Does infinite divisibility of matter imply no empty space exists?

[Dragongod]

Current science describes a solid, liquid, and gas, as having different densities. Solids have the highest density, then comes liquids, and finally gases. They say in between the particles lies "empty space." Can someone please describe to me the properties of "empty space" because as fas as I can logically reason, its impossible for "nothingness" (the absense of matter and energy)" to exist.

Also, mathematics currently states that one can divide infinitely into any value. Doesn't this show that matter is already infinitely dense, meaning that "empty space" (the absense of matter and energy) doesn't actually exist. Doesn't this basically state that matter is filled infinitely with more matter? If this is true then Stephen Hawking's definition of a black hole having a singularity would not hold up because all matter would already be a singularity(infinite matter, no room for empty space) in of itself.

 

[arildno]

Also, mathematics currently states that one can divide infinitely into any value. Doesn't this show that matter is already infinitely dense, meaning that "empty space" (the absense of matter and energy) doesn't actually exist. Doesn't this basically state that matter is filled infinitely with more matter?

No, you are confusing a mathematical MODEL with reality.

 

[Dragongod]

lol HAHAHAHA, I am confusing a mathematical model with reality. If that is true doesn't that show that math isn't consistent with reality and therefore neither are the formulas we use in physics to determine reality. As far as I know mathematicians and physicists would greatly disagree with you. But this is another topic. Let's just say mathematics is consistent with reality. If it is, just supposing, wouldn't my conclusion be right. Wouldn't it mean that matter is already infinitely dense, that "empty space" doesn't actually exist.

 

[HallsofIvy]

lol HAHAHAHA, I am confusing a mathematical model with reality. If that is true doesn't that show that math isn't consistent with reality and therefore neither are the formulas we use in physics to determine reality. As far as I know mathematicians and physicists would greatly disagree with you. But this is another topic. Let's just say mathematics is consistent with reality. If it is, just supposing, wouldn't my conclusion be right. Wouldn't it mean that matter is already infinitely dense, that "empty space" doesn't actually exist.

No, that simply says that "reality" and a mathematical model for reality are not the same thing. The fact is that there exist many different mathematical models for the same "physical facts" (which is what I think you mean by "reality"). No mathematical model can fit any physical facts perfectly because physical facts are always based on imperfect measurements.

I'm not sure what you mean by " Let's just say mathematics is consistent with reality. " Different mathematical models match "reality" to differing degrees of accuracy. I don't know of any mathematical model that says "matter is already infinitely dense" (I don't even know any mathematical model in which "infinitely dense" is defined) so I don't see how saying a mathematical model is consistent with reality would lead one to conclude that.