Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Space: IS IT OR IS IT NOT?

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:38:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A popular issue among philosophers and scientist a like, is whether space is a something or a nothing.

That is, is space an absolute thing or it is a nothing. Non-existence. Its been argue since ancient Greek philosophy.

I haven't put that much of my own recent thought.(matured philosophic understanding) I am reading Leibniz argument is against a vacuum, in Primary truths (1689) Most of my arguments would be hearsay of past professors of philosophy of science.

A Classic argument is usually told as a dialogue between Einstein and Newton.

Einstein is against.
Newton insisted on it.

Is it an IS or an IS NOT?

Is there really such thing as a void or a vacuum?
What is your position?

Why do you think it?

What are some ancient Greek arguments?

Don't compete with me. Compete against yourself. But this is Leibniz argument; I think it's pretty sound.

G.W.Leibniz:
There is no vacuum: "For if this was true then difference part of empty space would then be perfectly similar and mutually congruent and could not be distinguishable."

The Fool: Aka if space was non-existence we couldn't tell the difference from one location in space from another.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 4:54:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:38:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Is there really such thing as a void or a vacuum?
A true vacuum, being an area of completely unoccupied space, is a purely theoretical concept. It may be, somewhere, somewhen, but we have certainly not found one.

What is your position?
Why do you think it?
Neither space nor a vacuum is an is.

Ask yourself this: could there be area of no space? If yes, then space must be an is. Because there must be an is for there to a be an is not. Space exists everywhere after the second spatial dimension. If there is an existence where there are one, two or no spatial dimensions then it follows that there is no space in that existence.

The proposition that there could be an area of no space does not hold true because it cannot be apodictically demonstrated to our perception. By our intuition alone space has always been and though we may demonstrate a lack of space by using simple geometry, we have no reason to assume a state of being actually exists in one or two dimensions. Through intuition alone, space must not be, unless someone proves something existing in none or the 1st or 2nd dimension.

Kant did some work on this in Prolegomena if I recall correctly.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:04:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:38:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A popular issue among philosophers and scientist a like, is whether space is a something or a nothing.
Well, most scientists agree that the nothing" of space is actually a something. As will any philosopher worth his salt!

That is, is space an absolute thing or it is a nothing. Non-existence. Its been argue since ancient Greek philosophy.
If space were non-existence, then it would not exist!

I haven't put that much of my own recent thought.(matured philosophic understanding) I am reading Leibniz argument is against a vacuum, in Primary truths (1689) Most of my arguments would be hearsay of past professors of philosophy of science.

A Classic argument is usually told as a dialogue between Einstein and Newton.

Einstein is against.
Newton insisted on it.

Is it an IS or an IS NOT?
Is not is a contradiction; you cannot negate existence and arrive at a logically coherent thing.

Is there really such thing as a void or a vacuum?
What is your position?
There is no such thing as nothingness that is not a something.

Why do you think it?
See above.

What are some ancient Greek arguments?
Don't know.

Don't compete with me. Compete against yourself. But this is Leibniz argument; I think it's pretty sound.

G.W.Leibniz:
There is no vacuum: "For if this was true then difference part of empty space would then be perfectly similar and mutually congruent and could not be distinguishable."
Agree fully.

The Fool: Aka if space was non-existence we couldn't tell the difference from one location in space from another.
1) If space was non existence, then it would not exist.
2) No, that is NOT what he is saying. He is saying that if there was no difference between different space then they wouldn't be different they would be one and the same. This is like what happens at absolute zero: many things become 1 thing.

************************************

At 7/16/2012 4:54:49 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 7/16/2012 7:38:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Is there really such thing as a void or a vacuum?
A true vacuum, being an area of completely unoccupied space, is a purely theoretical concept. It may be, somewhere, somewhen, but we have certainly not found one.
I think he means an absolute void: void of ALL things; nothingness. If this IS what you are referring to, then it can be a concept but it is a concept like a square-circle is a concept: it's a contradiction.

What is your position?
Why do you think it?
Neither space nor a vacuum IS an is.
Contradict much? ________^^

Ask yourself this: could there be area of no space?
Yes, of course. Planets, stars, matter, energy, dark energy, etc. are all things that aren't space.

If yes, then space must be an is.
Precisely!

Because there must be an is for there to a be an is not.
There is ALWAYS an IS, ergo...

Space exists everywhere after the second spatial dimension.
Huh? Space is 3 spacial dimensions and (if you really wanna be technical about it) it's actually spacetime which has a 4th temporal dimension.

If there is an existence where there are one, two or no spatial dimensions then it follows that there is no space in that existence.
Huh? Do you mean if something could exist in less than 3 dimensions (or less than than 3D minus time) then it would exist and not e space (or space time)? If so, then it would be another one of those things that is NOT-SPACE (ie planets, stars, matter, energy, dark energy, etc.); however, it would not be a nothing.

The proposition that there could be an area of no space does not hold true because it cannot be apodictically demonstrated to our perception.
Huh? Planets, stars, matter, energy, dark energy, etc. can be apodictically demonstrated to our perception and these are places that "displace" space (ie not space.)

