yet. In general, it's okay to use concepts as convenient shorthand terms for a complicated idea, and refer to it as if it were an object. It's okay as long as we all know what we're talking about, in particular that we all know what relationship(s) of shapes with location is/are being referred to with this concept. For instance, I may say "the wave collided with the atom". This is semantically and logically absurd, technically, because a wave is not an object and cannot perform an action. However if I have carefully defined the action "wave" in terms of entities (wish shape) then I can communicate my point clearly without having to reiterate my definition of the concept "wave" over and over. If one is unclear they can simply take the word "wave" in the sentence and replace it with the definition I gave of "wave" that is semantically and logically sound, i.e. refers to entities and their causative effects. So, to recap. If you're unsure about "X" the first thing to ask yourself is "Is X an object or a concept? Does it have shape?" If you think it's an object, then the trial by fire "test" is to visualize and/or draw it. If you can't, then it can't possibly be a thing, but is rather a concept. *Anything* with shape is visualizable, although it may not be seeable. If you can't visualize it, it's not a thing, and you can't talk about its qualities (adjectives), its actions (verbs) nor, by extension, the qualities of its actions (adverbs). At this point you must dig deeper and figure out what relationship(s) among entities gives rise to this concept. Now you can talk about these *entities'* qualities (adjectives), actions (verbs), and the nature of their actions (adverbs). In this way you can understand the concept more clearly, with the entities themselves as causal primaries.

Concepts exist, but not apart from the entities that have shape and location. Concepts such as love, distance, etc. do not have shape but rather refer to a relationship between shapes with location. Not all concepts exist, a concept only exists if you are referring to a specific relationship between objects/entities (shapes with location). Therefore all concepts that exist can also be illustrated/visualized. Of course there is no space between things because space is not a thing in the first place. There is either an object/entity between two objects or there isn't. If someone claims there is something between A and B then they can point to a model of this something. Whether they call it space, gobbly goo, or chilli peppers is irrelevant. So no, of course "nothing" does not exist because it does not have shape (and by extension can't have location). There is something everywhere (at every location) because thing/shape/object precedes location. Something cannot have location without first there being something. This conclusion follows directly from the definitions, which you seem to understand when you say that "nothing" can't "take up space". What you mean is that nothing does not have shape. "Taking up space" implies that space is a medium (an entity with shape) that can be displaced or that something else can be within. I can have a heart in a box or a fish can displace water, but I can't have love in a box and a fish can't displace space. A pool of water has shape, a boundary, space does not. Space is the antithesis of object/entity, the conceptual opposite of "shape". Additionally "displacement" is dynamic, it implies that the entity has to perform an action such as move in order for it to exist. Shape, however, is static. The object/entity exists all on its own, whether it moves or not, whether I look at it or not.

