Is space, devoid of matter, nothing?

[stephen_speicher]

Why?

(A1. For the same reason that they were separated when there was something, or, separation does not depend on the existence of some third object.

A2. No.  Why would they?  And what does that even mean?)

Look, we went through this months ago. If you still cannot grasp why the universe must be full -- why there cannot be any gaps, or holes, places where, literally, nothing exists -- then I really cannot help any further.

[stephen_speicher]

I think in this context it is better to use the term place, not space. Place is an existent with an identity of its own.

Huh? What does this even mean? Are you saying that "place" is some sort of physical existent, not a relation among existents?

Space is a false concept.

Space, like "place," is a perfectly valid relational concept. The only problem that arises is with those who reify space.

There can be a place with nothing in it, but it is still a form of existence.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. We can say, speaking loosely, that "there is nothing in that box," by which we mean there are no directly perceivable objects in the box. But, we do not mean that, literally, there is "nothing" in the box. There must be something in the box, but whatever that something is, it is not a directly preceivable object. The universe is full, there are no gaps or holes with "nothing."

[AwakeAndFree]

Yes, I mean that there is a separate entity called place, which is not merely a relationship among existents.

The empty place clearly exists even when no object occupies it: it can be occupied at any point and by any object, and the place (or space) between point A and B must be crossed to reach from one to the other.

There is "something" between point A and B, but it is not a physical object, but something that can "contain" a physical object. I call that something "place" - and I do believe other Objectivists have reached a similar conclusion.

I agree that the universe is full. I think it is full of places - actual, real existents that can contain physical objects or not. If there was an actual "space", a nothingness, between objects, then it could not have properties such as length, width, height. Only "something" can have properties, and I call that something "place".

[stephen_speicher]

Yes, I mean that there is a separate entity called place, which is not merely a relationship among existents.

And what is the nature of this separate entity? What characteristics does it possess? What are its attributes? In short, what is the identity of this "separate entity called place."

The empty place clearly exists even when no object occupies it: it can be occupied at any point and by any object, and the place (or space) between point A and B must be crossed to reach from one to the other.

Note how, when you actually tried to concretize "place," you did so as a relational concept, i.e., as "between point A and B." It is only by reference to actual or imagined entities that "place" has meaning. "Place" does not have an independent existence.

There is "something" between point A and B, but it is not a physical object,

It may not be an "object," as in directly perceivable objects like chairs, tables, cars, etc., but why do you think it is not physical?

but something that can "contain" a physical object. I call that something "place" - and I do believe other Objectivists have reached a similar conclusion.

Do you have a reference?

I agree that the universe is full. I think it is full of places - actual, real existents that can contain physical objects or not. If there was an actual "space", a nothingness, between objects, then it could not have properties such as length, width, height. Only "something" can have properties, and I call that something "place".

I must admit this is a first for me. Instead of the often made error of reification of "space," you seem to have reified "place." You describe the world as a container, something full of "places," into which physical objects are then put. This is very wrong.

[AwakeAndFree]

And what is the nature of this separate entity? What characteristics does it possess? What are its attributes? In short, what is the identity of this "separate entity called place."

The attributes of place are: position, dimensions, and the ability to contain a physical object.

It may not be an "object," as in directly perceivable objects like chairs, tables, cars, etc., but why do you think it is not physical?

Well, it may be physical - but it's not material.

Do you have a reference?

I saw a reference to Space vs. Place in one Objectivist lecture about physics. I searched again in AynRandBookstore but couldn't find it. Perhaps I was wrong. Anyway, the idea of space being a separate entity is my own, as far as I know.

I must admit this is a first for me. Instead of the often made error of reification of "space," you seem to have reified "place." You describe the world as a container, something full of "places," into which physical objects are then put. This is very wrong.

Well, at least I'm original!

Now seriously: between me and you there is a certain distance. That distance, even if we are in empty space, has a specific identity of its own. It can contain some things, but not others (for example - it is to small to contain the Sun). It has dimensions which are not attributes of me or you - but of the DISTANCE between us.

