|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extro...*
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:17 am Post subject: 241 |
 |
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
| in the vaccuum of space it has been observed that occasionally a particle of matter and antimatter appear out of nothing |
A vacuum is not nothing.
It's full of space. |
And everything that happens in that space is governed by a pre-existing set of laws of physics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: 242 |
|
|
And what happens in vacuum, *stays* in vacuum.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:44 pm Post subject: 243 |
|
|
Just playing around with logic. No biggie.
Though, food for thought, is space really anything? Dimensions may or may not be real.
Are physics defined by space or the things that occupy it?
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:51 am Post subject: 244 |
|
|
The absence of physical matter is not "nothing". It's almost taoist when you think about it.
Here's an explanation I think might help. Suppose there are mass A and mass B in the entire universe. If they are 8 light minutes apart, what separates them is empty space. But it is not nothing. If nothing separates two things, aren't they adjacent?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:45 am Post subject: 245 |
|
|
| All that proves is that nothing and somethng can't co-exist. If you take away A and B, you lose the reference points and you're left with nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:34 am Post subject: 246 |
|
|
| Can two things really be adjacent? If there's no distance between them aren't they in the same place? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
late night ponderer*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:08 am Post subject: 247 |
|
|
| I'd say yes. A "thing" can occupy multiple points in space. If there is a point that is common to both things then they may be called adjacent. But two adjacent things do not necessarily have all points in common. In this case I would not say the two things are "in the same place". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
late-night ponderer*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: 248 |
|
|
| I'd say yes. A "thing" can occupy multiple points in space. If there is a point that is common to both things then they may be called adjacent. But two adjacent things do not necessarily have all points in common. In this case I would not say the two things are "in the same place". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:48 am Post subject: 249 |
|
|
| Coyote* wrote: |
| All that proves is that nothing and somethng can't co-exist. If you take away A and B, you lose the reference points and you're left with nothing. |
Wrong. There is still the space they could have existed in. Remove that, then there is nothing (unless you missed something).
| Chuck wrote: |
| Can two things really be adjacent? |
Yes
| Quote: |
| If there's no distance between them aren't they in the same place? |
So my right brain and my left brain are one. Got it. No wonder I'm a freaking genius.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:11 am Post subject: 250 |
|
|
| If two things have a point in common then they aren't really two different things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: 251 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
Wrong. There is still the space they could have existed in. Remove that, then there is nothing (unless you missed something).
|
I do not think space is a thing, but rather a way to measure things. Would you call mass a thing? Not the mass of a particular thing, or the measurement, but the idea of mass? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:22 am Post subject: 252 |
|
|
Space implies volume. For volume you need measurement and for measurement you need reference points.
No reference points => no measurement => no volume => no space.
Nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:39 am Post subject: 253 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| If two things have a point in common then they aren't really two different things. |
Why not? 
| casinopete wrote: |
| Samadhi wrote: |
Wrong. There is still the space they could have existed in. Remove that, then there is nothing (unless you missed something).
|
I do not think space is a thing, but rather a way to measure things. Would you call mass a thing? Not the mass of a particular thing, or the measurement, but the idea of mass? |
Space is something because things about it can be measured. You can move some odd meters from point A, take some density reading or whatever and even if you have measured a value of zero, that is a measurement. Hell, you can look at the A and look at B and see that there is something between them even if it's empty.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:20 am Post subject: 254 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
Space is something because things about it can be measured. You can move some odd meters from point A, take some density reading or whatever and even if you have measured a value of zero, that is a measurement. Hell, you can look at the A and look at B and see that there is something between them even if it's empty.
|
That is not a measure of space. That is a measurement of A and B.
The example I just gave of mass illustrates this perfectly. You can measure object A's mass, then object B's mass, and find the difference between them. Would you call that making a measurement of the idea of mass? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:30 am Post subject: 255 |
|
|
Ok. What is the center of mass for A and B?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: 256 |
|
|
A function of the masses and positions of A and B.
Perhaps you could simply make a point cleanly instead of behaving as though I'll need to be walked through it with my hand held? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:44 am Post subject: 257 |
|
|
I don't follow.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:46 am Post subject: 258 |
|
|
OH! You think I know? I don't make that assmption. I'm just trying to converse and make things make sense.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:08 am Post subject: 259 |
|
|
My apologies, then. It sounded like you had an explanation of some sort in mind, and instead of just giving it, decided to move through it point-by-point, which I found condescending. Nice to know you weren't.