By our intuition alone space has always been and though we may demonstrate a lack of space by using simple geometry, we have no reason to assume a state of being actually exists in one or two dimensions. Through intuition alone, space must not be, unless someone proves something existing in none or the 1st or 2nd dimension.
Existence does not require dimensions: it is transcendental. A singularity can exist and it is geometrically a point (a circle of radius = zero.)

Kant did some work on this in Prolegomena if I recall correctly.
The reason "nothingness" cannot be is because it is a contradiction. One cannot negate existence and arrive at a meaningful or coherent concept.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:17:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Don't compete with me. Compete against yourself. But this is Leibniz argument; I think it's pretty sound.

I Didnt' present any arguments. Lol. I have access to Liebniez entire essay right here. Not you tboone. LOL

The Rest was good though. The First guy was pretty good impressive. he knows his Kant.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:19:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 6:12:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:


The Fool: Eh. The Contradiction. problem. what is intresting is that the professor I learned it from was very against. it existining. He was very Pro eistien on the issue.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:24:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:04:25 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/16/2012 7:38:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A popular issue among philosophers and scientist a like, is whether space is a something or a nothing.
Well, most scientists agree that the nothing" of space is actually a something. As will any philosopher worth his salt!

That is, is space an absolute thing or it is a nothing. Non-existence. Its been argue since ancient Greek philosophy.
If space were non-existence, then it would not exist!

I haven't put that much of my own recent thought.(matured philosophic understanding) I am reading Leibniz argument is against a vacuum, in Primary truths (1689) Most of my arguments would be hearsay of past professors of philosophy of science.

A Classic argument is usually told as a dialogue between Einstein and Newton.

Einstein is against.
Newton insisted on it.

Is it an IS or an IS NOT?
Is not is a contradiction; you cannot negate existence and arrive at a logically coherent thing.

Is there really such thing as a void or a vacuum?
What is your position?
There is no such thing as nothingness that is not a something.

Why do you think it?
See above.

What are some ancient Greek arguments?
Don't know.

Don't compete with me. Compete against yourself. But this is Leibniz argument; I think it's pretty sound.

G.W.Leibniz:
There is no vacuum: "For if this was true then difference part of empty space would then be perfectly similar and mutually congruent and could not be distinguishable."
Agree fully.

The Fool: Aka if space was non-existence we couldn't tell the difference from one location in space from another.
1) If space was non existence, then it would not exist.
2) No, that is NOT what he is saying. He is saying that if there was no difference between different space then they wouldn't be different they would be one and the same. This is like what happens at absolute zero: many things become 1 thing.

************************************

At 7/16/2012 4:54:49 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 7/16/2012 7:38:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Is there really such thing as a void or a vacuum?
A true vacuum, being an area of completely unoccupied space, is a purely theoretical concept. It may be, somewhere, somewhen, but we have certainly not found one.
I think he means an absolute void: void of ALL things; nothingness. If this IS what you are referring to, then it can be a concept but it is a concept like a square-circle is a concept: it's a contradiction.

What is your position?
Why do you think it?
Neither space nor a vacuum IS an is.
Contradict much? ________^^

Ask yourself this: could there be area of no space?
Yes, of course. Planets, stars, matter, energy, dark energy, etc. are all things that aren't space.

If yes, then space must be an is.
Precisely!

Because there must be an is for there to a be an is not.
There is ALWAYS an IS, ergo...

Space exists everywhere after the second spatial dimension.
Huh? Space is 3 spacial dimensions and (if you really wanna be technical about it) it's actually spacetime which has a 4th temporal dimension.

If there is an existence where there are one, two or no spatial dimensions then it follows that there is no space in that existence.
Huh? Do you mean if something could exist in less than 3 dimensions (or less than than 3D minus time) then it would exist and not e space (or space time)? If so, then it would be another one of those things that is NOT-SPACE (ie planets, stars, matter, energy, dark energy, etc.); however, it would not be a nothing.

The proposition that there could be an area of no space does not hold true because it cannot be apodictically demonstrated to our perception.
Huh? Planets, stars, matter, energy, dark energy, etc. can be apodictically demonstrated to our perception and these are places that "displace" space (ie not space.)

By our intuition alone space has always been and though we may demonstrate a lack of space by using simple geometry, we have no reason to assume a state of being actually exists in one or two dimensions. Through intuition alone, space must not be, unless someone proves something existing in none or the 1st or 2nd dimension.
Existence does not require dimensions: it is transcendental. A singularity can exist and it is geometrically a point (a circle of radius = zero.)

Kant did some work on this in Prolegomena if I recall correctly.
The reason "nothingness" cannot be is because it is a contradiction. One cannot negate existence and arrive at a meaningful or coherent concept.

The Fool: the think boon is you are making an irrational jump to physcialism. Kant, explains it without any Bold asssersions. He does it without even having to use the word mental or physical, .The best explanaon is the one with the least assumption (faith assertions) and explains and predict the most. Kant also justfies science itself, as a possible method of knowledge and explain how we can apply logic and math to the universe, in the very same argument.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:05:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Space is not "non-existance" it is merely a non-zero volume where there is an absence of existence. Much like darkness is the absence of light.

