Is space, devoid of matter, nothing?

[Godless Capitalist]

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.

Well then I guess this discussion is at an end. I had hoped you would provide some justification for your position.

(This sort of thing is one reason why I have gotten away from online forums. These types of discussions are very time-consuming and often ultimately not very satisfying.)

[stephen_speicher]

Well then I guess this discussion is at an end. I had hoped you would provide some justification for your position.

I have provided more than sufficent justification. But, regardless, when I said that the issue is not debateable I did not mean I would not discuss it with you at all. (In fact, I did go on to discuss it, but you seem to have responded to this one line, and ignored my other comments.) I consider this issue regarding existence to be not debatable in the same sense that I do not debate with someone about God. The presumption of a debate is that the issue actually has two sides. There is no side for God, and there is no side for the existence of non-existence. But I was, and am, willing to discuss, mainly, as I was trying to do, to get you to see the error in the very way you formulate the issue.

(This sort of thing is one reason why I have gotten away from online forums. These types of discussions are very time-consuming and often ultimately not very satisfying.)

Well, it is frustrating for me in not being able to get you to see the obvious. Perhaps if you answered the questions that I posed in the last post, instead of giving up so quickly, you might have have found it more satisfying. And, regardless, this is just one issue out of quite a few that we recently discussed. Are you not able to just put this issue aside and continue on with others? I did not get the impression that you found the other discussions "not very satisfying." There were at least two significant issues in this post that you ignored. One was new (the issue of the ultimate constituents) and the other was, I think, near the tail end (dark matter, etc.). Are these not worthy of comment?

[oldsalt]

Stephen:

Re the expanding universe:

Thanks for you explanations about this subject. They were very enlightening.

The "red shift" is used as a proof for the expanding universe; at least that is what I understand from the "popular" science I've read. If the universe isn't expanding (and I'm glad to hear it isn't ), whence the red shift?

[Godless Capitalist]

There is no side for God, and there is no side for the existence of non-existence. But I was, and am, willing to discuss, mainly, as I was trying to do, to get you to see the error in the very way you formulate the issue.

I am not claiming the existence of non-existence, at least it is not obvious to me that that is what my position implies. I guess I am just not "getting it." (The very fact that boards like this have lengthy and often inconclusive discussions among Objectivists and students of Objectivism shows that there is very little that is truly obvious or axiomatic. "Existence exists" qualifies but where to go from there is not always clear.)

Yes the other issues are interesting and I will respond to them but I was mainly interested in the vacuum/plenum issue, which still seems to be going nowhere.

[Godless Capitalist]

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

True, I just meant that currently all matter seems to be made up of subatomic particles. But in any case that does not seem to be relevant to the main issue.

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?

You just travel from one object to the other. As you do, you of course exist, but nothing else does between those objects. Again, you seem to be claiming that existence is somehow more than the sum of all the individual existents in the universe.

It seems to me that the plenum idea is worse than dark matter, since there seems to be absolutely no evidence for its existence. If it does exist, it does not seem to interact with ordinary matter in any way, and thus may never be detectable.

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.

Well, yes, it's very speculative. I don't think anyone denies that. But what do you think is really causing the inconsistencies, if not missing mass/energy?

[oldsalt]

Godless Capitalist:

If you are measuring the distance between two existents, and there is "no thing" between the two objects you are measuring, what are you measuring? What constitutes "distance?"

[Godless Capitalist]

Good question, and I am really not sure of the answer. But certainly one could have 2 objects in space with only hard vacuum between them. They would be physically separated without any actual object or substance in between.

Let me ask this (to Stephen mostly): if you had only the "plenum" but it had no actual objects (stars, subatomic particles, etc) in it, would it still exist as a sort of "empty container"?

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen:

Re the expanding universe:

Thanks for you explanations about this subject.  They were very enlightening.

The "red shift" is used as a proof for the expanding universe; at least that is what I understand from the "popular" science I've read.  If the universe isn't expanding (and I'm glad to hear it isn't ), whence the red shift?

Someone asked a similar question on this forum several months ago and here is the response I gave.