Anyway, my answer is still my answer. A center of mass for a system is not a thing, either. It is a part of a mathematical model... which, not-quite-incidentally, treats mass and position as the same sort of information, lending credence to my comparison of space with realm-of-mass-values. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:21 am Post subject: 260 |
|
|
Wow, thanks for entering this with an open mind.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:35 am Post subject: 261 |
|
|
Right.
Is that playful sarcasm or mean sarcasm? 'Cause I'd like to know whether I should respond with a playful "You're being an ass." or a mean "You're being an ass."
tia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:51 am Post subject: 262 |
|
|
I'll respond more in the morning. I'm currently about 2 hours past my bed time with no java. Not an excuse for not answering, just a deferment.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: 264 |
|
|
Hmmm...I think I understand what you're saying, casinopete; or maybe I don't, because it seems to be leading me to a paradox.
If space and mass aren't considered to be things, what would you consider a thing? Aren't physical objects defined by the sum of their qualities and the measurements thereof? If the qualities and measurements aren't things, then what is it about a physical object that does make it a thing? Can 'things' be comprised entirely of 'not-things'?
It all makes my head hurt. I wish BraveHat were around--he was really good at this philosophical stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: 265 |
|
|
Well, you can do things to space.
It can be folded, bent etc. It also has a size.
My head begins to hurt though when I ask myself if it can be moved. If so, what's it being moved in? Itself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
late-night ponderer*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: 266 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| If two things have a point in common then they aren't really two different things. |
Just because two sets have a common element doesn't mean they are the same set. Why can't we define a "thing" loosely to be a set of points?
Anyway I can't ponder more at the moment. It's not late night any more.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:05 pm Post subject: 267 |
|
|
| If two things share a common point then they overlap so they can't really be adjacent. If they share no common points then there must be some distance between them so they're not adjacent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject: 268 |
|
|
You don't have to be touching to be adjacent.
My office is adjacent to the sea, but I still have to walk for a few minutes to get wet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: 269 |
|
|
| Then are you adjacent to everything you can get to? Is everything adjacent to everything else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GH
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: 270 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Then are you adjacent to everything you can get to? Is everything adjacent to everything else? |
No. "Everything" and "everything else" share common points, meaning "they overlap so they can't really be adjacent." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: 271 |
|
|
Two points being adjacent is just relative to other points. You can have two adjacent stars.
You argue that space is what seperates two points. Rather, it's the points that define the space inbetween.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: 272 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
| If space and mass aren't considered to be things, what would you consider a thing? |
Things have qualities and can be measured. "On my desk" and "two kilograms" aren't things, but my bottle of Mountain Dew, which is located on my desk, and masses two kilograms, is a thing.
| Coyote wrote: |
| Aren't physical objects defined by the sum of their qualities and the measurements thereof? |
Qualities and measurements are how we reference things, I don't think that's how things are defined. My bottle of Mountain Dew is a bunch of specific molucules, while "on my desk" and "two kilograms" are just descriptors.
| Coyote wrote: |
| If the qualities and measurements aren't things, then what is it about a physical object that does make it a thing? |
see above.
| Coyote wrote: |
| Can 'things' be comprised entirely of 'not-things'? |
But things are not made up of their qualities. They are made up of other things. My Mountain Dew is made up of molucules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of elementary particles, until you get down to where a thing isn't made up of other things, it is just itself. At every level, the things are measurable (though perhaps not practically so, since the process of measurement can alter what you're measuring). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:12 am Post subject: 273 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| I'll respond more in the morning. I'm currently about 2 hours past my bed time with no java. Not an excuse for not answering, just a deferment. |
So I slept in a bit before work. And then they needed me to stay longer, so I worked 12 hours. I don't work tomorrow and I plan to luxuriate in sleep. But after that, I will respond.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: 274 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
| If space and mass aren't considered to be things, what would you consider a thing? |
Things have qualities and can be measured. "On my desk" and "two kilograms" aren't things, but my bottle of Mountain Dew, which is located on my desk, and masses two kilograms, is a thing. |
Yes, but if 'on my desk' and 'two kilograms' were the sole defining qualities, I would be justified in placing a two kilogram brick on your desk and claiming it to be a Mountain Dew.
Of course I'm not justified in saying that, because there are thousands of other qualities beyond mass and location that help distinguish your Mountain Dew from a brick. Those same qualities also distinguish bricks and Mountain Dews from empty space.