You can say that there is a potential in the space between us, to contain objects which are currently not there.

Now the important part: nothingness does not exist. Nothingness cannot have a potential, or a dimension. If there is NOTHING between point A and B - it will take NO TIME to cross, and there will be NO DISTANCE. Obviously SOMETHING is there. Even if it is just empty space, or what I'd like to call "empty place".

[stephen_speicher]

The attributes of place are: position, dimensions, and the ability to contain a physical object.

Attributes do not have an independent existence; they are attributes of something. You are calling that something "place," but "place" already is well-defined as a relational concept. As a minimum you should, at least, call this something, something else.

Well, it may be physical - but it's not material.

Please clarify the distinction you make between "physical" and "material." What is an example of a non-material physical thing? Or, a non-physical material thing?

Now seriously: between me and you there is a certain distance. That distance, even if we are in empty space, has a specific identity of its own. It can contain some things, but not others (for example - it is to small to contain the Sun). It has dimensions which are not attributes of me or you - but of the DISTANCE between us.

The distance between you and me is a measurement, a quantitative relationship between my position and yours. As such, distance cannot "contain" anything. It is possible to relate that distance to the measurements of other entities, such as the Sun that you mention, but that is a relational process, not some container within which things go.

You can say that there is a potential in the space between us, to contain objects which are currently not there.

Well, yes, speaking very loosely, you could say that, as long as you understand that the "space between us" is just a way of saying that we occupy different positions. Otherwise, you are reifying space. Space is a relational concept.

Now the important part: nothingness does not exist. Nothingness cannot have a potential, or a dimension. If there is NOTHING between point A and B - it will take NO TIME to cross, and there will be NO DISTANCE.

Okay. We agree that the universe is a plenum -- there are no gaps or holes in existence. No reason to keep bringing it up if that is what you agree to.

Obviously SOMETHING is there. Even if it is just empty space, or what I'd like to call "empty place".

Sounds like you want to have your space/place and eat it too. If something is there, it is not empty.

[AwakeAndFree]

Attributes do not have an independent existence; they are attributes of something. You are calling that something "place," but "place" already is well-defined as a relational concept. As a minimum you should, at least, call this something, something else.

But I mean place. The definition of place, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary includes:

1c : physical surroundings : ATMOSPHERE

2 a : an indefinite region or expanse <all over the place>

2 c archaic : the three-dimensional compass of a material object

.

.

.

6 a : a proper or designated niche...

7 b : an empty or vacated position <new ones will take their place>

Since I don't have the presumption to have discovered a new phenomena, but simply to point out that even what is generally called "empty space" is not nothing, but something which has actual and potential attributes - I call it place. The only thing I know about it is that it has measurements, and that it can contain objects. Isn't it the essence of place?

Please clarify the distinction you make between "physical" and "material." What is an example of a non-material physical thing? Or, a non-physical material thing?

Sure: Energy, Speed, and Force are physical, but not material. All matter, as far as I know, occupies space (or - place) in a monopolistic way. Which means - no two objects can occupy the same place. This is obviously not true with place itself.

The distance between you and me is a measurement, a quantitative relationship between my position and yours. As such, distance cannot "contain" anything. It is possible to relate that distance to the measurements of other entities, such as the Sun that you mention, but that is a relational process, not some container within which things go.

Well, yes, speaking very loosely, you could say that, as long as you understand that the "space between us" is just a way of saying that we occupy different positions.

Well, my question will be - we occupy different positions - in what? You can't take the fact that we occupy different positions as a primary. My current position is not a part of my attributes. It's just a relational fact, based on the area in space that I currently occupy.

You seem to say that positions are merely relative relationships between objects. Fine - but even to say that you have to implicitly assume that there are objects, and that THERE IS AN ARRAY OF DIFFERENT POSITIONS WHICH THE OBJECTS CAN OCCUPY RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER.

And this is basically all I am saying.

