Is space nothing?


jts

Recommended Posts

Does this mean Objectivism says space is nothing?

From Ayn Rand Lexicon:

“Space,” like “time,” is a relational concept. It does not designate an entity, but a relationship, which exists only within the universe. The universe is not in space any more than it is in time. To be “in a position” means to have a certain relationship to the boundary of some container. E.g., you are in New York: there is a point of the earth’s surface on which you stand—that’s your spatial position: your relation to this point. All it means to say “There is space between two objects” is that they occupy different positions. In this case, you are focusing on two relationships—the relationship of one entity to its container and of another to its container—simultaneously.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Imagine an object spinning in an otherwise empty cosmos. What is it spinning in relation to? There is nothing else. Does it even make sense to say that it is spinning? If it is spinning, then it is experiencing centrifugal force. The centrifugal force would be proof that it is spinning and the only possible proof of spinning in an otherwise empty cosmos. If space is nothing, as Peikoff seems to be saying in the ARL quote, then how is spinning (as proved by centrifugal force) possible? This thought experiment seems to suggest that space is something and not nothing. The object is spinning in relation to space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Space is something. It is physical in nature. If it wasn't there, we could not transit through it. Space itself is an entity, as is the universe.

There is no such thing as "nothing". The term is only used in reference to the absence of a specific thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term is only used in reference to the absence of a specific thing.

Kacy,

I, too, am not a fan of the way Rand obliterated the ontology of space and time and made them epistemological.

I cannot imagine an entity existing without being set in space and time. Rand seems to insinuate that this is possible, although she never said that (to my knowledge) and I admit I might be wrong.

But I would even go so far as to say "The term is only used in reference to the physical background of all specific things including itself."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(KacyRay, welcome back; missed you.)

We need to differentiate between the epistemological concept of "space" and its ontology. Also, we need to limit "thought experiments" to reality. If you read the actual thought experiments of Einstein (primarily) and others, they all have physical constraints.

Does God exist? Let us have a thought experiment in which you are outside of existence and you command the creation of light. That is not a thought experiment.

An object alone in space (you mean spacetime), cannot be spinning. That would require establishing a frame of reference beyond the frame of reference: the top is spinning relative to "space". But for that, then, space must be held constant and unmoving -- relative to what?

This is not a new problem. 2500 years ago, when Demokritos (Democritus) of Abdera posited that all matter is comprised of atoms, the easy question was: What is between the atoms?

It is not a mere accident of Indo-European grammar that nothing does not exist. Nothing is not a special kind of something. So-called "empty" space is a field. That concept, the field, goes back to William Gilbert in the 16th century. Our understanding is more sophisticated, we like to think...

MSK: Ayn Rand was explicit: The universe does not exist in time; time exists within the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean Objectivism says space is nothing?

From Ayn Rand Lexicon:

“Space,” like “time,” is a relational concept. It does not designate an entity, but a relationship, which exists only within the universe. The universe is not in space any more than it is in time. To be “in a position” means to have a certain relationship to the boundary of some container. E.g., you are in New York: there is a point of the earth’s surface on which you stand—that’s your spatial position: your relation to this point. All it means to say “There is space between two objects” is that they occupy different positions. In this case, you are focusing on two relationships—the relationship of one entity to its container and of another to its container—simultaneously.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Imagine an object spinning in an otherwise empty cosmos. What is it spinning in relation to? There is nothing else. Does it even make sense to say that it is spinning? If it is spinning, then it is experiencing centrifugal force. The centrifugal force would be proof that it is spinning and the only possible proof of spinning in an otherwise empty cosmos. If space is nothing, as Peikoff seems to be saying in the ARL quote, then how is spinning (as proved by centrifugal force) possible? This thought experiment seems to suggest that space is something and not nothing. The object is spinning in relation to space.

You then must be inside the object for you are not part of the "empty" nor, actually, is the "cosmos." It too is inside that object. The empty is nothing. Nothing is nothing. Space is nothing. What is something is the something between, say, two objects--radiation, gravity waves, "dark matter"(?). Whatever, but not "space." Metaphysically distance too is nothing. These are all concepts used for measurements.The void out there in outer space is only defined into existence. The absence of this,The absence of that. But there are thats not to be rid of. Actually, there is no void, distance or space.

--Brant

reality too is nothing; it's not a thing; it's a concept full of things--all things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK: Ayn Rand was explicit: The universe does not exist in time; time exists within the universe.

Michael,

Nobody I know thinks the universe is in space. Everybody I know thinks space is part of the universe. I have no idea where Rand got the notion that people actually think that.

But anyway, that's only half. Rand also said space is not stuff (like an entity is stuff). It's merely the relationship of stuff.