We know from quantum mechanics that any macro volume of a vacuum (I use "vacuum" in the theoretical sense) will see a number of particles just pop into and out of existence. Thus indicating that there is no true vacuum possible (unless there is some other governing force that drives this creation and destruction that we could eventually manipulate).

However, if we turn from the macro level and look at the quantum level, I'd argue that there are likely vacuums all around. We know that most of the volume of an atom is empty space. While there are various quantum particles buzzing around, they do not take up every thing potential spot (at least not that is known).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:55:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 9:05:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Space is not "non-existance" it is merely a non-zero volume where there is an absence of existence. Much like darkness is the absence of light.

We know from quantum mechanics that any macro volume of a vacuum (I use "vacuum" in the theoretical sense) will see a number of particles just pop into and out of existence. Thus indicating that there is no true vacuum possible (unless there is some other governing force that drives this creation and destruction that we could eventually manipulate).

However, if we turn from the macro level and look at the quantum level, I'd argue that there are likely vacuums all around. We know that most of the volume of an atom is empty space. While there are various quantum particles buzzing around, they do not take up every thing potential spot (at least not that is known).

The Fool: So what do you conclude ?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:05:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 9:55:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:05:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Space is not "non-existance" it is merely a non-zero volume where there is an absence of existence. Much like darkness is the absence of light.

We know from quantum mechanics that any macro volume of a vacuum (I use "vacuum" in the theoretical sense) will see a number of particles just pop into and out of existence. Thus indicating that there is no true vacuum possible (unless there is some other governing force that drives this creation and destruction that we could eventually manipulate).

However, if we turn from the macro level and look at the quantum level, I'd argue that there are likely vacuums all around. We know that most of the volume of an atom is empty space. While there are various quantum particles buzzing around, they do not take up every thing potential spot (at least not that is known).

The Fool: So what do you conclude ?

I conclude that we cannot yet know. String theory incorporates multiple dimensions that we cannot experience. Is it possible that the particles that "pop" into existence are doing nothing by actually phasing from some unseen dimension into a seen one? Possible. It is also possible we may find various other sub atomic particles everywhere we look. It could be that everything is nothing by data waves of some kind, and idea of a "void" is actually a data signal, which would thus be something.

At the moment, I choose to believe that on the quantum level, there can be a true void, until shown otherwise.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:09:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 11:05:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:55:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:05:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Space is not "non-existance" it is merely a non-zero volume where there is an absence of existence. Much like darkness is the absence of light.

We know from quantum mechanics that any macro volume of a vacuum (I use "vacuum" in the theoretical sense) will see a number of particles just pop into and out of existence. Thus indicating that there is no true vacuum possible (unless there is some other governing force that drives this creation and destruction that we could eventually manipulate).

However, if we turn from the macro level and look at the quantum level, I'd argue that there are likely vacuums all around. We know that most of the volume of an atom is empty space. While there are various quantum particles buzzing around, they do not take up every thing potential spot (at least not that is known).

The Fool: So what do you conclude ?

I conclude that we cannot yet know. String theory incorporates multiple dimensions that we cannot experience. Is it possible that the particles that "pop" into existence are doing nothing by actually phasing from some unseen dimension into a seen one? Possible. It is also possible we may find various other sub atomic particles everywhere we look. It could be that everything is nothing by data waves of some kind, and idea of a "void" is actually a data signal, which would thus be something.

At the moment, I choose to believe that on the quantum level, there can be a true void, until shown otherwise.

The Fool: how do you respond to the other arguments on here?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:13:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 9:05:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Space is not "non-existance" it is merely a non-zero volume where there is an absence of existence. Much like darkness is the absence of light.
1) No way: absence of existence = contradiction.
2) Space has CMBR.
3) Darkness is the absence of light but NOT the absence of everything else

You can define many things through negation but there is thing that cannot be defined in this way and that is existence: non-existence does not exist.

We know from quantum mechanics that any macro volume of a vacuum (I use "vacuum" in the theoretical sense) will see a number of particles just pop into and out of existence.
This has NEVER been empirically shown and is quantum speculation. Like virtual-particles, it cannot be empirically shown because by "definition" they will "cease to exist" when observed. Making all of this an exercise in unfalsifiability!

Thus indicating that there is no true vacuum possible (unless there is some other governing force that drives this creation and destruction that we could eventually manipulate).
If by "true vacuum" you are referring to the contradiction "nothingness", then I agree because non-existence cannot exist!

However, if we turn from the macro level and look at the quantum level, I'd argue that there are likely vacuums all around. We know that most of the volume of an atom is empty space. While there are various quantum particles buzzing around, they do not take up every thing potential spot (at least not that is known).
This is all highly speculative; however, because nothingness is a contradiction, then whatever might be in the volume of the atom is certainly not nothingness.

**********************************

At 7/16/2012 8:24:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: the think boon is you are making an irrational jump to physcialism.
All knowledge BEGINS with an irrational jump! It's the same as the irrational jump of cogito ergo sum: one could easily be a "character" in someone else's mind or simulation that simply "thinks that he is." You cannot think things into existence.