Probably the most mainstream advocate of alternate redshift theory is Irving Segal from MIT. Segal developed his Chronometric Cosmology, and has published many papers in the mainstream journals on his theory. He wrote a book called "Mathematical Cosmology" which has been used in many courses at various universities. Segal died about five years ago, but many of his students carry on his work.

There is a survey paper which lists more than 20 alternative theories:

Ghosh, A. (1991), "Velocity-dependent inertial induction: a possible tired-light mechanism", Apeiron 9-10, 35-44

I have read proceedings from a Redshift Controversy conference, but I do not have the reference handy.

The problems with most of the "tired light" theories are mostly due to a lack of observed scattering effects. At least one person has developed a theory in which we are awash in a sea of gravitons, and that type of interaction would have neglible scattering effects. One book containing this idea is:

Van Flandern, T. (1993), "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets", North Atlantic Books, Berkeley.

I believe there is a more current edition available.

Please note that I am not endorsing any of these theories, nor am I catgorically rejecting redshift-as-velocity. Rather, I am pointing out that redshift is not an "observational" fact (as it is often represented) -- it is an inference-- and there is other data which conflicts with the standard view.

Such discrepancies have been published in the literature for decades, and here I list just a few concerns.

1. Observations of high redshift quasars and low redshift galaxies that are clearly interacting and/or connected, yet have extremely disparate redshifts.

2. Companion galaxies that have redshifts higher than their parent galaxy. Both in the Local Group and in M81 there are eleven companions and this has been noted for all. Since the companions are orbiting, about half should have been blueshifted, but are not.

3. Higher redshift quasars have lower measured Faraday rotation than smaller redshift quasars, and the reverse should be true.

4. Galaxy clusters have been found which have as much as a four magnitude range of dispersion from the standard Hubble diagram relating redshift and brightness.

5. There is some evidence that redshifts are quantized, which is inconsistent with expected continuity of velocity. This preference for certain discrete values has been observed in a wide range.

These are just some of the concerns with the traditional interpretation of redshift-as-velocity. The most notable objector to the standard view is famed astronomer Halton Arp, who has campaigned against the Big Bang theory for many years. His latest book has a lot of information that can be gleaned by the non-physicist. The reference is:

Arp, Halton. (1999) "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science", Apeiron, Canada.

And, again, I am not endorsing any of these alternate theories -- all are problematic in my view -- but such alternate theories do exist.

[stephen_speicher]

I am not claiming the existence of non-existence, at least it is not obvious to me that that is what my position implies. I guess I am just not "getting it."

I hear your frustration, but I really think the problem lies in how you are formulating the issue.

[stephen_speicher]

You just travel from one object to the other.

Perhaps I should have made clear that my last sentence quoted was rhetorical, not a serious question, and was not meant to provoke a serious answer. The point which might be helpful for you to address is my penultimate sentence regarding spearation.

It seems to me that the plenum idea is worse than dark matter, since there seems to be absolutely no evidence for its existence. If it does exist, it does not seem to interact with ordinary matter in any way, and thus may never be detectable.

The plenum is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. Metaphysics simply states what is true of all existence, in general, and the plenum, as in "existence is full," just stands for "that which is, where nothing else is." It is the job of science, not philosophy, to discover the specific nature of that which exists, and in what manner existents interact. Do not blame philosophy for (in this case) a failure of physics.

Well, yes, it's very speculative. I don't think anyone denies that.

Really? Have you followed the DAMA/NaI experimental group at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory? For several years now they have been making experimental claims for very probable observation of non-baryonic WIMPS. They have published their evidence for this in 2001 and 2003. I would say that, in fact, that this group "denies" WIMPS as "very speculative" when they themselves are providing their evidence for experimental observation of WIMPS. (Not that I accept their evidence.)

But what do you think is really causing the inconsistencies, if not missing mass/energy?

As I said previously, 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.

[stephen_speicher]

Let me ask this (to Stephen mostly): if you had only the "plenum" but it had no actual objects (stars, subatomic particles, etc) in it, would it still exist as a sort of "empty container"?

