Space does not represent any property of objects as things in themselves — Wayfarer
What can be imagined' is all that's being talked about when we say Nixon might not have been elected or that the universe might have had other laws. — frank
You don’t consider actuality/determinism and possibility opposites? Is it not true that if a thing is determined, its being other than that determination, is impossible? And if a thing is merely possible, or a thing is possibly this or possibly that, no determination as yet relates to it? — Mww
I don't know if the nature of space is a digression from cause and effect. Isn't space a logical a priori for them to exist? — Haglund
Against Leibniz. So space is more than just the relation between objects, as the two gloves are not the same. Then how the gloves diffe — Haglund
I'm not sure what you meant by "nice shape", but in information theory it's the relationships that make the "form" or "pattern" or "meaning". So, perhaps the degree & kind of inter-relationship (0% to 100%, angular/linear, etc) defines the properties of the particle. But, I'm also just guessing. Along the same lines, I understand that energy at light-speed is massless, but as light energy slows down, it gains weight (mass). In other words, matter (mass) is just heavy light. Of course, physicists may not appreciate such an over-simplified layman's explanation. But it works for my amateur information-based worldview.t's my guess that when matter, particles, are in some nice shape wrt each other, the total mass is someone higher. Or, on a memory chip, if the 1's and 0's show an ordered pattern, the mass of the chip is slightly higher than if they showed randomness. What if the showed total order? Say all 1 or all 0? — Haglund
Yes. Was it supposed to be a wiki thing? That’s what came up. — Mww
It was just a metaphor. We can imagine logical relationships, but we can't see or touch them. So, we talk about logical relationships as-if they were physical connections. Those metaphors & analogies allow us to "peer into" un-actualized possibilities. And, by following the implicit Logic, to make some of those not-yet-real concepts/patterns become real physical things (inventions). "Spirit! Reveal yourself!" :joke:There’s nothing ‘ghostly’ about mathematical logic applied to physical processes. That enables us to peer into the domain of pure possibility and actualise something we see in material form. That’s how inventions happen! — Wayfarer
It is the bounding limit on curvature. — apokrisis
Im not involving QM, insofar the objective existence of space is involved. It's nature. If objects interact doesn't space have to be an objective medium? — Haglund
This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers.... The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use them of elementary particles....it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.
During the coming years, the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?
I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or — in Plato's sense — Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics. — Werner Heisenberg, The Debate between Plato and Democritus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.