Kant, explains it without any Bold asssersions. He does it without even having to use the word mental or physical, .The best explanaon is the one with the least assumption (faith assertions) and explains and predict the most. Kant also justfies science itself, as a possible method of knowledge and explain how we can apply logic and math to the universe, in the very same argument.
All knowledge BEGINS with a bold assertion; see above.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:31:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 10:13:02 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:05:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Space is not "non-existance" it is merely a non-zero volume where there is an absence of existence. Much like darkness is the absence of light.
1) No way: absence of existence = contradiction.
2) Space has CMBR.
3) Darkness is the absence of light but NOT the absence of everything else

You can define many things through negation but there is thing that cannot be defined in this way and that is existence: non-existence does not exist.

We know from quantum mechanics that any macro volume of a vacuum (I use "vacuum" in the theoretical sense) will see a number of particles just pop into and out of existence.
This has NEVER been empirically shown and is quantum speculation. Like virtual-particles, it cannot be empirically shown because by "definition" they will "cease to exist" when observed. Making all of this an exercise in unfalsifiability!

Thus indicating that there is no true vacuum possible (unless there is some other governing force that drives this creation and destruction that we could eventually manipulate).
If by "true vacuum" you are referring to the contradiction "nothingness", then I agree because non-existence cannot exist!

However, if we turn from the macro level and look at the quantum level, I'd argue that there are likely vacuums all around. We know that most of the volume of an atom is empty space. While there are various quantum particles buzzing around, they do not take up every thing potential spot (at least not that is known).
This is all highly speculative; however, because nothingness is a contradiction, then whatever might be in the volume of the atom is certainly not nothingness.

**********************************

At 7/16/2012 8:24:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: the think boon is you are making an irrational jump to physcialism.
All knowledge BEGINS with an irrational jump! It's the same as the irrational jump of cogito ergo sum: one could easily be a "character" in someone else's mind or simulation that simply "thinks that he is." You cannot think things into existence.

No it doesn'T. a Discriptoin isnt a bold asisupton

Kant, explains it without any Bold asssersions. He does it without even having to use the word mental or physical, .The best explanaon is the one with the least assumption (faith assertions) and explains and predict the most. Kant also justfies science itself, as a possible method of knowledge and explain how we can apply logic and math to the universe, in the very same argument.
All knowledge BEGINS with a bold assertion; see above.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 11:04:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 10:31:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:13:02 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
All knowledge BEGINS with an irrational jump! It's the same as the irrational jump of cogito ergo sum: one could easily be a "character" in someone else's mind or simulation that simply "thinks that he is." You cannot think things into existence.
No it doesn'T. a Discriptoin isnt a bold asisupton
Lol! Of course it can be! Not to mention that the act of "description" is NOT infallible! But then again, what can be expected of someone that believes in describing things into existence!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 11:21:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 11:04:23 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:31:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:13:02 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
All knowledge BEGINS with an irrational jump! It's the same as the irrational jump of cogito ergo sum: one could easily be a "character" in someone else's mind or simulation that simply "thinks that he is." You cannot think things into existence.
No it doesn'T. a Discriptoin isnt a bold asisupton
Lol! Of course it can be! Not to mention that the act of "description" is NOT infallible! But then again, what can be expected of someone that believes in describing things into existence!

I am not arguing wiht you I am teaching you.. Belief it or not.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 12:23:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 11:21:41 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 11:04:23 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Lol! Of course it can be! Not to mention that the act of "description" is NOT infallible! But then again, what can be expected of someone that believes in describing things into existence!
I am not arguing wiht you I am teaching you.. Belief it or not.
Funny, I thought that I was teaching you! But I wonder: why didn't you respond to what I wrote? I will rephrase in the form of questions:

1) Do you consider the act of "description" to be infallible?

2) Do you believe that you can describe things into existence?

Please answer these without begging the question (ie circular reasoning.)

Thanks!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 12:37:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 12:23:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 11:21:41 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 11:04:23 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Lol! Of course it can be! Not to mention that the act of "description" is NOT infallible! But then again, what can be expected of someone that believes in describing things into existence!
I am not arguing wiht you I am teaching you.. Belief it or not.
Funny, I thought that I was teaching you! But I wonder:

why didn't you respond to what I wrote?

The Fool: because I said I am not part for this debat and I think you to far Gone. Your like 40. The plascitiy is gone. Can't teach an old dog new tricks. I think this is your big. I am young starting of a career stil have a while I actually have credentials in what we are talking about. YOu are just learning language. I have work to do here I am I would rather reach out to the ones that will make it.

I will rephrase in the form of questions:

1) Do you consider the act of "description" to be infallible?

Argument from Incorrigibility:
The Fool: YOu could neve be wrong about your own definition. If call something red. I can never later be wrong about what I meant by read Because it is my idea invested in the definition. Secondly concsiousnes/mind is pre-language so you can sense and identify with out any language at all

http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) Dou believe that you can describe things into existence?

The Fool: You are conflating Define and describe. Describe is just reporting what you see.

Please answer these without begging the question (ie circular reasoning.)

