An Exercise in nothing semantics.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
“The universe is expanding into nothing.”

“The universe is not expanding into anything.”

The first statement suggests closure (unless one wishes to argue the concept of nothing.) The second leaves one hanging to beg the question, “So, what IS the universe expanding into?”

This is incorrect. The second statement (which means exactly the same thing as the first one, mind you) resolves the question of what the universe is "expanding into" perfectly. It isn't expanding into anything

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

I agree. However, if someone who knew very little of cosmology asked you what the universe was expanding into, I think the second response would leave that person to continue to wonder what the universe was expanding into. That answer could even suggest that the universe is not expanding at all, “It isn’t expanding into anything.”

Maybe we need to come up with an entirely difference answer altogether. How about:

“The universe is expanding into a void.”

Void - the state of nonexistence.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

I agree. However, if someone who knew very little of cosmology asked you what the universe was expanding into, I think the second response would leave that person to continue to wonder what the universe was expanding into. That answer could even suggest that the universe is not expanding at all, “It isn’t expanding into anything.”

Maybe we need to come up with an entirely difference answer altogether. How about:

“The universe is expanding into a void.”

Void - the state of nonexistence.

Well, it doe stand to reason that if the universe is not expanding into anything, the question of what it is expanding into is entirely moot, but I suppose someone might still ask it (perhaps if they don't believe me). Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light .

Also, the view is not that the universe is expanding into a void. It is that the universe is not expanding into anything (I feel like I'm repeating myself ). A void is something.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

I'm surprised you disagree with that answer. The definition of void is a state of non-existence. Everything that can be considered to exist must be part of the universe. Anything that does not exist is not part of the universe.


My head is beginning to hurt.

 

[kyleb]

anythng that does not exist is not part of anything at all (Q).

 

[(Q)]

anythng that does not exist is not part of anything at all (Q).

Precisely, and that is what the universe is expanding into.

 

[kyleb]

that is circular logic.

 

[(Q)]

that is circular logic.

Come now - I was joking.

 

[Ishop]

This is ridiculous, we are all saying the same thing with different words.

Not anything means nothing. Void means nothing. Non-exsistence means nothing. Mentat says there is no nothing because nothing does not exsist there fore you cannot say there is nothig. (my summing up of what I think you are saying, please tell me if I am incorrect). Clearly the English language has taken the concept of nothing (non exsistence, void, whatever) and had to place it as a noun even though it is the very opposite of a noun. Because the language treats it as a noun it causes people to think that this is a paradoxal statement. The concept of void is not incorrect, simply the use of it in our laguage. Our language lacks the complexity to convey certain concepts without cheating itself sometimes. This is what we are stuck in and why it frustrates everyone. No one here (presuming) is mistaking "nothing" to be something. It is simply the language that we speak has placed "nothing" as a noun and thus causes confusion. Our language does not contain anti-nouns. However if it did and had its own gramarical rules, I'm sure the words nothing, void, non-exsistent, would all be covered by it. We all agree in concept, it is the language that is messing us up.

However i cannot place Eh in this agreement because I'm not sure that he agrees that the concept of void is even correct (correct me as well if I am mistaking your asumption). From what I have read from your posts is that you believe that the universe is infinitley material. Though you have said that the universe could be finite and still the concept of void or nothing be incorrect. That logic I am still hoping you will explain. I would be most interested in hearing it. Or possibly I have misread your any posts as on occasion you have pointed out I have before and you have misread mine on occasion.

 

[Ishop]

Oh Mentat said:

Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light

I know what you're saying here and I would agree that that would be a stupid question to ask after hearing that there is nothing faster than the speed of light. Unless you could believe that speed could be infinesimal. Which of course the only thing faster than the speed of light would be teleportation and that could be argued not to be speed since you were not in the middle of point A and B at any given time of the travel. I'm not sure if I would classify teleportation speed, but seems like that would be a good debate.