And yet...none of those qualities can be considered to be things. By what reasoning then can we say Mountain Dew and bricks are 'things'? What do they possess that their qualities do not?
| casinopete wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
| Aren't physical objects defined by the sum of their qualities and the measurements thereof? |
Qualities and measurements are how we reference things, I don't think that's how things are defined. My bottle of Mountain Dew is a bunch of specific molucules, while "on my desk" and "two kilograms" are just descriptors. |
I think you're clutching at straws here. Honestly now, casinopete--when is the last time you regarded or defined anything in terms of its individual molecules, rather than it's specific qualities?
| casinopete wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
| If the qualities and measurements aren't things, then what is it about a physical object that does make it a thing? |
see above. |
See above, and below.
| casinotpete wrote: |
| Coyote wrote: |
| Can 'things' be comprised entirely of 'not-things'? |
But things are not made up of their qualities. They are made up of other things. My Mountain Dew is made up of molucules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of elementary particles, until you get down to where a thing isn't made up of other things, it is just itself. At every level, the things are measurable (though perhaps not practically so, since the process of measurement can alter what you're measuring). |
I've taken the liberty of bolding part of the quote, because I think it's crucial to your point. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
It seems to me that you're trying to resolve the paradox by continually breaking a thing into smaller parts, and at each step declaring that the parts are ultimately defined not by their qualities, but by the fact that they're comprised of yet smaller parts.
But at each step, those smaller parts are still defined by their qualities and measurements. And I suspect you realize this, since in the end you simply cut short the endless sequence of things being justified by smaller things, and declared that things are...simply things.
Why couldn't you have said that right from the start, without bothering with the continual breakdown into smaller bits?
(I'm not being sarcastic here--why did you choose to break things down to their smallest observable particles before invoking the 'things simply exist' ruling?)
And in reference to that bolded section--when a thing gets down to the level where it's nothing but itself, does that mean it has no remaining qualities other than it's self-referential identity as itself? And if so, how exactly do we distinguish it from Nothing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: 275 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
| And yet...none of those qualities can be considered to be things. By what reasoning then can we say Mountain Dew and bricks are 'things'? What do they possess that their qualities do not? |
This is what I was answering. A thing exists physically, and can be measured. A measurement cannot. You cannot measure the mass of "on my desk" nor the position of "two kilograms," because they are not things.
| Coyote wrote: |
| I think you're clutching at straws here. Honestly now, casinopete--when is the last time you regarded or defined anything in terms of its individual molecules, rather than it's specific qualities? |
Of course I think of things in terms of qualities and measurements. You quoted me saying just that: "Qualities and measurements are how we reference things." That doesn't affect what the reality of an object is. The physical reality of a thing is a better/fuller/more precise/etc. definition than a list of qualities.
... Or are you just chiding me for beginning with the assumption that there is a physical reality? I would certainly admit I am considering that axiomatic.
| Coyote wrote: |
| It seems to me that you're trying to resolve the paradox by continually breaking a thing into smaller parts, and at each step declaring that the parts are ultimately defined not by their qualities, but by the fact that they're comprised of yet smaller parts. |
I'm not trying to resolve a paradox, because I do not see one. I do not define a thing as being made up of smaller things. I define it as either a sum of things or a thing indivisible and existing in its own physical thingness.
| Coyote wrote: |
But at each step, those smaller parts are still defined by their qualities and measurements. And I suspect you realize this, since in the end you simply cut short the endless sequence of things being justified by smaller things, and declared that things are...simply things.
Why couldn't you have said that right from the start, without bothering with the continual breakdown into smaller bits?
(I'm not being sarcastic here--why did you choose to break things down to their smallest observable particles before invoking the 'things simply exist' ruling?) |
At no step are the parts defined by their qualities and measurements. They are defined as either the sum of the smaller things of which they are made, or by their own bottom-level physical thingness. I "cut short" the sequence to finish my definition.
As for why I bothered with the first half of the definition, I think it is just because it seemed conversationally smoother. You said things were comprised of qualities and I answered that things are actually comprised of other things, etc.
| Coyote wrote: |
| And in reference to that bolded section--when a thing gets down to the level where it's nothing but itself, does that mean it has no remaining qualities other than it's self-referential identity as itself? And if so, how exactly do we distinguish it from Nothing? |
I cannot understand why you would suggest it has no qualities. Every thing has mass(/energy). Every thing has position. Every thing has duration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:07 am Post subject: 276 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| This is what I was answering. A thing exists physically, and can be measured. A measurement cannot. You cannot measure the mass of "on my desk" nor the position of "two kilograms," because they are not things. |
Let's not allow this discussion to degenerate into pointless wordplay. You can measure the mass of 'two kilograms' and the position of 'on my desk', and swapping the terms around to create an absurdity doesn't change that fact.