Thanks!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 12:45:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 12:37:34 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Edit

Lol! Of course it can be! Not to mention that the act of "description" is NOT infallible! But then again, what can be expected of someone that believes in describing things into existence!
I am not arguing wiht you I am teaching you.. Belief it or not.
Funny, I thought that I was teaching you! But I wonder:

why didn't you respond to what I wrote?

The Fool: because I said I am not participating my own view in this debate. I am employing a disctory method of teaching (I dont' even want to go into that) I think you to far Gone. Your like 40. The plascitiy is gone. Can't teach an old dog new tricks. I think this is your good as you getting. I am young, starting off a career. I actually have credentials in what we are talking about. YOu are just learning language. I have work to do at my desk, and o here I would rather reach out to the ones that will make it.


I will rephrase in the form of questions:

1) Do you consider the act of "description" to be infallible?

Argument from Incorrigibility:
The Fool: YOu could neve be wrong about your own definition. If call something red. I can never later be wrong about what I meant by read Because it is my idea invested in the definition. Secondly concsiousnes/mind is pre-language so you can sense and identify with out any language at all

http://en.wikipedia.org...


2) Dou believe that you can describe things into existence?

The Fool: You are conflating Define and describe. Describe is just reporting what you see.


Please answer these without begging the question (ie circular reasoning.)

Thanks!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 1:02:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 12:37:34 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:23:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
why didn't you respond to what I wrote?
Oh, so now we are going to be childish and repeat to me, what I asked of you. Brilliant! Regardless, I will be the better man and respond to you. Hopefully you will reciprocate.

The Fool: because I said I am not part for this debat and I think you to far Gone.
Lol! It is I that is not part of this debate, because there never was one! As you stated: you are teaching me ergo there is no debate!

You are so enamored with yourself that you just post stuff so that people can read it but you really don't want to engage anyone: you just wanna see your words written out there in cyber space! Once anyone challenges you, you go off on tangents, flip-flop, and then repeat to me what asked of you. "Vanity! Definately my favorite sin!" - The Devil's Advocate.

Your like 40. The plascitiy is gone. Can't teach an old dog new tricks. I think this is your big. I am young starting of a career stil have a while I actually have credentials in what we are talking about. YOu are just learning language. I have work to do here I am I would rather reach out to the ones that will make it.
Lol! You are under no obligation to respond to me; nor am I under obligation to accept your pompous drivel.

I will rephrase in the form of questions:
1) Do you consider the act of "description" to be infallible?
Argument from Incorrigibility:
A question cannot be a fallacy! You are one annoying SOB! It was a yes or no question; and by your trolling answer, interpret it as yes.

The Fool: YOu could neve be wrong about your own definition.
Do not confuse the ABILITY to see red with the ability to DESCRIBE red. You CANNOT describe red to a person that has never had the ABILITY to see.
Fallacy of EQUIVOCATION.

BTW, description IS fallible as you can describe something and later on realize that you had been deceived (eg optical illusion.)

2) Do you believe that you can describe things into existence?
The Fool: You are conflating Define and describe. Describe is just reporting what you see.
1) You need to address your equivocation above.
2) You can report you see X only to realize later on that X was an optical illusion and it was actually Y.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 1:38:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 1:02:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:37:34 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:23:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
why didn't you respond to what I wrote?
Oh, so now we are going to be childish and repeat to me, what I asked of you. Brilliant! Regardless, I will be the better man and respond to you. Hopefully you will reciprocate.

The Fool: LMFAO, are you arguing with you own lines!! (ad hoc fallacy)

I said I am not participating my own view in this debate. I am employing a disctory method of teaching (I dont' even want to go into that) I think you to far Gone. Your like 40. The plascitiy is gone. Can't teach an old dog new tricks. I think this is your good as you getting. I am young, starting off a career. I actually have credentials in what we are talking about. YOu are just learning language. I have work to do at my desk, and o here I would rather reach out to the ones that will make it.

Lol! It is I that is not part of this debate, because there never was one! As you stated: you are teaching me ergo there is no debate!

The Fool: I think you losing it. <(XD)

You are so enamored with yourself that you just post stuff so that people can read it but you really don't want to engage anyone: you just wanna see your words written out there in cyber space! Once anyone challenges you, you go off on tangents, flip-flop, and then repeat to me what asked of you. "Vanity! Definately my favorite sin!" - The Devil's Advocate.

The Fool: I think its your self consciouss at play here if you are putting that much thought I think is depression pills for you.

Your like 40. The plascitiy is gone. Can't teach an old dog new tricks. I think this is your big. I am young starting of a career stil have a while I actually have credentials in what we are talking about. YOu are just learning language. I have work to do here I am I would rather reach out to the ones that will make it.

Lol! You are under no obligation to respond to me; nor am I under obligation to accept your pompous drivel.

The Fool: I claim to be a Fool nothing more nothing less.

I will rephrase in the form of questions:

The Fool: Try and make case. after this I am going to workout.

1) Do you consider the act of "description" to be infallible?

The Answer after my argument.

Argument from Incorrigibility:
The Fool: YOu could never be wrong about your own definition. If call something red. I can never later be wrong about what I meant by red Because it is my idea invested in the definition. Secondly concsiousnes/mind is pre-language so you can sense and identify with out any language at all

http://en.wikipedia.org......