Sounds like you want to have your space/place and eat it too. If something is there, it is not empty.

Well, if you accept my position on the existence of an array of different positions which objects can occupy, then you have to agree that even though this array is there - it can be empty, in the sense that it is not occupied by a material object.

[stephen_speicher]

erandror, I think we are on two different wavelengths in this discussion, so I will just leave it at that.

[AwakeAndFree]

Strange, I thought we were agreeing on most things.

Anyway - I am open to persuasion. This theory is a part of something I've been thinking about for some time, and I will be happy to hear further criticism.

[y_feldblum]

erandror,

Imho, your position is indeed a relational fact: in relation to all other physical existents.

Imho, most of the definitions you cite are geometrical, ie, concepts of method. Place does not have actual or potential attributes: it has mental attributes.

[AwakeAndFree]

erandror,

Imho, your position is indeed a relational fact: in relation to all other physical existents.

In relation to all other physical existents in what? What is the standard, or attribute by which you compare one object to another in this case? What is the essence of this relation?

Please try to define position without using synonyms. And if you use Space in your definition, please try to give a definition of that - because I don't see how you can define Space and position in relative terms, without falling into a logical circle.

[y_feldblum]

erandror,

Location is a relational attribute. It is a primary, a building block of nature, and it is measurable as distance.

I don't mean location in anything. I do not use space, place, ether, etc. And since I don't know what is meant by juxtaposing "full" and "universe", I do not use plenum either.

You think it's incorrect that location is a primary. Why? You invent something else (place), give it primacy, and define location and nothing else in terms of it.

[AwakeAndFree]

erandror,

Location is a relational attribute.  It is a primary, a building block of nature, and it is measurable as distance.

I don't mean location in anything.  I do not use space, place, ether, etc.  And since I don't know what is meant by juxtaposing "full" and "universe", I do not use plenum either.

You think it's incorrect that location is a primary.  Why?  You invent something else (place), give it primacy, and define location and nothing else in terms of it.

On the contrary - I think location is a primary. I think it is a building block of nature.

What I disagree with is that something which is a primary can be defined merely by relational means.

On the practical side of it - I agree completely. Your location is only measured in relation to other things. But what I'm trying to say is this: in order for us to be able to establish the position of something in relation to other things, we must already assume the existence of a primary fact of nature: that there is an array of possible locations, or a "space" in which objects can move and HAVE this sort of relation with one another.

We assume this implicitly whenever we speak about movement, distance, locations or relative locations. This is not trivial: we assume that something, some fundamental fact, EXISTS independently of our calculations.

[Godless Capitalist]

"the plenum means that the universe is full, there are no gaps, no places where existence is not. No "empty space." Is this not clear? (That is not a rhetorical question. I have expressed the concept this way to children who always seem to get it. If it is really unclear to you I would like to know why.)

The concept is clear enough, but I don't see why it is the only possible option. Why couldn't you have 2 objects in a vacuum 1 meter apart with no objects or substance in between them? I don't see why the "space" in between the objects needs to be "filled" with something. The 1 meter separation simply expresses a relationship between the objects; it does not require that something fill the "space."

It also seems to me that this resolves the Objectivist objection to the idea of the expanding universe. All that is happening is that the distances between objects are increasing. Since "space" is not a separate existent, then the "expansion of space" is just a mathematical model describing relationships between objects, not a metaphysical contradiction.

While we are at it, what is the big objection to the idea of "dark matter"? "Dark matter" is just the idea that, in order to explain galactic dynamics and other observed phenomena, there must be a substantial amount of matter that does not give off light and is thus not easily detected by us. (Previously it was thought that most matter was in stars, which of course are visible.)

[stephen_speicher]

Why couldn't you have 2 objects in a vacuum 1 meter apart with no objects or substance in between them? I don't see why the "space" in between the objects needs to be "filled" with something. The 1 meter separation simply expresses a relationship between the objects; it does not require that something fill the "space."

