Recent content by steve watson

No, it's not a trivial question .. tks for your response and the website info .. it's not easy to understand ...

Not sure, but at a mininimum, I think it counts as observing the relationship between "things", and, by implication, but to a much lesser degree, "space" itself. But i don't think there is much to reveal about space itself since it is "nothing"., i.e., there is nothign to reveal. On the other...

anythat that exists: a planet, an atom, a needle, a haystack, a grain of sand, everythig except nothing, i.e., the lack of something. ...

Well, I only used the word "chic" to point out that lots of theories and/or notions have been in vogue and then repudiated. I am not so concerned about "the mainstream view" of epistemology or metaphysics (those branches of philosophy have been in their graves decades). My point focued on the...

Well you're way out of my league regarding math and the mathematical theories you speak of, but when you descirbe "space" as having a "shape", aren't the only things that have a "shape" things that exist? And if "space" has a "shape" doesn't that mean "space is a "thiing"?

Al, seems to me that "space" is empty or not, but not "purely" empty. What do you mean when you say "purely empty". Why isn't "empty" descriptive enough? Just curious. Tks ...

I understand, and I appreciate your response. These mathematical concepts trouble me. Math is trickey and can lead to strange and unverifiable notions and theories. My problem is with the nature of "space" and what it is or rather what it is not. Nobody seems to be able to give me a straight...

I agree. All "mental constructs" are "mental constructs".

I know that understanding the context of a statement is of the utmost importance. And I said so when I posted my note. So my apologies again, I didn't mean to inconveience you. Still, first, words shouldn't be used so loosely. Words have meanings or they would be useless. And next, "space"...

I'm coming in on the tail-end of this, so forgive me, but I am fascinated by the topic of your discussion. I think that a fundamental problem regarding the question of whether space is expanding is the fact that we treat "space" as a "thing", "something", i.e., a planet, a dog, a grain of...

Yes. The 3 points you placed there (anywhere) and the measurments (distances between these points) you arrived at. Time is a mental construct rooted in reality.

Why is it called "space" if it's not empty? What is the point of the meanings of words if they have no relationship to relaity? If there was no space, i.e., no emptiness how could you ever know one thing from another?

But how else can the water in the jar be rotating if not "with respect to the "space 'absolutely' "? It cannot be rotating "inabsolutely". Seems to me the water is either roating in the jar or not roatating in the jar, and the adjectivie "absolutely" describes nothing or is redundant. And...

But regardless of what others say, or have said, and regardless of how chic it may be to salley forth into the unknowable, it is still nonesensical, because the answer to the "final cause" is unknowable. But not because it is beyond that which is capable of being "known", but only because it is...

Hello back, Jano L. Tks for the welcome and tks for the reply. I'm not sure I understand all that you wrote. I think my first problem is that I am not clear on what you mean by "absolute space" ... I'm puzzled why "space" has to be described as "absolute" rather than simply by "space"...