A question cannot be a fallacy!

The Fool: A loaded question is a Fallacy.. <(8O)

You are one annoying SOB!

The Fool: ad hoc fallacy.

It was a yes or no question; and by your trolling answer, interpret it as yes.

The Fool: this is not understandable. It was a loaded quesion fallacy

Do not confuse the ABILITY to see red with the ability to DESCRIBE red.

The Fool: Demonstation. (bold asssersion fallacy)

You CANNOT describe red to a person that has never had the ABILITY to see.

The Fool: you don't need too. (red herring fallacy)

Fallacy of EQUIVOCATION.

The FOol: (bold assertion fallacy)

BTW, description IS fallible as you can describe something and later on realize that you had been deceived (eg optical illusion.)

The Fool: Red defined by the seer is red as the seer defined it. Illustion or not its still a red preception.

2) Do you believe that you can describe things into existence?

The Fool: You are conflating Define and describe. Describe is just reporting what you see.

1) You need to address your equivocation above.

THe Fool: YOu have been proven wrong AGAIN. AGAIN!

2) You can report you see X only to realize later on that X was an optical illusion and it was actually Y.

The Fool: there for x is still a real perceptoin of an illusion. So when you learn other wise you label the other y. And refutation straight from the hill!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 3:26:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 1:38:19 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 1:02:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:37:34 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:23:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

T-Boone: Funny, I thought that I was teaching you! But I wonder: why didn't you respond to what I wrote?

Fool: why didn't you respond to what I wrote?

T-Boone: Oh, so now we are going to be childish and repeat to me, what I asked of you. Brilliant! Regardless, I will be the better man and respond to you. Hopefully you will reciprocate.

The Fool: LMFAO, are you arguing with you own lines!! (ad hoc fallacy)

That's twice you are being childish and repeating what I say.

I said I am not participating my own view in this debate.
Actually, you're vacillating back and forth between YOUR own view and what you are attempting to "teach". That's the problem.

I am employing a disctory method of teaching (I dont' even want to go into that) I think you to far Gone.
Clearly, you are FAILING MISERABLY at your teaching method.

Your like 40.
No. I am not like 40, I AM 40. Also, the price of tea in China is up 3 cents.

The plascitiy is gone.
At least the sanity remains, which is more than I an say for you and you, schizo!

Can't teach an old dog new tricks.
The way you're going, you can't teach a new dog old tricks!

I think this is your good as you getting.
Which clearly puts me at an advantage over you.

I am young, starting off a career.
It's readily apparent!

I actually have credentials in what we are talking about.
If I were you, I would demand my money back from whatever institution sold you those credentials!

YOu are just learning language.
Funny coming from a guy that barely put together sentences!

I have work to do at my desk, and o here I would rather reach out to the ones that will make it.
Good luck with that.

Lol! It is I that is not part of this debate, because there never was one! As you stated: you are teaching me ergo there is no debate!
The Fool: I think you losing it. <(XD)
Perhaps, but it is better to loose it than never had it at all!

You are so enamored with yourself that you just post stuff so that people can read it but you really don't want to engage anyone: you just wanna see your words written out there in cyber space! Once anyone challenges you, you go off on tangents, flip-flop, and then repeat to me what asked of you. "Vanity! Definately my favorite sin!" - The Devil's Advocate.
The Fool: I think its your self consciouss at play here if you are putting that much thought I think is depression pills for you.
Not much thought required to sum you up. Not much at all!

Lol! You are under no obligation to respond to me; nor am I under obligation to accept your pompous drivel.
The Fool: I claim to be a Fool nothing more nothing less.
Well, at least we can agree on one thing: indeed you are a fool!

1) Do you consider the act of "description" to be infallible?
The Fool: YOu could never be wrong about your own definition. If call something red. I can never later be wrong about what I meant by red Because it is my idea invested in the definition. Secondly concsiousnes/mind is pre-language so you can sense and identify with out any language at all

A question cannot be a fallacy!
The Fool: A loaded question is a Fallacy.. <(8O)
Please SHOW how it is a loaded question. You need to show that the question has an unjustified assumption BUT there are NO assumptions in my question! EPIC FAIL!

You are one annoying SOB!
The Fool: ad hoc fallacy.
Clearly you don't know what an ad hoc fallacy is!

It was a yes or no question; and by your trolling answer, interpret it as yes.
The Fool: this is not understandable. It was a loaded quesion fallacy
You need to SHOW how it's a loaded question. It stands until you show it.

Do not confuse the ABILITY to see red with the ability to DESCRIBE red.
The Fool: Demonstation. (bold asssersion fallacy)
See below for demonstration.

You CANNOT describe red to a person that has never had the ABILITY to see.
The Fool: you don't need too. (red herring fallacy)
You do need to if you want to claim that "describing red" is equivalent to "experiencing red" otherwise you are guilty of equivocation.

Fallacy of EQUIVOCATION.
The FOol: (bold assertion fallacy)
You need to SHOW that it is a bold assertion fallacy. It stands until you do so.

