Farid

What is your opinion on this? It is about empty space.

Recommended Posts

Quote

""nothing" occupies five feet of space". "Nothing" does not 'occupy

By saying: 

Quote

If nothing occupies five feet of space...

I meant that if there is five feet of space in which there is nothing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Farid said:

By saying: 

I meant that if there is five feet of space in which there is nothing. 

 

But “nothing” is not a thing so talking about it’s size is nonsensical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Farid said:

the size of nothing is five feet also. 

If you give me half a liter of your nothing, will it decrease in size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the problem when we try to use our words to describe things which are better left to the language of math. Half of zero and twice zero are still zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me restate why I said things about nothing having a size. The volume of a space is the same as the volume of an object in that space. Therefore, if space exists in which there is nothing, then the volume of that space equals the volume of nothing in that space. If size of nothing cannot be anything but zero, then space in which there is nothing is also zero in volume which means that there cannot be space in which there is nothing meaning that empty space cannot exist. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Farid said:

The volume of a space is the same as the volume of an object in that space. Therefore, if space exists in which there is nothing, then the volume of that space equals the volume of nothing in that space. If size of nothing cannot be anything but zero, then space in which there is nothing is also zero in volume which means that there cannot be space in which there is nothing meaning that empty space cannot exist.

This really doesn't make much sense. It is not logic, but just playing around with the ambiguous use words.

The volume of a space is the same as the volume of an object in that space.

No it isn't. The volume of a cubic meter of intergalactic space is much larger the the small number of hydrogen atoms/ions it contains.

Therefore, if space exists in which there is nothing, then the volume of that space equals the volume of nothing in that space.

You then assume that there is this "thing" called nothing that has a volume.

The absence of any material objects does not have a volume. I guess this would count as a category error: assigning a property of material objects to the absence of any material object. (Luckily, we can ignore photons because they obey Bose-Einstein statistics.)

If size of nothing cannot be anything but zero

The "size of nothing" is semantically empty; is it is undefined. So it is not zero.

then space in which there is nothing is also zero in volume

As we have already seen, the volume of some space is not defined by its contents.

which means that there cannot be space in which there is nothing

As this is derived from false premises by faulty logic, there is no reason to think it is true.

 

I would suggest (a) an introductory course in general philosophy so you learn how to construct a logically sound argument and (b) splitting your sentences into several shorter ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No it isn't. The volume of a cubic meter of intergalactic space is much larger the the small number of hydrogen atoms/ions it contains.

So you are saying that it is possible for something that is five inches long to occupy two feet of space? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Farid said:

So you are saying that it is possible for something that is five inches long to occupy two feet of space? 

 

You need to be familiar with the consensus definition of the words used in a particular discipline, like 'space'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You need to be familiar with the consensus definition of the words used in a particular discipline, like 'space'. 

I am talking about the following definition of space. 

The definition of space is an area that is unoccupied or empty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Farid said:

The definition of space is an area that is unoccupied or empty. 

That's a poor definition. Space can't have anything in it? Of what use is that definition? Where would I use it? Where do I encounter space that has nothing in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Farid said:

The definition of space is an area that is unoccupied or empty. 

You are defining space as empty and then attempting to prove that empty space doesn't exist? And so space doesn't exist at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You are defining space as empty and then attempting to prove that empty space doesn't exist? And so space doesn't exist at all?

I do not believe that empty space does not exist. I just wanted comments on the statement about the empty space that I posted. 

Quote

That's a poor definition. Space can't have anything in it? Of what use is that definition? Where would I use it? Where do I encounter space that has nothing in it?

I was trying to say that I am talking about empty space. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Farid said:

I was trying to say that I am talking about empty space. 

So empty space is a certain volume that doesn't have anything in it. But an object inside the volume doesn't have to have the same volume. The density of matter can vary within that space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Farid said:

I just wanted comments on the statement about the empty space that I posted. 

You have had lots of comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You have had lots of comments.

I appreciate that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Farid said:

So you are saying that it is possible for something that is five inches long to occupy two feet of space? 

Obviously. The desk I am sitting at is much smaller than the volume of the room it is in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Obviously. The desk I am sitting at is much smaller than the volume of the room it is in. 

 

True. But, it is not occupying all the space in that room. So, that is not a great proof that the volume of an object can be different than the volume of the space it is occupying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Farid said:

So, that is not a great proof that the volume of an object can be different than the volume of the space it is occupying. 

That is not what you asked.

The volume [of space] occupied by an object is, by definition, equal to the volume [occupied by] the object. Rather obviously.

But that doesn't mean you can't have a volume of space that is larger than the volume of the object(s) in it.

So space with a volume of 1 metre3 may nothing but a 1 cm3 box. The rest of the space is empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Farid said:

True. But, it is not occupying all the space in that room. So, that is not a great proof that the volume of an object can be different than the volume of the space it is occupying. 

The goalposts you just moved now need a bigger volume to occupy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry, at the moment I have trouble proving that volume of an object equals the volume of space it is occupying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You asserted...

Quote

If size of nothing cannot be anything but zero, then space in which there is nothing is also zero in volume which means that there cannot be space in which there is nothing meaning that empty space cannot exist.

You don't really need to prove "that volume of an object equals the volume of space it is occupying." I don't see how 'the volume of an object' is relevant to your assertion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Farid said:

I am sorry, at the moment I have trouble proving that volume of an object equals the volume of space it is occupying. 

You don’t seem to understand that there can be more space around the object. And that space could be empty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farid said:

I am sorry, at the moment I have trouble proving that volume of an object equals the volume of space it is occupying. 

Perhaps that's because you define space as "an area that is unoccupied or empty". An object occupying an unoccupyable region is troubling indeed.

One of the greatest contributions of formal science study is precise definitions for sharing information as an ongoing part of the methodology. Everyone knows what the words mean, and it doesn't take pages just to explain what you're talking about. I encourage you to use mainstream terminology whenever you can, and ask rather than guessing or making it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 I encourage you to use mainstream terminology whenever you can, and ask rather than guessing or making it up.

I did not come up with that definition, that definition is in the dictionary. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Farid said:

I did not come up with that definition, that definition is in the dictionary.

1. If so, you should provide a reference.

2. Dictionaries are not always a good source when discussing math, science or philosophy. In these fields words often have very specific meanings which don't precisely match the more general definitions in a dictionary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now