Philosophy and Physics

[y_feldblum]

The concept of distance is valid because it is not the sum of certain qualities of all the entities between the two distant entities whose distance is under question. The distance between two entities is specifically a relationship between them, defined by the fact of their existence, and independent of all other existents.

All entities are distant to some degree from all other entities. Distance is a property of mere existence qua entity. (A property where you have to specify a second entity is also a relationship between the two.)

The rule for calculating distance in Euclidean 2-space is the "distance formula" from high school geometry. Since calculating distance is a cognitive task, one introduces the handy ruler, aligns it with the two entities, and counts tick marks.

The last paragraph was to say that either the universe is finite in extent or ether as metaphysically existent is in contradiction with the universe being infinite in extent. There is absolutely no way to determine where the center of the universe is or how fast it's moving if at all - both those concepts are invalid, meaningless. There are no inherently special locations or velocities to which to compare the locations or velocities of any entities. To say, then, that an object is moving with respect to space is false; as well, to say that it is stationary with respect to space is false. "With respect to space" is invalid and invalidates both propositions.

--------------------------------

A portion of space is not an existent and has no metaphysical attributes. It is a cognitive tool. Space is not a thing to have parts. What you're doing is projecting, imagining a geometrical figure (eg, a square) at a certain location and then measuring the imagined attributes of it.

Empty space means not any entities in a certain bounded region. Epistemology. The way you use empty is an equivocation between the metaphysical and the epistemological.

[y_feldblum]

There is no way to gain evidence to support the assertion that space is in any form an existent or that it in any form has identity.

I think what you were asking me to do was to start with the premise: A is B; or at least not to start with any premise contradicting it; and then show that A is something else. By those rules, I can show an internal contradiction in the premise that A is B (the last paragraph dealing with motions), but I cannot start with that premise and arrive at a conclusion contradicting it.

Therefore, I reject your premise (on two grounds: arbitrariness and internal contradiction; and more if I can find them), and establish my own.

[Richard_Halley]

The concept of distance is valid because it is not the sum of certain qualities of all the entities between the two distant entities whose distance is under question. The distance between two entities is specifically a relationship between them, defined by the fact of their existence, and independent of all other existents.

Your first sentence says nothing... as it is does not tell us what qualities we are looking at. Your second sentence is merely a rewritten version of your claim, with no evidence, provided.

All entities are distant to some degree from all other entities. Distance is a property of mere existence qua entity. (A property where you have to specify a second entity is also a relationship between the two.)

More claims with no backing.

The rule for calculating distance in Euclidean 2-space is the "distance formula" from high school geometry. Since calculating distance is a cognitive task, one introduces the handy ruler, aligns it with the two entities, and counts tick marks.

The "distance forumla" presupposes a measurable number of units from one thing to another (or from two reference lines to each of the objects involved). Laying a ruler down presupposes that there is somewhere between two objects to lay the ruler.

Again, what is the purpose of even looking at distance, if not to see how much exists between two objects?

[y_feldblum]

The attribute which all entities have and which you are looking at is location with respect to all other entities. (If the universe contained exactly one entity, it would have no location.)

Calculation, rule, tick marks, presupposition, necessity of the ruler - are all epistemological tools. The human method of measuring distance is to compare one distance to another.

The concept distance does not depend on the concept extent (of an entity) - the latter depends on the former.

Epistemologically, distance is the length of an imaginary path, specifically the shortest one possible to imagine, between two entities.

The purpose of looking at distance is to perceive where things are in relation to oneself and to each other.

[RadCap]

Y, we need to distinguish between "nothing" and "nothing material."

In other words: "empty space" != "nothing"

Empty space does have at least one attribute: to wit, it is empty.

I am not agreeing with y here at all (in fact I have already stated my disagreement). However, the absense of an attribute is not an attribute. 'Nothing' is not 'something'

For instance, arms are an attribute of some entities. Absense of arms is not an attribute of anything.