BTW, description IS fallible as you can describe something and later on realize that you had been deceived (eg optical illusion.)
The Fool: Red defined by the seer is red as the seer defined it. Illustion or not its still a red preception.
1) Your point does NOT refute my point; my point still stands.
2) The ability to see red is NOT equivalent to defining/describing red; you are equivocating. This point still stands until you SHOW otherwise.

2) Do you believe that you can describe things into existence?
THe Fool: YOu have been proven wrong AGAIN. AGAIN!
Claiming a thing and showing a thing are not the same. You are in COMPLETE and UTTER FAILURE until:

A) You SHOW how my question (Do you consider the act of "description" to be infallible) is a loaded question.

B) You SHOW that my claim "that you are equivocating DESCRIPTION with ABILITY" is a bold assertion.

C) You need to REFUTE my point that "description IS fallible because you can describe something and later on realize that you had been deceived (eg optical illusion.)" Simply presenting a different case where "description might not be fallible" DOES NOT refute a different case where it IS fallible.

2) You can report you see X only to realize later on that X was an optical illusion and it was actually Y.
The Fool: there for x is still a real perceptoin of an illusion. So when you learn other wise you label the other y. And refutation straight from the hill!!
Fail: that's not description that is ability; you are equivocating.

Please answer A, B, and C.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 4:34:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tboon fallacy
All knowledge BEGINS with an irrational jump! It's the same as the irrational jump of cogito ergo sum: one could easily be a "character" in someone else's mind or simulation that simply "thinks that he is." You cannot think things into existence.

Argument from Incorrigibility:

The Fool: You could never be wrong about your own definition. If call something red. I can never later be wrong about what I meant by read because it is my idea invested in the definition. Secondly consciousness/mind is pre-language so you can sense and identify without any language at all
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Q.E.D. end game
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 5:07:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 4:34:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Tboon fallacy
All knowledge BEGINS with an irrational jump! It's the same as the irrational jump of cogito ergo sum: one could easily be a "character" in someone else's mind or simulation that simply "thinks that he is." You cannot think things into existence.

Argument from Incorrigibility:

The Fool: You could never be wrong about your own definition.
Again that's NOT a definition; if it were, you'd be able to express that definition to a blind person and they would be able to understand you, but you CAN'T can you! It is an ability.

If call something red. I can never later be wrong about what I meant by read because it is my idea invested in the definition.
You could never be wrong about your own definition.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

You could never be wrong about your own definition.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

You could never be wrong about your own definition.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Secondly consciousness/mind is pre-language so you can sense and identify without any language at all
Strawman; I never said that we needed language in order to have the ability to see (ie sense.).
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

What I IMPLIED, and will unequivocally SAY now, is that we DO need language to be able to DESCRIBE said ABILITY/SENSE!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Thus proving BY YOUR OWN WORD that description IS NOT ability/sense!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Q.E.D. end game
EPIC FAIL!

Brought to you by T-Boone!
From the the Top of the Hill, where it's chill!
And oh soooo cool, and where the Fool got schooled!
Now he ended up ill, at the bottom of the Hill,
In tragic logic-spill!

Peace awe-ite!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 5:19:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 5:07:48 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2012 4:34:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Tboon fallacy
All knowledge BEGINS with an irrational jump! It's the same as the irrational jump of cogito ergo sum: one could easily be a "character" in someone else's mind or simulation that simply "thinks that he is." You cannot think things into existence.

Argument from Incorrigibility:

The Fool: You could never be wrong about your own definition.
Again that's NOT a definition; if it were, you'd be able to express that definition to a blind person and they would be able to understand you, but you CAN'T can you! It is an ability.

If call something red. I can never later be wrong about what I meant by read because it is my idea invested in the definition.
You could never be wrong about your own definition.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

You could never be wrong about your own definition.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

You could never be wrong about your own definition.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!


Secondly consciousness/mind is pre-language so you can sense and identify without any language at all
Strawman; I never said that we needed language in order to have the ability to see (ie sense.).
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

What I IMPLIED, and will unequivocally SAY now, is that we DO need language to be able to DESCRIBE said ABILITY/SENSE!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Thus proving BY YOUR OWN WORD that description IS NOT ability/sense!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Q.E.D. end game
EPIC FAIL!

Brought to you by T-Boone!
From the the Top of the Hill, where it's chill!
And oh soooo cool, and where the Fool got schooled!
Now he ended up ill, at the bottom of the Hill,
In tragic logic-spill!

Peace awe-ite!

The Fool: that was the original argument I nipped it in the bud> <(XD)
Any ways I will be back later I have to work on my Career..<(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 5:21:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I think we both new it was going to end like that. LMFAO
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 6:24:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 5:21:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I think we both new it was going to end like that. LMFAO
There was never a doubt in my mind that you'd see it my way!

And so I am happy to see you denounce your "Irrationalism" and accept Physicalism!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 9:58:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 11:09:21 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 11:05:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:55:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:05:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Space is not "non-existance" it is merely a non-zero volume where there is an absence of existence. Much like darkness is the absence of light.