The issue is strictly philosophical. Part of what we mean by "existence exists" is that only existence exists, it is complete and total. There can be no literal vacuum, beacuse "nothing" does not exist. Only existence exists.

It also seems to me that this resolves the Objectivist objection to the idea of the expanding universe.

There is no official "Objectivist" objection to the expanding universe, but, as an Objectivist, I would not want to replace one philosophical error with another.

While we are at it, what is the big objection to the idea of "dark matter"?

Mostly that it is an arbitrary supposition that posits exotic forms of existence. One really big problem with popular arbitrary hypotheses is that they stand in the way of looking for real answers.

[Godless Capitalist]

I'm not suggesting that a vacuum is something that exists. I'm suggesting that a vacuum is the empty "space" between existents, where "space" just means distance, not some sort of substance. Why do you think the universe must be "filled"? Why can't it just consist of various objects separated by vacuum in which nothing exists?

Why do you consider the idea of dark matter arbitrary? It's a hypothesis proposed to explain certain observations. It doesn't require exotic new forms of matter, either, just matter that does not produce light. What do you think the "real answer" is? (As it happens I know Vera Rubin; she is a colleague of my wife.)

[Bowzer]

Why do you think the universe must be "filled"? Why can't it just consist of various objects separated by vacuum in which nothing exists?

Separated by nothing means that they aren't really separated now doesn't it?

[Godless Capitalist]

Separated by nothing means that they aren't really separated now doesn't it?

They are separated by a distance of (for example) 1 meter. But a distance is not a substance; it is a relationship between existents rather than an existent itself. All I am saying it that there would be no objects or substance between the 2 objects, but there would still be a separation. I am really not seeing why that is such a problem. (And of course astronomical observations seem to indicate that that is exactly the situation.)

[stephen_speicher]

I'm not suggesting that a vacuum is something that exists. I'm suggesting that a vacuum is the empty "space" between existents, where "space" just means distance, not some sort of substance. Why do you think the universe must be "filled"? Why can't it just consist of various objects separated by vacuum in which nothing exists?

What your words really imply is the following: I will draw a boundary around this portion of existence, and then assert that this existence does not exist. Think about it.

Why do you consider the idea of dark matter arbitrary? It's a hypothesis proposed to explain certain observations. It doesn't require exotic new forms of matter, either, just matter that does not produce light. What do you think the "real answer" is? (As it happens I know Vera Rubin; she is a colleague of my wife.)

Well, if you know Vera Rubin then surely you are aware of Wendy Freeman. Freeman wrote a recent review article in Reviews of Modern Physics ("Colloquium: Measuring and Understanding the Universe," W.L. Freeman and M.S Turner, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 1433-1446, Oct. 2003). In that review paper Freeman et al. state:

"The rest of the matter in the universe is dark, and its existence is inferred from its gravitational effects. While the case for dark matter holding together galaxies (as well as clusters of galaxies) has been around for a long time (Zwicky, 1933; Rubin et al., 1980), the nature of the dark matter in the universe is still unknown. In fact, we still speak with more certainty about what dark matter is known not to be. Based upon simple accounting, we have all but eliminated the possibility of dark matter being made of neutrons and protons, and established a strong case for a new form of matter."

Speculations on "a new form of matter" is "exotic" to me.

As to my own view, I think that rather than positing some new form of matter to explain away the contradiction between theory and observation, the more likely place to look is in understanding why the theory fails to predict what is actually observed.

[Praxus]

The issue is strictly philosophical. Part of what we mean by "existence exists" is that only existence exists, it is complete and total. There can be no literal vacuum, beacuse "nothing" does not exist. Only existence exists.

So the vacuum is not part of exsistence?

[stephen_speicher]

So the vacuum is not part of exsistence?

There is no literal vacuum (except perhaps the one made by Hoover ).

There is no place in existence where existence does not exist. The universe is full, no gaps, no holes. The job of science is to discover the actual nature of what is referred to as the "vacuum."