If it is true that nothing travels faster than the speed of light and you said nothing does, then someone would be stupid to ask that question. But I don't think that is a relevant hypothetical question pertaining to the arguement. If someone says that the universe is expanding into nothing, then the answer to "what is the universe expanding into" is nothing. Like if i said A = B and then someone said what does B =? A of course. We all agree that the universe is expanding in some form or fashion. Which means it is in movement. It does not move into anything because if there was anything it would be part of the universe. Saying the universe is expanding into nothing is not saying it is expanding into anything (see my above post) And it is not saying that the universe is not expanding. It simply means that there is void, non-exsistence in which exsistence can move into at anytime and make it an area (something).

 

[Mentat]

Ishop, glad to see that you have grasped the concept rather superbly.

(Q), a void exists. If it exists, then it is not nothing, but something. If it is something, then it exists within the universe. The universe is not expanding into a void, it is not expanding into anything at all.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, it doe stand to reason that if the universe is not expanding into anything, the question of what it is expanding into is entirely moot, but I suppose someone might still ask it (perhaps if they don't believe me). Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light .

Also, the view is not that the universe is expanding into a void. It is that the universe is not expanding into anything (I feel like I'm repeating myself ). A void is something.

To be able to quantify "nothing" in any way, shape or form means it exists as a concept. Therefore it becomes apparent, to me, that we are unable to conceptualize the absence of everything... as is described by any description we put to that sort of (non)phenomenon.

As has been suggested, we need to use counter intuition to deal with this subject... or lack thereof!

Furthermore... a state AND a non-state... by all the current standards of physics, hyperphysics, philosophy and so on... regardless of its content or non-content is still a part of the uniniverse... as is revealed by the definition of a universe which encompasses all states... non-states... uncertainty or certainty... etc..

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

If a void is defined as non-existence, how can it exist as something? That is a contradiction.

Non-existence is not part of the universe.

 

[arivero]

For an atomist, a void is defined as the container of distances.

 

[Eh]

Yes, the atomists got over the seemingly contradictory concept of the void. They did accept that while the void was empty of all matter and substance we normally refer to as being, it was still "something" in the fact that is was the spatial reality.

Today, the empty space is still often called a void in physics, even though it is not as empty as the atomists would have believed.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
To be able to quantify "nothing" in any way, shape or form means it exists as a concept. Therefore it becomes apparent, to me, that we are unable to conceptualize the absence of everything... as is described by any description we put to that sort of (non)phenomenon.

As has been suggested, we need to use counter intuition to deal with this subject... or lack thereof!

Furthermore... a state AND a non-state... by all the current standards of physics, hyperphysics, philosophy and so on... regardless of its content or non-content is still a part of the uniniverse... as is revealed by the definition of a universe which encompasses all states... non-states... uncertainty or certainty... etc..

It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them. To say that there is a void, outside of the universe, is wrong because a void is something. However, I'm not saying that there is a certain thing, called "nothing", that is out there either. I'm saying (and hopefully people will stop asking the same questions) that there isn't anything "out there", not a void, not empty space (which is technically a void anyway), nothing at all

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them. To say that there is a void, outside of the universe, is wrong because a void is something. However, I'm not saying that there is a certain thing, called "nothing", that is out there either. I'm saying (and hopefully people will stop asking the same questions) that there isn't anything "out there", not a void, not empty space (which is technically a void anyway), nothing at all

Well, in that case... I'm not goin' there.

 

[Ishop]

Just being picky again, Mentat said:

It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them.

I would use dark as an example. Cold can actually be measured and it is the slow motion of particles tht causes it. Also in response to your reply to my last post...I have always said those things, they have just been misread I suppose.

 

[kyleb]

he means as in absolute 0 "cold." just like absolute darkness such things do not exist in nature.

 

[quantumcarl]

According to the title of this thread, it concerns an excercise in the "semantics" of "nothing".

Yet we have the author claiming that there are no semantics to the word nothing and that there can be only one meaning attached to the word when, truthfully, semantics involves the fact that there is an individual meaning to a word according to who is using the word.

We have mentat claiming that he and only he has the correct definition for the word "nothing". He is unbending and claims that if someone's semantic idea of the word does not match his semantic idea of the word... they are "wrong".

I think, perhaps, mentat might better have titled this thread
"My Philosophy Concerning Nothing"... so that his defensive posture could make a bit more sense to those participants concerned.

