Greetings !
MajinVegeta, space is not nothing according
to modern science.
Originally posted by wimms
BB seems to simply ignore it.
Carefull... arguing with nature because
your "logic" tells you what you observe is
impossible is historicly shown to often
be a hopeless effort.
Originally posted by wimms
Do I understand you correctly, that in some
other system of reasoning, statement that
something can be surrounded by what we
called "not anything", is possibly valid?
Is there possibly such a real number that
is a last one?
Since any reasoning system deals with some
enitities and some relations between them
(though nothing is certain, of course),
your question is not posed correctly. After
all, not anything or nothing is NOT an
entity or a relation.
What I DID mean is that a different reasoning
system may not lead to assignment of limmits.
You talk about something outside ofeverything
as a condition, but what if I simply do not
concern myself with such a condition ?
A similar example is the once existing assumption
that cause must exist before effect, however, today
we know we might sometimes be able to observe
effect before cause, based upon the EPR
experiment and the "instant" WF collapse.
(Though personally, I still don't buy that... )
Originally posted by wimms
Uhh. We just went through that. It was
precisely whole point of my reasoning,
to show that. I started with speculative
proposition to show that its not valid.
So did you above.
"relation between entities" *is*
something - its 'space'. You can't
distinguish separate entities if you
don't separate them by something. Its
like trying to distinguish 2 values
whose difference is exactly 0.
Indeed. When it comes to the real world
"real" relations are themselves entities.
"Pure" relations can exist only in our
abstract thinking (math for example).
But, independent of how you regard
"normal" space in a particular case -
there is still a direct connection between
these "parts" of the real world. The lack
of such a connection would mean that any
abstract relation discribing this would
collapse. It would be a totally chaotic
system - cause with NO effect and chaos.
And if you did manage to tie between two
entities with no connection between them,
then you're the connection.
Originally posted by wimms
Did you mean that in case for universe,
there is no entity to relate to outside
and thus to talk about 'relation' is invalid?
Thats equivalent to searching for 'last number'.
No, you misunderstood me.
Let's try it this way:
If you have a bunch of entities interacting
directly - there's no (enitial, at least)problem
and you can then wonder - what's outside
of each entity, which is a more specific
case argument(and perhaps unnecessary).
But, if there are entities with no connection
between them then they can not possibly
communicate with each other in any manner
and hence it appears to be an impossibility
for a real world discription to include such
enitities since whoever's reasoning with this
discription has to be aware of this situation
and thus violate the lack of connection.
So, returning to the original opinions I
expressed - a limmited Universe may still
be debatable and is not as seemingly impossible
to me as separation by nothing.
(We are, of course, talking about conceptual
comprehension ability - there may be stuff
separated by nothing, but conceptually
I believe my above argument is an almost
absolute proof that we can't possibly know that.
You were implying that the basis of these
two cases is essentialy the same, and I think
it's not, even if there is some argument
as "tough" as mine above that deals with
a finite Universe and that I simply failed
to consider so far.)
Poka !
Live long and prosper.