[Praxus]

There is no literal vacuum (except perhaps the one made by Hoover  ).

There is no place in existence where existence does not exist. The universe is full, no gaps, no holes. The job of science is to discover the actual nature of what is referred to as the "vacuum."

So you beleive there to actually be some form of matter or energy in what we would call a vacuum?

[Godless Capitalist]

What your words really imply is the following: I will draw a boundary around this portion of existence, and then assert that this existence does not exist. Think about it.

I'm not following why that is implied. It's implied only if I accept that the universe is "filled," which is what we are debating.

All I am saying is that existence consists of various entities (ultimately, subatomic particles) separated by various distances. The "space" between the entities (in the sense only of distance) contains nothing (literally ie "no thing" or "no entities"). A hard vacuum literally does not exist; its just a convenient way to refer to the gaps (distances) between existents. The gaps only "exist" as relationships among existents; they are not existents themselves. I think that is the root of this problem; we commonly refer to things like "space" and "vacuum" as if they are existents (sort of empty boxes as discussed above) whereas really they are not.

It sounds as if you are trying to say that "existence" is somehow more than the sum of all the individual entities, which does not make sense to me (and I am sure not what you intended).

Yes, I have met Wendy a few times. That excerpt is basically saying that in order to account for the observations we need to figure out what the missing mass is, and by process of elimination it is inferred that it is not "ordinary" matter. That inferrence may turn out to be wrong but I don't see anything blatantly objectionable about it. (The theory that predicts galactic dynamics is pretty much newtonian mechanics so I doubt that is where the problem lies.)

[stephen_speicher]

So you beleive there to actually be some form of matter or energy in what we would call a vacuum?

I would not necessarily limit it to matter or energy, but, yes, once again, there is no literal vacuum. The universe is a plenum, it is full.

[stephen_speicher]

I'm not following why that is implied. It's implied only if I accept that the universe is "filled," which is what we are debating.

It may have been a debatable issue two and one-half milleniums ago among the Ancient Greek philosophers, but I do not consider that issue to be debatable today.

All I am saying is that existence consists of various entities (ultimately, subatomic particles)

At this stage in physics, you would have to be omniscient to claim to know the ultimate constituents of existence.

separated by various distances. The "space" between the entities (in the sense only of distance) contains nothing (literally ie "no thing" or "no entities"). A hard vacuum literally does not exist; its just a convenient way to refer to the gaps (distances) between existents. The gaps only "exist" as relationships among existents; they are not existents themselves.

Out of curiosity, have you ever physically traversed a relationship? I know that I traverse the distance between objects all the time, but that is because that distance is part of existence. If some thing did not exist between two separated objects, they would not be separated. How exactly do you traverse a distance between objects separated by non-existence?

Yes, I have met Wendy a few times. That excerpt is basically saying that in order to account for the observations we need to figure out what the missing mass is, and by process of elimination it is inferred that it is not "ordinary" matter. That inferrence may turn out to be wrong but I don't see anything blatantly objectionable about it. (The theory that predicts galactic dynamics is pretty much newtonian mechanics so I doubt that is where the problem lies.)

Tell that to the MOND group.

Look, I am not a fan of MOND, or plasma cosmology, or cosmology as condensed matter physics, etc., but the Standard Model and associated theories require 96% of all matter-energy in the universe to be some unknown, unobserved, new form of matter-energy. That means, taking away dark energy and dark matter, the world we see is only 4% of the total that these speculations predict. Whether the speculation includes k-essence and some exotic scalar field, or whatever, the fact remains that current theories require some 96% of the universe to be something we do not see and know nothing about, just to partially remain consistent. And, that does not even consider an integrated form of consistency, accounting for contradictions between theoretical requirements for dark energy and dark matter in different theories. In my judgment the time, effort, and money being spent on such speculations, in order to account for what the standard theories fail to predict, is a rather pathetic waste. As much of a supporter that I am of modern physics, I consider cosmology to be an abysmal failure. You mileage may vary.