[Richard_Halley]

Epistemologically, distance is the length of an imaginary path, specifically the shortest one possible to imagine, between two entities.

Why imagine the path, unless there is something overwhich we must travel in order to get from one object to another.

In order to get from one object to another--assuming that there is a distance between them--we must travel. You seem to be arguing that we may travel over nothing...

Calculation, rule, tick marks, presupposition, necessity of the ruler - are all epistemological tools. The human method of measuring distance is to compare one distance to another.

Yes, but they are all epistemological tools for viewing something...

The fact of the matter is, in order for there to be distance between two things, I have to be able to actually put (metaphysical) tick marks between them.

[y_feldblum]

We may in fact travel over nothing - because movement through is not a primary concept. No (unaccelerated) movement is an absolute or is measurable without reference to another entity. That is a fact of reality which Galileo ages ago identified. Movement is only definable in terms of the changing distance between two entites.

For example, suppose there are two spaceships which are getting farther apart over time. Since they're saucers, you have no idea which end of a ship is the front - and indeed there is no front. The ships are not using their engines; they're just floating, neither speeding up nor slowing down nor changing direction. All you can say about the motion of one of the ships is that it is moving at such and such a speed in relation to the other.

This is not a philosophical truth: philosophy gives the guidelines of how to find the truth. This is a scientific truth, a statement about specific properties of existence that accurately describes them. It is, as a matter of fact, physically impossible to detect or identify that through which an entity is traveling (eg in deep space) precisely because the entity is not travelling through any thing. It is traveling in relation to all other things.

The path is an aid in calculation, one of the ways in which our senses perceive and our mind integrates distances. That does not mean paths exist in reality, just like concepts in general do not exist in reality. Only metaphysical entities exist.

Sight is the method of perceiving directly that there is a distance between two entities (eg, by the different directions that the eye points in when viewing two entities). Vision via two eyes pointed in the same direction allows the brain of an animal to approximate the measure of that distance. Comparing one distance to another is the human method of finding with precision the measure of that distance. For that comparison, one requires: a rule, a ruler, and tick marks; and then he must calculate.

It is possible to place, between two distant entities, other entities to serve as tick marks. Those tick marks are an epistemological tool for measuring the distance; they do not define the distance.

The question "what is distance in terms of attributes of entities such as extent or color?" is invalid; distance being a property of existence is what allows such attributes to pertain to entities. Distance is not metaphysically in terms of perceivable attributes; attributes are in terms of distance. Distance is implicit in the notion of to exist - ie, an entity must have a specific location with respect to all other entities just because it and they exist (are there any entities that don't?); color is not implicit in existence but is an attribute of certain types of entities.

[Richard_Halley]

Correct, feldblum, an existant must have a location in relation to other existants... but what defines how far apart they are?

Because I believe that this discussion is currently getting nowhere, I am going to lay out now, in the simplest terms I can think of, exactly what it is that we are in disagreement about:

You are arguing one of two things, as far as I can tell:

1. That it is possible to measure nothing. OR

2. That distance between two objects is defined by something other that how

much exists between them.

I am aruging that in order to measure, we must measure something (i.e. in order for something to have an attribute of length, it must exist). So, #1 above cannot be true. And that you have yet to show any reason to believe that #2 is the case (you have yet to define what could cause distance other than the existance of something between two objects). And all of your methods of percieving/measuring distance rely on the perception/measurment of that which exists between two objects.

Please specify which (if either) of 1 or 2 it is that you are arguing, and answer my above objections to that particular viewpoint.

[Capitalism Forever]

the absense of an attribute is not an attribute.  'Nothing' is not 'something'

Fair enough. Let me rewrite my previous sentence, then:

Empty space does have at least one attribute: to wit, it has the capacity to hold material objects.

[y_feldblum]

#2.

