So, how do you distinguish between 'Nothing' and 'space'?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 amNothing isn't space, it's nothing.
Okay, So what do you mean by "extensional properties"?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 amI've already explained this to you a couple times, and you even countered with an alternate but similar claim.What is 'space' to you?
Space is (a) the extensional properties of matter, and (b) the extensional relations between matter. This means that if there is no matter, there is no space.
What is the property of 'space', itself?
What is 'space' made up of exactly?
I have absolutely no idea nor clue what this actually means or is referring to, but I am not really interested anyway, at the moment.
I do not know what these words "extension of matter" or "extensional relations between matter" actually mean from your perspective. But, hopefully you cleared this up earlier.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 amNo.
Do you mean here that the object is one singular piece of object
Again no.without absolutely anything else within it?
Again, no. Space is not a thing. It's not a container. It exists in no way "on its own." Space is a term for the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter.Or, do you mean it is like ALL the objects in the Universe, which are themselves made up of 'space' AND 'matter'
Maybe if I explain what the word 'space' means to me, and let us see how different we are in definition and meaning here.
To me, 'space' is; just the distance between matter.
Is this anything somewhat like your "extensional relations"?
If yes, then what does extensional relations "obtain simply" mean? What is the words "obtain simply" in reference to exactly?
But this is exactly what I say.
So, why do you think or believe I am saying something different here?
Of course nothing exists "in" that extensional relation. Nothing, literally, exists in that area, space, "extensional relation".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 amAn extensional relation is simply the fact that matter A is separated by 3 inches (or whatever, based on whatever arbitrary scale we'd use to reference this) from matter B, for example. That doesn't make something exist "in" that extensional relation.
By the way, I think I better understand your meaning of "extensional relation" now.
Oh but I can. From one perspective this is blatantly contradictory, but from another perspective it makes perfect sense. I can just see this from both perspectives.
By the way, this is a true paradox to me. Most people, especially in the scientific community look at 'paradoxes' as something to be always avoided, but, to me, paradoxes are perfect tools to use to see and better understand the Universe actually works.
To me, a 'paradox' is; a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition, which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
Even the word 'nothing' refers to some 'thing'. An area of absolute no things, or a vacuum.
In one sense, but not in another sense.
In one sense sure some thing could not be no thing. But, in another sense no thing is literally some thing. The word 'some' refers to one thing, or up to but not including ALL things, so that one thing could, literally, be nothing at all.
Does any of what I have said above make any sense at all?
Okay, if you want to look at this, this way, then what is the "extensional relation", which separates matter A from matter B, for example, made up of exactly?
Is that separated "extensional relation" made up of some thing, or no thing?
Maybe if I said, 'space' is made up of nothing, or no thing. Does that work at all for you. Does it make sense to you now?
I have to agree now, that because of the way I use and define the word 'space', then if there is no matter, then there is no 'space'.
Your use of the 'obtain' word is confusing to me. What do you mean by 'obtain' here.
I have NEVER thought, intuitively or not, that space is something that exists on its own, or exists as a container to place things in. This could not be further from the truth.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 amYou're intuitively thinking of space as a thing, as something that exists on its own, as a container to place things in.So, if the Universe consisted of just one object (x), then that object must be singularity in the sense of; an infinite compression of matter, (absolutely no space in between it) and if there is no 'space' or absolutely no thing around it, then that that single object would be infinite in size; spatially.
Why do you assume and/or believe that I have thought 'space' as something that exists on its own, and/or as a container to place things in?
These are the very last things that I have ever thought.
Is a 'distance' a 'thing'? Is a 'extensional relation' a thing? Is a 'separate extension' between matter a 'thing'?
Could 'space' be a thing, even if it exists in concept only? Is a 'unicorn' a 'thing'?
Could an area of 'nothing' be a 'thing'? Could a 'vacuum of space' be a 'thing'?
Is your view of 'things' the absolute true, right, and correct view of things?
Is it possible that 'space', itself, could be looked at, seen as, and/or viewed as a 'thing'?