My observation from reading this forums is that there is confusion and debate because we have not taken the time to carefully and rigorously define what we are talking about. "Words have a specific meaning" -Frisco. There have been some efforts to put forth explicit and rigorous definitions, but let me make the humble suggestion that it should be the actual focus of our efforts. We are, I think, trying to fly before we can even crawl. If you and I cannot agree on the definition of X, and my theory is about X, then we cannot rightly discuss my theory! First and foremost, for a definition to be Objective it must be based on reason, i.e. based on observations and the integrations of these observations. This is the fundamental philosophical underpinning of our understanding and our science that Rand laid out. For science we not only need a definition with a basis in observation (reason), we need one that does not depend on any individual opinion. A definition isn't scientific because Einstein, Newton, Rand, or I say so. A definition is scientific if it can be used consistently (which, incidentally, also means non-circular by extension). Therefore, if a definition is posed that the proponent can use consistently it is a valid scientific definition (by definition). The definition of a scientific definition (consistency) can, itself, be used consistently. Any attempt to argue against it is futile since inconsistency is essentially a violation of identity, which itself is axiomatic. Essentially we have applied the axiom of identity in formulating our scientific premises (which the definitions are part of). In this way we remove personal bias/preference from science. If the definition is used consistently in the theory it is scientific, if not it is unscientific. Simple, straightforward, rational, and reasonable. A few very basic words that are (detrimentally) taken for granted in physics (the discipline of science I think we wish to discuss) discussions are: physics/physical, object, concept, exist. I'll put forth the working definitions I use (as a practicing scientist and budding objectivist) to get us started. If there are objections we should debate these points first. We cannot meaningfully debate physics without agreeing on such rudimentary points. Object: (syn. physical) That which has shape, i.e. has a boundary, i.e. is finite. Objects are visualized. Concept: A word invoking 2 or more objects. Concepts are understood, not visualized, they do not have shape by definition. Physics: The study of objects, particularly objects that exist (exist defined later). The definition of "object" expresses one of the simplest and most self-evident observations, that something has shape. To be a thing is to have shape. This is the distinction between "something" and "nothing". Something has a particular shape that we visualize. "Nothing" is a concept that we understand, we cannot visualize "nothing" because it is not an object, it does not have shape. So now anytime we are trying to discuss what we propose is "something" (like space) and are asking if it is really "something" we simply have to answer the question "Does it have shape?". If it does it's something by definition. If it doesn't then it's a concept. The "trial by fire" when someone claims that X is something, an object, is for them to present it, or present a model of it. If they cannot they are bluffing, trying to make you think their theory has to do with physics and, by extension, existence. So the next time someone claims a 0D no size "point particle" is something, just ask them to draw it! Such abstractions have nothing to do with physics or with existence. Concepts are reciprocal. Up is the opposite of down, hot is the opposite of cold, etc. Objects are not, sheep is not the opposite of "no sheep". An object is itself. It has a single distinguishing feature, shape. So, we can visualize the shape "heart" because it is an object. However we cannot visualize "love" because it is a concept. We understand love, but it does not have shape and so does not qualify as an object. Exist: Shape and location Location: The separation of of an object from every other object Length: Extent of an object in a direction The definition of exist (and location) is expressing the observation that, not only do we observe something (finite), we observe something there, or there, or here, etc. This computer is located in front of me, my head is on my neck. Every something that exists is at a location wrt to every other something that exists. Location expresses the static concept we understand by the ubiquitous observation that there is more than one object in the universe, i.e. there is more than a single shape that exists. If there were only a single object it would not have location (by definition) and would not exist by definition. To be something somewhere (to exist) is to have a shape that is distinct and separate from every other object that exists. Length (or width or height) expresses the static concept that objects have different extents (shapes) depending on how you look at them. Does everyone consider the "shape" definition of "something" (object), the "shape+location" definition of exist, and the "relationship between 2 or more objects" definition of concept acceptable for the purposes of our *physics* discussion?

I understand your confusion. I have 0 formal philosophy instruction so I sometimes speak idiosyncratically. Internal consistency is but one necessary and insufficient criterion.

This table in front of me exists or it does not. I do not "prove" it exists! A planet on the other side of the galaxy exists whether anyone ever "proves" it. You don't prove existence. How will you "prove" this table exists? Will you point to it? Did it not exist before you pointed to it? Well said with regard to "proof" of existence. You attacked a straw man however. You said "internal consistency is not the standard of proof...". I never stated it was. What I described is a method to evaluate theories and ideas. An epistemology. I call it the scientific method. Anyone is free to pose their own method. As long as everyone else agrees upon the method they are all doing "science" unless the method involves violating identity (contradicting self, i.e. internal consistency). Also note that it directly involves "external consistency" i.e. pointing at objects that are part of the theory, showing a demonstration involving them, then explaining observations (external).

I didn't say there was "no such thing" as proving. I simply said it was fallacious to prove *existence*.

Trying to "Prove X exists" is a logical fallacy. Something either exists or it does not. We don't run an experiment or make some observations to make something exist. If I have a theory (God exists) the first thing I do is define the words in my claim so that everyone knows precisely what I'm talking about. Anyone who claims "X does/doesn't exist" will have to define exist unambiguously (and also probably define X). Once I define the words in my claim it is either true or it is not. The conclusions follow logically from the premises. Anyone else can choose to accept or reject my claim. As long as my claim is internally consistent it is valid. If my claim is not internally consistent we usually term it "religion" or "supernatural". If it's internally inconsistent but we have respect for the proponent (i.e. we think s/he made an honest mistake) we simply say it is invalid and pat him/her on the back, and offer to help.