We know things exist physically because we can detect their attributes, and we can give those attributes meaning by comparing them to similar attributes of other physical things, in other words by measuring them. If those are the sole means of establishing the existence of things, I think they should be defined as actual things themselves.
| casinopete wrote: |
| Of course I think of things in terms of qualities and measurements. You quoted me saying just that: "Qualities and measurements are how we reference things." That doesn't affect what the reality of an object is. The physical reality of a thing is a better/fuller/more precise/etc. definition than a list of qualities. |
I'm afraid I need more than a simple assertion to be convinced of this. Can you supply that better/fuller/more precise definition--without bringing qualities or measurements into the definition?
| casinopete wrote: |
| ... Or are you just chiding me for beginning with the assumption that there is a physical reality? I would certainly admit I am considering that axiomatic |
It's not my place to 'chide' people I'm debating with; but if I don't challenge the opinions of others, how can I ever broaden my own perspectives?
And I'm not questioning your assumption of physical reality, but rather your definitions of what comprises it.
| casinopete wrote: |
| I'm not trying to resolve a paradox, because I do not see one. I do not define a thing as being made up of smaller things. I define it as either a sum of things or a thing indivisible and existing in its own physical thingness. |
The paradox I was referring to was the idea that a physical thing could be defined solely by non-physical qualities. I'll acknowledge that that paradox was not stated by you--it was my own extrapolation of the concepts you seemed to be stating.
As for your definition: if a thing is the sum of other things, by what means do you establish that they are things? And your claim that an indivisible thing exists in its own physical thingness seems a bit circular to me--could you expand on this a little?
| casinopete wrote: |
At no step are the parts defined by their qualities and measurements. They are defined as either the sum of the smaller things of which they are made, or by their own bottom-level physical thingness. I "cut short" the sequence to finish my definition.
As for why I bothered with the first half of the definition, I think it is just because it seemed conversationally smoother. You said things were comprised of qualities and I answered that things are actually comprised of other things, etc. |
Yes, but those 'other things' were just that--other things, which themselves are defined by either their qualities or their 'thingness', depending on which viewpoint one champions.
| casinopete wrote: |
| I cannot understand why you would suggest it has no qualities. Every thing has mass(/energy). Every thing has position. Every thing has duration. |
Okay, I wasn't too clear on that point. It seemed to me you were saying physical objects had a 'thingness' that was distinct and seperate from the qualities that define that object. As such, I assumed that if all the attributes were stripped from an object it would still have the property of 'thingness'. I was asking how that property could be distinguished from 'nothingness' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: 277 |
|
|
| Funny things, definitions. They can turn Light into UnLight with just one modification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phoenix*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: 278 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| ... my bottle of Mountain Dew, which is located on my desk, and masses two kilograms, is a thing. |
Wow |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:20 am Post subject: 279 |
|
|
I knew I had to get back to this.....
Apologies for any lack of lucidity earlier, and being somewhat the jerk.
CP I think the disagreement here can be summed up as such:
Assume there are two objects A and B in the entire universe. These two objects are two meters apart. There are no particles in the entire universe besides those contained within the masses A and B (assume this is a snapshot before they start radiating anything virtually any mass of any size would begin radiating).
I contend that if you look at the midpoint between A and B, then make a sphere of some arbitrary radius distance less than 1 meter around that point, it will be empty, there will be no mass in it, etc...but it is not nothing.
You disagree.
Assuming that is correct, then I move mass A into that sphere and it still exists. You move it there and it doesn't exist anymore because there are no laws, no structure to support it.
And, as I believe Chuck pointed out, if two points have nothing between them, then they are the same point.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: 280 |
|
|
Clearly, it is "space". "Space" is defined here, and is explained here.
MY position on the "space vs. nothing" debate is: A vacuum is unoccupied volume that adjusts the "un-volume", to use newspeak, to retain the same amount of vacuum. Nothing can exist in nothing, therefore nothing is non-existant, as are the brains of the two girls standing over me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index
-> Science, Art, and Culture |
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Page 7 of 9 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