Even putting "empty container" in scare quotes does not here give it meaning. As I mentioned before, the idea of the plenum is a philosophical notion and, as such, all we know in this regard is that existence is full. What this means in the scientific realm is a separate issue. For instance, just for argument sake, suppose that science discovers that the philosophical plenum is composed of ultimate constituents of existence such that in some manner they give rise to the 3-dimensional macroscopic objects that we directly perceive. So, what you consider to be "objects' are just the form in which we perceive certain groups of the ultimate constituents. Can you see that your question of existence as an "empty container" has no meaning in regard to these ultimate constituents?

[oldsalt]

Dear stephen:

Thank you for your response. I understood virtually nothing, but I did glean the fact that no one knows "whence comes the redshift."

I'm dumb as dirt about science. I am the very definition of a lay person. I appreciate when you take the time to answer my questions. I can't help but think that it must be a bore to address utter ignorance, but you are always so patient. I appreciate your generousity very much.

[stephen_speicher]

Dear stephen:

Thank you for your response.  I understood virtually nothing, but I did glean the fact that no one knows "whence comes the redshift."

The main point to take away is that cosmological redshift is not an "observational fact" but rather an inference drawn from other observations, and indeed there are other (less well-known and, perhaps, lesser) theories that make different inferences.

[ckalan1]

The main point to take away is that cosmological redshift is not an "observational fact" but rather an inference drawn from other observations, and indeed there are other (less well-known and, perhaps, lesser) theories that make different inferences.

I am new to this board so forgive me if this issue has been discussed before.

If nothing does not exist then explain the "something".

[DavidOdden]

If nothing does not exist then explain the "something".

I don't understand the sentence. Is that a question or a statement? What "something" do you mean, and what kind of explanation do you want (for example, my dog is a thing, and I can sort of explain why it exists although there are a number of details that I'm unsure of) -- are you asking for a causal explanation for why particular thing exist. Could you expain what you want in a bit more detail?

[ckalan1]

I don't understand the sentence. Is that a question or a statement? What "something" do you mean, and what kind of explanation do you want (for example, my dog is a thing, and I can sort of explain why it exists although there are a number of details that I'm unsure of) -- are you asking for a causal explanation for why particular thing exist. Could you expain what you want in a bit more detail?

The sentence I wrote was a request for an explination. I used the word Something with the notion that

SOME - THING might be related to the idea of NO - THING.

I would like to find out the What about Something (everything or anything that actually exists) not the why or which about Something.

From what I have read in the above posts Nothing does not exist. Nothing is a concept of the imagination. It is in a different category than "Something".

I have also read that "space" is the relationship between the "Something". I am trying to get my head around the reality of the Something without the existence of the Nothing. I am not saying space and nothing are the same. I will find out about space later.

So with that said, let me attempt to make my request for explination about the "Something" into a clearer question.

If "Nothing" is not real then how does one explain the "Something"?

[DavidOdden]

I don't see how "something" is dependent on "nothing" so I don't understand the implied "how can there be something if there is not nothing" question. Let's just treat the two things separately without the implied dependency. For X to be "real" means that it exists (compare "unicorns" which are not real, and do not exist). Now what is "something" (as distinct from "everything" or "this thing")? "Something" is simply an unspecified thing -- this thing, that thing, yonder thing. It's a statement that there does exist some thing, even if we are not specifically saying which thing. "Nothing" on the other hand, is the total lack of any thing whatsoever -- it is the assertion of total non-existence. So something exists, but it is self-contradictory to say that there exists total non-existence.

I cannot explain why something exists, but it is self-evidence that something does exist and is therefore real. And that is a fact despite the self-contradictoriness of total non-existence existing. Of course this does not negate the valid point that at some place and time, there may not be anything of importance to an individual (e.g. on Highway 212 in eastern Montana). Or, looking at two electrons not separated by any other particle, there is just space between them. You can say that "no thing exists at such-and-such particular time and place", meaning there is an empty space. But you're not talking about space, you're talking about the total denial of existence.

That's how it's possible (indeed, necessary) to deny the reality of Nothing, in that sense (distinct from "a particular unoccupied space").

[FeatherFall]

Ckalan1, ask yourself what properties "nothing" has. You will find that it has a complete lack of properties, including the most basic property of being real or, "existing."

[ckalan1]

Ckalan1, ask yourself what properties "nothing" has. You will find that it has a complete lack of properties, including the most basic property of being real or, "existing."