In my view, asking what is distance is like asking what is existence. Neither is defined in terms of existents (as far as I know how) other than to note that both are objective and that if x is a thing then it exists and it has some distance from all other things. The existence of in-between entities does not cause distance - it's the other way around: distance allows for the existence of in-between entities - like the existence of an entity is not dependent on any other entities. Ie, if an entity exists, then it exists and it has a specific location with respect to all other entities.

I fail to see how any of the methods of measuring distance which I explored rely on some in-between third entity. The first two were a measure of how much the muscles in the eye pulled the eyeball in one direction, and the last is a comparison from one distance to a standard of distance (ie, another distance).

It is not possible to measure nothing. But in-between entities are not necessarily what one measures when one measures distance (although one can use it if he wishes). The concept extent depends on the concept distance, not the other way around.

Respective location defines how far apart things are.

It is further my argument (now I'm going on the offensive ) that to propose the necessary existence of some in-between entity between every pair of entities is (1) arbitrary, because those in-between entities have no identity whatsoever; (2) fully contradictory with scientific knowledge and utterly irreconcilable.

[Richard_Halley]

It is further my argument (now I'm going on the offensive) that to propose the necessary existence of some in-between entity between every pair of entities is (1) arbitrary, because those in-between entities have no identity whatsoever; (2) fully contradictory with scientific knowledge and utterly irreconcilable.

Firstly, I do not propose what you said I did. Two entities do not need to have anything between them, they can be right next to each other...

Besides this... (1) they do have identities; in fact I stated one of their attributes... length. (2) well, you are going to have to give some evidence for this... for now, it is meaningless.

Following the argument from your first paragraph back through your previous posts, you seem to be arguing that location is defined by an object's identity. This may not be so, since an objects identity may not change... but it's location may.

An object's identity defines that it must exist somewhere, not where it exists.

Distance between two objects requires length between those two objects, right?

So, since length may not exist seperate from entities--i.e. we may not measure nothing--in order for there to be distance between two objects there must be at least one entity between two objects.

[y_feldblum]

Length is the measure of the distance between the two ends. Moreover, since no length is detectable in an entity otherwise devoid of identity, your proposition is viciously circular. The distance between two objects is (you say) the sum length of the entities between them, but you can only say that there is a sum length without perception of the entities themselves because you observe a distance between the two entities that you do perceive. This tells us nothing about either distance or length.

I did give evidence to the fact that the proposition that distance is defined in terms of the sum length of in-between entities - ie, an ether - contradicts the physical law of relativity of position and motion.

The location of an object never changes - except with respect to all other objects. There is no such thing as an absolute location or motion (ie, definable without respect to other objects), as the law I mentioned in the previous paragraph makes clear. Both these statements are facts, and a rejection of them is a rejection of all of modern science - and even of Newtonian physics.

Length is a specific kind of distance - the distance between the two ends of an entity in a specific direction. Distance between two objects does not require length between them, because the proposition that it does contradicts reality and steals concepts.

[erik]

Isn't Ether that stuff they used to use to knock you out before an operation ( or a kidnapping ) ?

[y_feldblum]

Yes ... rarified elements in general have the property of knocking people unconscious when they breathe it in.

[Richard_Halley]

Feldblum, you are putting up a lot of straw-men there...

Length is the measure of the distance between the two ends. Moreover, since no length is detectable in an entity otherwise devoid of identity, your proposition is viciously circular.

Your first sentence supposes that distance exists apart from all existants. This, in turn, is essentially your entire argument, you show in a later paragraph. And here is straw-man #1: I did not say that these objects could have no other attributes, and yet this is what you are arguing against here. In fact, this is much closer to what you are arguing, which is that length may exist apart from an object to have it.

I did give evidence to the fact that the proposition that distance is defined in terms of the sum length of in-between entities - ie, an ether - contradicts the physical law of relativity of position and motion.