We know from quantum mechanics that any macro volume of a vacuum (I use "vacuum" in the theoretical sense) will see a number of particles just pop into and out of existence. Thus indicating that there is no true vacuum possible (unless there is some other governing force that drives this creation and destruction that we could eventually manipulate).

However, if we turn from the macro level and look at the quantum level, I'd argue that there are likely vacuums all around. We know that most of the volume of an atom is empty space. While there are various quantum particles buzzing around, they do not take up every thing potential spot (at least not that is known).

The Fool: So what do you conclude ?

I conclude that we cannot yet know. String theory incorporates multiple dimensions that we cannot experience. Is it possible that the particles that "pop" into existence are doing nothing by actually phasing from some unseen dimension into a seen one? Possible. It is also possible we may find various other sub atomic particles everywhere we look. It could be that everything is nothing by data waves of some kind, and idea of a "void" is actually a data signal, which would thus be something.

At the moment, I choose to believe that on the quantum level, there can be a true void, until shown otherwise.

The Fool: how do you respond to the other arguments on here?

The "void is defined as non-existence, and so cannot exist" is a false definition, so any conclusion based on that definition are false.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:17:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 9:58:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 11:09:21 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 11:05:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:55:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:05:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Space is not "non-existance" it is merely a non-zero volume where there is an absence of existence. Much like darkness is the absence of light.

We know from quantum mechanics that any macro volume of a vacuum (I use "vacuum" in the theoretical sense) will see a number of particles just pop into and out of existence. Thus indicating that there is no true vacuum possible (unless there is some other governing force that drives this creation and destruction that we could eventually manipulate).

However, if we turn from the macro level and look at the quantum level, I'd argue that there are likely vacuums all around. We know that most of the volume of an atom is empty space. While there are various quantum particles buzzing around, they do not take up every thing potential spot (at least not that is known).

The Fool: So what do you conclude ?

I conclude that we cannot yet know. String theory incorporates multiple dimensions that we cannot experience. Is it possible that the particles that "pop" into existence are doing nothing by actually phasing from some unseen dimension into a seen one? Possible. It is also possible we may find various other sub atomic particles everywhere we look. It could be that everything is nothing by data waves of some kind, and idea of a "void" is actually a data signal, which would thus be something.

At the moment, I choose to believe that on the quantum level, there can be a true void, until shown otherwise.

The Fool: how do you respond to the other arguments on here?

The "void is defined as non-existence, and so cannot exist" is a false definition, so any conclusion based on that definition are false.

The Fool: So then if this is true can space be non-existent?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:32:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 10:17:05 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/17/2012 9:58:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 11:09:21 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 11:05:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:55:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:05:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Space is not "non-existance" it is merely a non-zero volume where there is an absence of existence. Much like darkness is the absence of light.

We know from quantum mechanics that any macro volume of a vacuum (I use "vacuum" in the theoretical sense) will see a number of particles just pop into and out of existence. Thus indicating that there is no true vacuum possible (unless there is some other governing force that drives this creation and destruction that we could eventually manipulate).

However, if we turn from the macro level and look at the quantum level, I'd argue that there are likely vacuums all around. We know that most of the volume of an atom is empty space. While there are various quantum particles buzzing around, they do not take up every thing potential spot (at least not that is known).

The Fool: So what do you conclude ?

I conclude that we cannot yet know. String theory incorporates multiple dimensions that we cannot experience. Is it possible that the particles that "pop" into existence are doing nothing by actually phasing from some unseen dimension into a seen one? Possible. It is also possible we may find various other sub atomic particles everywhere we look. It could be that everything is nothing by data waves of some kind, and idea of a "void" is actually a data signal, which would thus be something.

At the moment, I choose to believe that on the quantum level, there can be a true void, until shown otherwise.

The Fool: how do you respond to the other arguments on here?

The "void is defined as non-existence, and so cannot exist" is a false definition, so any conclusion based on that definition are false.

The Fool: So then if this is true can space be non-existent?

It can be, but it is not defined (and so not limited) as such. Saying "space [I assume you mean "void" or "objectively empty space"] is non-existent" is the same as saying "it doesn't exist" and it might not (I expressed how future discoveries could show this), but it is not forced into that option by definition.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:35:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:38:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A popular issue among philosophers and scientist a like, is whether space is a something or a nothing.

That is, is space an absolute thing or it is a nothing. Non-existence. Its been argue since ancient Greek philosophy.

I haven't put that much of my own recent thought.(matured philosophic understanding) I am reading Leibniz argument is against a vacuum, in Primary truths (1689) Most of my arguments would be hearsay of past professors of philosophy of science.

A Classic argument is usually told as a dialogue between Einstein and Newton.

Einstein is against.
Newton insisted on it.

Is it an IS or an IS NOT?

Is there really such thing as a void or a vacuum?
What is your position?

Why do you think it?

What are some ancient Greek arguments?

Don't compete with me. Compete against yourself. But this is Leibniz argument; I think it's pretty sound.

G.W.Leibniz:
There is no vacuum: "For if this was true then difference part of empty space would then be perfectly similar and mutually congruent and could not be distinguishable."

The Fool: Aka if space was non-existence we couldn't tell the difference from one location in space from another.

Antimatter.