Thanks Plasm, I did. She is saying essentially exactly what I've said. It's very compelling that, independently, these same conclusions are arrived at when one embraces rational objective thought and criteria. I think I've laid things out in a structured, organized way. That's my style. While I appreciate Rand's depth of thought and rational mind, I find her style a bit too loose and wandering. I hope nobody here takes offense to that, I have the utmost respect for Rand's ability to develop the objective perspective into a workable philosophical framework.

I thought of an additional quality to distinguish the three classes of existent while considering the word "create". Which, if any, existents can be "created"? First, what does this word "create" mean? To some it means simply "to make something out of nothing". However this violates the axiom of identity. We must, then, define "create" merely as some kind of a change in the location of entities that already exist. Lets think about some simple examples of "creating" to help. If I break a branch I can say "I created a stick". The stick and the branch are distinguished because they have different identities. The branch's identity involved direct attachment to the tree in addition to several chemical processes that depended on materials gathered by the roots. The stick's identity does not involve direct attachment to the tree or the same chemical processes as before (a new set of processes, associated with rot and such, would define the stick's identity). On the other hand, if I stack some rocks and walk away did I create a wall? Did I create a pile? These two scenarios are fundamentally different because in the first case I identified the stick at the expense of the tree's identity. Certainly, the tree is not the same tree as it was before I identified the stick. As in the original post, I identify a class 2 existent by a specific set of spatial criteria of the constituents relative to each other. If breaking and separating one of its branches does not violate my spatial criteria I cannot identify the stick if I am consistent with my own criteria. I still must identify the totality of all the constituents as "tree". Alternatively I can decide to change my criteria for what I identify as "tree". In the second case I identified the wall/pile by virtue of the sum of individual identities. So, we have two scenarios for creation: creating an entity with an identity at the expense of one or more other entities' identity(ies) or creating an entity with an identity by the sum of two or more other entities' identities. Expense Creation: Verb. Changing the location of one or more entities (which compose entity A) followed by the identification of an entity ( only by altering the spatial criteria for identification of entity A. So if I peel some paint off my car and identify what I pull off as a "flake" I have identified it at the expense of altering some spatial criteria for the car. For instance, before one of my criteria for identifying the car may have been that no more than .1% of the constituents of the paint were placed at a distance of no more than 1 micrometer from X many constituents of the car. Since I have violated that criteria I no longer identify it as car. I must reformulate my criteria of identification of the car to not include the paint that has been peeled off at all. When I do, I identify the flake with some criteria. This all sounds terribly complicated and I know nobody is ever going to identify their car or other things in this much detail. In reality you will simply look at an object and decide it's identity. But you must realize that, at some level, what I have described is what is going on. Your brain must use some set of criteria. It is important to get these kinds of details down and to understand the principles solidly before going on to more complex topics and discussions. Sum Creation: Verb. Changing the location of one or more entities (that are not entity A) followed by the identification of an entity (A) as a relationship among the entities moved in addition to any other entities. So I identify a bunch of individual blocks. I move them closer to another bunch of blocks. Then I identify "pile" as some set of spatial criteria of each block relative to the other. This one's a lot cleaner/easier to understand. Therefore, only class 2 existents (dependent concretes) can be "created" by definition. Class 3 existents cannot because they are concepts, not objects. This is a matter of internal consistency (verbs may only proceed concrete nouns, standard English) and avoiding absurdity (we can only imagine concrete nouns performing actions, i.e. people walk, chairs fall, but justice doesn't punish and love doesn't jump). Class 1 existents cannot be "created" because they are continuous entities (not made of smaller entities) and the only way to "create" such a thing is for it to appear out of nothing. This avoids violating the axiom of identity, which is why I expressly left it out of my definition in the first place. Summary: Class 1 and 3 existents cannot be created. Only class 2 existents can be created by definition.