Straw-man #2: I am not arguing for ether, at this point. I am merely arguing that length implies an existant for which it is an attribute.

The location of an object never changes - except with respect to all other objects. There is no such thing as an absolute location or motion (ie, definable without respect to other objects)

Yes, but you are arguing that distance from other objects, not just location, is a part of an object's identity. Distance from one object to another does change, and so my argument still stands.

Length is a specific kind of distance - the distance between the two ends of an entity in a specific direction. Distance between two objects does not require length between them, because the proposition that it does contradicts reality and steals concepts.

This requires that the simplest of all existants have no length. Here's how:

Distance is a relationship between one object and another.

More complex existants may only have length because there are smaller existants making them up, so we may compare the distance from the last object on one end to the last object on the other.

However, for the smallest existant--the one which is made up of no other existants--no such comparison is impossible. So it is without length.

Your argument implies that there are existants which do not have any attribute of length, and that all other existants are made up of them.

I am in the process of considering all of the implications of this claim--i.e. considering whether it allows for the world around us to exist as we observe it--and so, am considering whether it is possible or impossible. If anybody sees an implication in feldblum's claim which contradicts reality, please point it out.

[y_feldblum]

I do not see how you can argue for anything other than "space" or ether. Unless you show me how, I can only go by the assumption that that is logically where your position must lead. Between some entities I see absolutely nothing and can detect absolutely nothing, and that is the objection that the concepts of existential "space" and ether were invented to solve. However, you cannot get around (or have not gotten around) the vicious circularity of the ether being critical for the definition of distance.

Distance does not exist apart from all existents; it depends utterly on entities. Only, it does not depend on single entities or entities taken at once. It is always a relationship between two entities. That includes between two parts of an entity, since parts are entities.

Chameleons change colors; do they change identities? Distance is a relationship between two entities, not an attribute of one.

Someone who knows particle physics: do the simplest particles (eg, leptons) have actual extent (shape, radius, volume)? I'm inclined to think not, though I don't know too much about it.

If that is true, then the lengths of more complex entities is the distance between the particles at opposite edges of the entity.

Just to help you think over my claim, nobody has been able to detect any sort of entity necessarily present between two other entities. All of today's scientific models rely on the implicit denial of any sort of ether or spatial existence. See the Michelson-Morley experiment.

[Richard_Halley]

I can only go by the assumption that that is logically where your position must lead.

Feldblum, I stated before that I have no position and am trying to make one. My concern right now is whether or not you are correct, and this is what every one of my "claims" has been in the interest of. Disproving ether does not prove your theory and so, at this time, I have no interest in it.

I agree with your second paragraph, so we can skip over that.

If I pick two objects A and B, and map the distance and direction from A to B, then picking a third object C, map the distance and direction from A to C and from B to C, I should have a triangle. However, if location is defined as completly reletive, than the distance/dirction from A to C is in no way related to that from B to C... so the triangle is not necessarily formed. In order for the triangle to be necessary, location must be defined as other than reletive.

I am still giving consideration to the possibility that something may exist with no dimensions and that those somethings are the makings of all other things... but I am leaning towards that it is possible...

If it is, than the above question about reletivity and geometric laws is likely to be my last objection.

[y_feldblum]

The location of an entity is with respect to all other entities; the distance between one entity and another is with respect to the two of them. Location being completely relative means that it is related to all things.

With your geometry argument, you are mixing geometry with existents in ways that you shouldn't be. Location/orientation (in relation to all other entities0 are metaphysical; shapes formed are epistemological. Mapping (how you use it) is moving from the metaphysical to the epistemological. You map three distance/orientation pairs as distinct mental entities not connected with each other; you could have mapped the triangle (ie, the three pairs as a single unit) instead.

[Richard_Halley]

Your first paragraph answers my question...

As for this:

With your geometry argument, you are mixing geometry with existents in ways that you shouldn't be.