Moreover, mentat is arguing in support of his semantic understanding of "nothing" in an absolute vacuum of proof concerning his topic... relying soley on his and other's speculations which is the nature of a semantic debate.

Further to this, in a semantic debate or "excercise, no one participant is wrong, save for the one who makes such a claim.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
According to the title of this thread, it concerns an excercise in the "semantics" of "nothing".

Yet we have the author claiming that there are no semantics to the word nothing and that there can be only one meaning attached to the word when, truthfully, semantics involves the fact that there is an individual meaning to a word according to who is using the word.

We have mentat claiming that he and only he has the correct definition for the word "nothing". He is unbending and claims that if someone's semantic idea of the word does not match his semantic idea of the word... they are "wrong".

I think, perhaps, mentat might better have titled this thread
"My Philosophy Concerning Nothing"... so that his defensive posture could make a bit more sense to those participants concerned.

Moreover, mentat is arguing in support of his semantic understanding of "nothing" in an absolute vacuum of proof concerning his topic... relying soley on his and other's speculations which is the nature of a semantic debate.

Further to this, in a semantic debate or "excercise, no one participant is wrong, save for the one who makes such a claim.

"In a semantic debate, no one is wrong", are you kidding me? A semantic debate is as much a debate as any other kind, and in a debate there is at least one person who is wrong.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
"In a semantic debate, no one is wrong", are you kidding me? A semantic debate is as much a debate as any other kind, and in a debate there is at least one person who is wrong.

I disagree. (And when I do so... it does not mean you are "wrong")
Semantics is the study of the "dual-meanings" of words. Even if someone came to this thread and said... "nothing is everything"... this would be their meaning and something they would attempt to prove... by way of debate.

If a word can have dual-meanings its bound to have even more meanings when two or more people are involved in a discussion concerning a word and its meaning.

It gets more tedious from here. No one meaning is correct, or incorrect, when dealing with a word as semantic as "nothing".
It may not be as tedious as studying the semantics of the word "love"... but close.

So, while it is prudent to state one's disagreement with a definition of a word... it is only destructive to the process of a discussion to say a definition is "wrong".

It is, by far, more constructive to say... convince me... baby!

However... in the case of scientific debate there are wrong points of view and definitions and there are right ones.

I might say an electron is a politician's demographic constituency when it is actually something that remains in, joins or leaves the orbit of an atom. In the case of my first statement, I would be way "wrong" because there is only one, established, meaning to the word "electron".

 

[Mentat]

Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

If, indeed, your's is a scientific debate then it belongs in a scientific area of this forum. As it stands it is disguised as a philosophical debate by way of residing in the philosophy area. Perhaps moving the idea to a more rigorous audience and set of rules will help you explore "nowhere" and "nothing".

"Under the wieght of logical debate" this topic of yours, "nothing", is practically impossible to debate since nothing does not exist, by certain definitions of the word. Debating something that does not exist can be draining and is usually reserved for experienced script writers with FOX or COLUMBIA PICTURES.

Now, I'd like you to note... in a philisophical way, how there was no post... or... "nothing" here... before I put a post here... and that, in light of this... no post existing here has helped to facilitate the posting of this post.

If there had been a post here, where this one is, I would not have been able to post here. And this, philosophically and scientifically, is called the "potential" for "something" due to the absence of "something".

That is why I tend to define "nothing" as the potential for "something" to occur... (in a philosophical manner)... and after the manner of Lao Tzu's works from 600 bc.

 

[CJames]

OMG these word games are going to drive me completely and utterly mad.

Nothing does have semantics, it can be interpreted as meaning absolute nothing, or as an area where there is nothing except for space and time, or an area where there is space and time and air and a room but nothing else.

That is why it is easiest to say the universe isn't expanding into anything.

But as has been brought up, that has semantics as well, because you could interpret it as the universe isn't expanding at all.

My answer, the universe isn't expanding into anything, it is simply expanding.

It's not perfect but I can't take this anymore.

 

[Loren Booda]

Pardon impossible, to send to Siberia.

Pardon, impossible to send to Siberia.

Nothing means "not anything," rather than "not...anything."

 

[Mentat]

quantumcarl,

American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "semantic":

"Of or pertaining to meaning."