I would like hear what properties "Something" has.

For instance:

Does the "Something" have the property that is the opposite of the "Nothing"?

Does "S" take up space?

Are these just a nonsense question?

[DavidOdden]

Does the "Something" have the property that is the opposite of the "Nothing"?

I think a lot of the problem is the idea that it is meaningful to speak of "The Something". That's a contradiction -- it is contradictorily definite and indefinite. If you ask about "something", you're avoiding the implication that it is a specific thing. But if you want to speak of "all somethings", then you should speak of the universe, and not "The Something". It's not that I object to you saying "The Something", by itself, but I don't know whether you mean "The Universe" or "something".

[ckalan1]

You said, "I cannot explain why something exists." and that is the rub.

[DavidOdden]

You said, "I cannot explain why something exists." and that is the rub.

I don't think it's reasonable to ask why existence exists. To ask for an cause of existence that is outside of existence is only possible if you argue from the axiom that there must be a supernatural deity, and there isn't one (so I certainly can't take that as an assumption). This is one of those questions where the concept of explanation is self-refuting. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

[ckalan1]

I don't think it's reasonable to ask why existence exists. To ask for an cause of existence that is outside of existence is only possible if you argue from the axiom that there must be a supernatural deity, and there isn't one (so I certainly can't take that as an assumption). This is one of those questions where the concept of explanation is self-refuting. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

We are certainly not going to prove the existence of a supernatural diety however I am puzzeled.

You make the assumption that a supernatural diety does not exist but if we ask the question you seem to imply that one must exist. So am I correct in asserting that if one can ask that question a supernatural diety exist?

If we throw out the issue of supernaturalism on what other grounds is it unreasonable to ask why existence exists?

These ideas we are probing exist. And I am guessing that you believe eggs exist, etc.

Is it unreasonalble to ask why an egg exists?

And surely you don't mean to define a diety out of existence simply because it does not fit a scheme of what seems to exist. Is it possible to know anything beyond your perceptions? Or is it possible there are parts of existence that we can not percieve but are part of reality that make up existence?

[DavidOdden]

You make the assumption that a supernatural diety does not exist but if we ask the question you seem to imply that one must exist.

No, I'm saying that the question of what causes existence entails that there has to be a causal agent which is outside of (above) existence. In other words, the question of what causes existence does not have any meaning if you don't believe in the supernatural.

So am I correct in asserting that if one can ask that question a supernatural diety exist?

Not at all. You can ask any question you want. If you ask the question seriously, then I could either conclude that you assume there is a supernatural being, or that you haven't carefully thought through the implications of asking about what causes existence. Asking the question does not, itself, have any effect on existence.

If we throw out the issue of supernaturalism on what other grounds is it unreasonable to ask why existence exists?

Because unlike questions about eggs, it again involves a contradiction.

Is it unreasonalble to ask why an egg exists?

No, since we are separating the explicatum, the egg, from other aspects of existence. We can explain why a particular egg exists by reference to certain other aspects of existence, by reference to an entity that created the egg. The concept of causation is something that is entirely contained within "existence" -- it refers to a particular kind of relationship between distinct existents. To ask about what 'causes existence' requires you to say that that there exist something that doesn't exist, and has a relationship to existence. But there does not exist anything that doesn't exist. Except, of course, god or some other nonsense like that where you can say that it is "above" existence.

[Steve Hathway]

Sorry I have not read all the replies in this interesting post. I did want to add one aspect to the thread "Why do some cultures, despite bad philosophy, still come up with technological advances?"

Daneil Boorstin wrote about the Chinese in "The Discoverers". He described how the Chinese came up with gun powder, mechanical clocks that mimiced the heavens and several other rather practical inventions. He explained that their philosophy included a concept of "Chi" (sorry if I got the name wrong). The idea was that only living things and things that actually existed could have Chi. The models and inventions were developed by man and therefore could not have Chi. As a result, the Chinese did not apply their discoveries to more ambitious achievements.

Mr. Boorstin never did explain why these creations came about in a society that generally did not seek knowledge. He explained how the philosophy prevented man from expanding on these ideas.

So, Is it simply Human nature to discover new ideas regardless of the society they are in? I like to think yes!