My argument was that using your metaphysics, I may, through valid epistemology, come up with invalid concepts... This is a valid argument, and, had you been claiming what I thought you were, this would have proven that either your metaphysics or your epistemology was wrong. The "mix," at least, was completly valid.

[y_feldblum]

I see now what you were trying to do.

That sentence was supposed to serve as an introduction to my actual objection; it wasn't the objection itself (too vague for that). Also, it was supposed to say "mixing up geometry and existents"; that would make more sense in context.

(What I was getting at (with the rest of the two-line paragraph) was this: metaphysically, if things are, they have to be. But you don't have to map one kind of thing over the other. Therefore, treating one thing as necessarily mapped and the other as not isn't correct.)

[Richard_Halley]

Yes, but if one may use an epistemology to view a metaphysic, and come up with invalid concepts, than either the epistemology or the metaphysic is wrong.

That was my argument, and so the mixture was correct in the way it was used.

[y_feldblum]

I love quibbling!

It was correct in the way it was used, because my first paragraph hadn't yet answered the question.

In light of the first paragraph answering the question, though, the geometry argument allows for some mappings but not others inconsistently (with the metaphysics/epistemology I propose).

It makes sense as a further explanation of the answer to the question, but not as the answer itself.

Regarding the view of existence I propose, think it over. If you've got any more questions, though, I'm always in a debating (quibbling?) mood.

[Roy]

Radcap,

According to what I read in Michael Polyani's book about thirty years ago, there was a difference of 9 meters/second on the two sides of the Michaelson-Morley experiment.

Polyani wrote that this difference (at that time) was simply not discussed as it went against all the "ether" ideas.

Have you read this or heard about it?

Roy

[lucifer]

y and Richard: I didn't detect a clear resolution. Did we finally decide that this undefined 'ether' was a meaningless label?

I just read the entire thread, and I don't see where RadCap or Richard or CapFo make the cognitive connection that distance refers only to the two entities involved, and not to some unnecessary third entity.

I *did* see people defending this 'ether' idea by putting words in other people's mouths.

Can we assume that this label ( 'ether' ) really does act as a synonym for empty space? Or is someone going to demonstate that is has an attribute that does not depend on some other entity? More than once, I've read something like " it's attribute is that is *allows* things to pass through it ", or " it has the capacity to hold material objects ". Clearly, these 'attributes' depend on other entities, and clearly they hold no defining nature, since *anything* could concievably pass through *anything* < insert drilling .wav file here > , and "hold material objects" doesn't mean anything.

Am I really going to have to dig through my copy of the Objectivist Epistomology, or are we all in agreement that this 'ether' stuff is ( as y put it ) an absurd notion?

[RadCap]

Yes "lucifer" you had better pull it out. I also suggest you pull out OPAR as well.

The assertion made here is that nothingness is part of the universe - ie that all existents exist IN nothing, are surrounded BY nothing, move ACROSS or THROUGH nothing, etc etc. As such, you completely change objectivist principles concerning the nature and identity of the universe.

I will give you just a couple examples:

By saying all existents exist in nothing - ie there is no something between them - are now saying there IS an 'outside' of the universe - ie that one can travel outside the universe because one is still traveling 'through' nothing.

(Of course, you may respond that since YOU are an existent, then where ever you travel, the universe 'expands' with you by definition. That too is a contradiction of objectivist principles)

You are also saying that the universe DOES have a shape (because one can step outside of the universe and look at it). Even if you hold to the 'expansion' theory I identified above, it would still have shape (you would just be a tiny pimple expanding out one that shape). This also contradicts objectivist principle.

So yes please, dig through your Objectivist Epistemology. I will be very interested to see what you believe it says which supposedly justifies the notion that non-existence 'exists' and is all around us.

If we are lucky though, perhaps Betsy's husband will pay us a visit and set the record straight here (And I may not be giving Betsy enough credit here. She may know enough herself on the subject to put this topic to rest).