This is the kind of semanticism I was talking about, I had not idea that the word actually had to do with dual meanings.

Don't make Philosophy and Science mutually exclusive. They are not, and while mine is a Philosophical debate, it has a lot of basis on scientific principlesk - and this is what I meant by "scientific debate" (I also meant that the specific debate, of what the universe is "expanding into", was a scientific debate).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Pardon impossible, to send to Siberia.

Pardon, impossible to send to Siberia.

Nothing means "not anything," rather than "not...anything."

Say what? I caught the difference between the first two statements, but not between the last two ("not anything" and "not...anything").

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

I have not seen your logic as yet – but only your view.

 

[Loren Booda]

The equivalents "nothing" and "not everything" are not always equivalent to "not...everything." Thus "I can bring nothing to mind" is the same as "I can bring not anything in mind," but not "I can not bring anything to mind."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

I have not seen your logic as yet – but only your view.

So you disagree that "nothing" can be replaced with "not anything", and still retain the meaning, while eliminating foolish debates about what "nothing" is?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
The equivalents "nothing" and "not everything" are not always equivalent to "not...everything." Thus "I can bring nothing to mind" is the same as "I can bring not anything in mind," but not "I can not bring anything to mind."

"I can bring not anything to mind" is grammatically flawed. It makes no sense.

Also, if you are saying that saying that there is not anything outside of the universe is not the same as saying that there isn't anything outside of the universe, you may want to rethink your stance - as "isn't" is precisely equal to "is not".

The point I'm making is that when someone says that the universe is not expanding into anything, they might as well be saying that the universe is expanding into not anything, and the only reason that they don't is because this is a grammatically flawed sentence structure (at least in this language), and would probably confuse someone.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

No, I discount the fact that you think you're "logic" is right and everyone else's "view" is wrong.

Why do you think yours is the definitive answer?

You couldn't come up with a good argument as to why 'void' could not be used.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

No, I discount the fact that you think you're "logic" is right and everyone else's "view" is wrong.

Why do you think yours is the definitive answer?

You couldn't come up with a good argument as to why 'void' could not be used.

First off, I adress every argument, because every argument has merit. I don't just say, "I'm right, your wrong", and close my mind to new ideas.

Secondly, I did come up with a good argument as to why "void" couldn't be used; a void is something. All voids are within the universe, because the universe is everything. When someone answers the question, "what is the universe expanding into", with "nothing", they shouldn't mean that it is expanding into a void (because that's something), they should mean that it isn't expanding into anything.

 

[(Q)]

But as I stated before, "void" is a state of non-existence therefore, it is a perfectly valid term. Anything that is non-extentent is not part of the universe.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
But as I stated before, "void" is a state of non-existence therefore, it is a perfectly valid term. Anything that is non-extentent is not part of the universe.

Forgive my persistence, (Q), but look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing.

This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).

There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing). If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing

True, I should not have used the word “thing” in my explanation – but so goes the English language when trying to formulate explanations. You should focus more on the word “non-existent.”

This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).

Not according to the definitions I found which define a void as being a “state of non-existence,” which does not have the same meaning as “nothing” and most certainly does not mean something.

There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing).

I disagree. The universe must expand into a state of non-existence in order for it to exist. If it does not expand into this state, then whatever the universe expands into must therefore exist, hence it is already part of the universe.

If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.

Again I would have to disagree. A void is not a place – if it were, it would exist and could not be categorized as a state of non-existence. It would also not be a state of less existence – that would imply something does in fact exist, but there is less of it.

Space, consisting entirely of nothing, no particles or energy or anything whatsoever, can also be defined as a void – simply because space does not really exist, it is the distance between two objects. There is no space beyond our universe because there are no objects in which to provide a reference.

Forgive my persistence, (Q)

No problem, maybe we'll eventually define that which cannot be defined. ;)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing

True, I should not have used the word “thing” in my explanation – but so goes the English language when trying to formulate explanations. You should focus more on the word “non-existent.”

This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).

Not according to the definitions I found which define a void as being a “state of non-existence,” which does not have the same meaning as “nothing” and most certainly does not mean something.

There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing).

I disagree. The universe must expand into a state of non-existence in order for it to exist. If it does not expand into this state, then whatever the universe expands into must therefore exist, hence it is already part of the universe.

