We have to acknowledge that MU is narrowly correct.. — tim wood
But he would deny space per se. If what separates my desk and bed is four feet of air, and there is no space, then removing the air is removing the medium in/of which the measurement is made, and thus my bed and desk then touching, Yes? — tim wood
I forget, please remind me. The distance from my bureau to my desk is four feet. What is between them? — tim wood
And it is possible we simply understand two - at least two - different things in our respective usages of "space." Perhaps you could offer your definition or if you claim there's no such thing, then so state. — tim wood
So, from my OED, the first definition of "space" reads like this: "a continuous unlimited area or expanse which may or may not contain objects etc." — Metaphysician Undercover
What I've been telling you, is that this does not refer to anything real, independent, in the world. It is an ideal which facilitates all sorts of human activities of conceptualizing, measuring, etc.. Take your example of movement now. — Metaphysician Undercover
Mine is too simple: it is that which remains when every thing is removed: the space, e.g., between my bureau and my desk. And when things are present, what they occupy. — tim wood
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.