If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.

Again I would have to disagree. A void is not a place – if it were, it would exist and could not be categorized as a state of non-existence. It would also not be a state of less existence – that would imply something does in fact exist, but there is less of it.

Space, consisting entirely of nothing, no particles or energy or anything whatsoever, can also be defined as a void – simply because space does not really exist, it is the distance between two objects. There is no space beyond our universe because there are no objects in which to provide a reference.

Forgive my persistence, (Q)

No problem, maybe we'll eventually define that which cannot be defined. ;)

To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on. [Important point:] Space[/color]...is[/color]...something[/color]

 

[chosenone]

try this one on for size.2-d in 3-d thinking.if you take a circle or a square or a triangle on a piece of paper"2-d"and turn it side ways as to only see the side of it,the circle,square,and triangle would become a line,so these 3-d objects side ways are all lines,with this line you can make it bigger,or smaller,then when you turn it around,you've changed the shapes size without destroying it in the process.so what happens if you take a circle,turn it side ways,shrink the line as small as you can get it,when you turn it around,you will get a circle,inside the circle is space,no matter how small you make the line you will always get space inside the circle when you turn the line around!thus infinite space!but the fun part is when you get the cirlce with the space in the middle you put a dot in the middle,which is a line sideways then turn it around and get a cirlce,infinite space!

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on.

Either you are wrong or every dictionary is wrong. I wonder which it is?

Noun: the state of nonexistence.

http://define.ansme.com/words/v/void.html

noun: the state of nonexistence.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=void&ls=a

[Important point:] Space is something

Space is NOT something. Particles exist in space – the gravitational field permeates space – light travels through space – all matter in the universe is contained in space - but space is not something. Space is simply the distance between two objects.

From the same dictionaries:

Noun: an empty area (usually bounded in some way between things.)

Noun: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on.

Either you are wrong or every dictionary is wrong. I wonder which it is?



[Important point:] Space is something

Space is NOT something. Particles exist in space – the gravitational field permeates space – light travels through space – all matter in the universe is contained in space - but space is not something. Space is simply the distance between two objects.

From the same dictionaries:

Noun: an empty area (usually bounded in some way between things.)

Noun: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.

The people who have written these dictionaries must be entirely unfamiliar with Relativity. Relativity is based on space (and time) being not only something, but active, changing, warping, etc...
The Classical view is that which your dictionaries describe, but that is not what modern science has yielded.

Quantum Mechanics defines a void as something (since no state is perfectly determinable) and I will take that definition above any dictionary.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

The people who have written these dictionaries must be entirely unfamiliar with Relativity.

That has nothing to do with it. And besides, I would wager they are a lot smarter than you.

Relativity is based on space (and time) being not only something, but active, changing, warping, etc...

You are talking about things that exist in space and not of space itself. What is space made of? How is space active? How does space change?

Quantum Mechanics defines a void as something (since no state is perfectly determinable)

Then by all means, please describe for us all exactly what a void is. What is it made of? How do things exist in a void if a void is something tangible?

IF you cannot describe what a void is or what space is, then your logic is flawed and you are wrong.

I will take that definition above any dictionary.

Should we just chuck out all the dictionaries in favor of your definition?

You keep stating that a void IS something, yet have not explained exactly what that something is. Therefore, your argument has been that of argument from authority - and that is a standard fallacy.

 

[chosenone]

what if space was something,and particles don't exist in space,but inside space.what if energy pushes its way in existence from underneath the dimension of space,and are the displacement of space,like putting a object in water.the energy pushes space out of the way as it moves through it,leaving a wake as it passes by of collapsing spacetime behind it!

 

[Eh]

Q,

Space is just another name for the gravitational field. While less noticeable to us as matter, fields are just as real. In fact, in quantum theory fields are everything, and point particles owe their existence them. So it would seem that space is as much a thing as anything else in the universe.

John Gribbon wrote something about the reality of fields and particles in a recent book. The section might be online somewhere, and I will try to find it and post a link.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by (Q)
That has nothing to do with it. And besides, I would wager they are a lot smarter than you.

your on. now prove it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

The people who have written these dictionaries must be entirely unfamiliar with Relativity.

That has nothing to do with it. And besides, I would wager they are a lot smarter than you.

It has everything to do with it - didn't you even read my post? I never claimed to be more intelligent then the people who write dictionaries, or than anyone else. I do, however, have a fairly good knowledge of Relativity, and the afore-quoted dicionary definitions contradict it.

Relativity is based on space (and time) being not only something, but active, changing, warping, etc...

You are talking about things that exist in space and not of space itself. What is space made of? How is space active? How does space change?

I am talking about space itself (not the things in it, as you say). Relativity hinges on the fact that space (and time) are not just the back drop for energy and matter to act out their roles, but that spacetime itself is a key player. Read up on Relativity, it'll answer your questions of how space is active, and how it changes. As far as what it's made of; Quantum Mechanics postulates that it is a gravitational field (I advise you to study that as well, before contradicting it).

Quantum Mechanics defines a void as something (since no state is perfectly determinable)

Then by all means, please describe for us all exactly what a void is. What is it made of? How do things exist in a void if a void is something tangible?

IF you cannot describe what a void is or what space is, then your logic is flawed and you are wrong.

A scientific void is an area where there is no matter, and an indeterminate amount of energy (since the amount of energy, in any area, is undeterminable). The fact that a void is an area, clearly implies that it exists withing a certain amount of space.

I will take that definition above any dictionary.

Should we just chuck out all the dictionaries in favor of your definition?

It's not my definition. I've already shown you that two of the most rigorously defined theories (Relativity and QM) of physics are what provide "my definition", as you call it.

You keep stating that a void IS something, yet have not explained exactly what that something is. Therefore, your argument has been that of argument from authority - and that is a standard fallacy.

What do you mean by "argument from authority"?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by kyleb
your on. now prove it.

I appreciate your support, kyleb, but concur that there are a great deal of people, who are more knowledgeable then I am.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

Read up on Relativity, it'll answer your questions of how space is active, and how it changes.

Nope, I want to hear it from you. You are the one making the claims – not relativity.

As far as what it's made of; Quantum Mechanics postulates that it is a gravitational field (I advise you to study that as well, before contradicting it).

As I mentioned before, the gravitational field permeates space. Space is simply the distance between objects.

Well, it looks like you completely failed on those. Let's move on to your definition of a void.

The fact that a void is an area, clearly implies that it exists withing a certain amount of space

That is the definition of a void that describes a state of nonexistence. Once anything enters that void, it is no longer considered a void, it becomes space because now there is reference of distance between objects. And currently, there is nothing in our universe that can be considered a void, is there?

Hold on a minute – that just so happens to describe what the universe is expanding into – a void.

It's not my definition. I've already shown you that two of the most rigorously defined theories (Relativity and QM) of physics are what provide "my definition", as you call it.

Since I provided you with references, perhaps you could do the same to back up your argument.

Cite me references that clearly define space as being the gravitational field. As well, references to support that a void exists in our universe. I'll be happy to concede my position if you can.

 

[Eh]

From Sten Odenwald's "Ask an Astronomer" website at http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/qanda.html

What is space itself made of?

According to general relativity, 'space' is just another name for the gravitational field of the universe. As such, we stand in relation to space what photons of light stand in relation to the electromagnetic field. Space is just another physical field in nature, and at its smallest scales, it dissolves away into some kind of quantum 'haze' where our ideas of time and space no longer have much meaning.

Hope that helps. I'll try to dig up some links with more details.

 

[(Q)]

We carry with us two distinct conceptions of space. We invented measured space. We did so because it’s useful. But thanks to 17th Century thinkers such as Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes, we took measured space one step further and began to visualize a universal, three dimensional gridwork within which any thing can be precisely located. We have so abstracted this grid that we believe that the entire universe fits snugly inside of it. But the grid is supposedly always there, independent of the things in it. The grid, considered in itself, turns our attention away from the stuff of our world. Nevertheless, it has become the very definition of space according to our “default philosophy,” the set of beliefs about our world that is so deep that it feels like common sense.
http://www.smallpieces.com/space/space5c.html [/quote]


Hope that helps.

(edited to remove first reference)