That's weird. That makes form without content. Physical entity ghosts, so to speak.

Think of an atom, which is mostly space. In Rand's version, the space doesn't really exist as space. It only exists as a relationship of subparticles.

I say that idea is baloney. A classic case of trying to deduce reality from principles to make them tidy.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spacetime has curvature (as has been corroborated by experiment) so it must be something.

At one time back in the 1920 Einstein made a somewhat offhand remark referring to space as a kind of aether. Of course the Aetherists jump right to that. Anything that can be bent can't be a mere relationship.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK: Ayn Rand was explicit: The universe does not exist in time; time exists within the universe.

Michael,

Nobody I know thinks the universe is in space. Everybody I know thinks space is part of the universe. I have no idea where Rand got the notion that people actually think that.

I don't know where Rand got it, but Newton thought that there's Absolute Space and Time.

Here's a Google search link:

https://www.google.com/#q=newton+absolute+space

And here's a section from a brief discussion on a site called "Universe Today."

link

[The quoted paragraph is from Newton's Principia.]

"Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another."

In other words, Absolute Space is the study of space as an absolute, unmoving reference point for what inertial systems (i.e. planets and other objects) exist within it. Thus, every object has an absolute state of motion relative to absolute space, so that an object must be either in a state of absolute rest, or moving at some absolute speed.

These views were controversial even in Newtons own time. However, it was with the advent of modern physics and the Theory of Special Relativity, that much of the basis for Newtonian physics would come to be shattered. In essence, special relativity proposed that time and space are not independent realities but different expressions of the same thing. In this model, time and motion are dependent on the observer and there is no fixed point of reference, only relative forms of motion which are determined by comparing them to other points of reference.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Are you saying Newton considered space and time to be outside of the universe?

I don't get that meaning from the passage you quoted. The meaning I get is he considers it a part of the universe with the property of being absolute.

To use a metaphor, from my understanding of what you quoted, if one were to use that as a standard and then claim space is not a part of the universe, it would sound like saying water is not a part of the ocean (which is nothing but the fish, seaweed, etc.). I don't envision Newton claiming that, albeit I have not read him.

Maybe I'm missing something...

Michael


EDIT: To cite the Wikipedia article you linked:

According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe.


That says "throughout" the universe, in other words within it, as part of it. Not outside it. Granted, this is Wikipedia, but I think it is reasonable to assume the author of that statement had enough study of Newton to come to that conclusion based on something Newton wrote and did not pull it out of thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A prefacing comment about "the universe."

Newton and everyone up to less than a hundred years ago - including Einstein when he wrote the papers of his "Miraculous Year," 1905 - had a radically different notion of the size of "the universe" from ours today. It wasn't known then that our galaxy is just one of "billions and billions" of galaxies. The scale on which people thought about cosmology was "cosy" compared to our present scale.

--

I didn't notice when I posted #10 that the quote marks for the passage from Newton's Principia didn't show up. I've put them in.

Here's the Newton quote again:

link

"Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another."

(More in a few minutes.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have graphics abilities, so I'll have to try to explain this in words and hope you can visualize the explanation.

What Newton is talking about as Absolute Space in the above quote, space which "remains always similar and immovable," can be likened to a piece of graph paper marked into squares, only extending forever, as a frame in regard to which everything can be given an absolute position.

Thus, for instance, suppose that you place a square object atop a particular square of the graph paper. The position remains that position even if you then move the square to a different square of the graph paper. So first the object was in one coordinate position of space and then it's moved to a different coordinate position.

This is different from the relative position of one object to another. For instance, if you place two square objects atop two adjacent squares, they're contiguous, no relative space between them. Now if you move one of the objects, you have the two of them separated by some relative space. You can vary the relative space, but each object at any instant will have an absolute position in regard to the coordinate system and irrespective of its position relative to another object.

Rand's view was that there isn't the absolute coordinate system, only relative position.

Does that help to clarify the difference?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I understand that part. But there's two ways to think about it. There's all this graph paper and the universe is on it. Or the universe is like a box with all this graph paper in it.

Rand said, "The universe is not in space any more than it is in time." In other words, she implies some people think that there is all this graph paper with the universe on it.

Like I said, I don't know anyone who thinks that way. Nor have I read anyone claiming that.

I didn't get the impression Newton thought that from the quotes you provided, either. I got more the box-like idea with the graph paper in it (even if the walls might be infinite. :smile: )

I might be wrong, but I don't see anything that makes me change my mind yet.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the universe is ever expanding it is infinite for it is expanding into nothing and nothing is infinite.

--Brant

knows nothing

There is no into. The Cosmos is presumable all there is.

As Carl Sagan used to say billyuns and billyuns of times: The Cosmos is all there ever was, all there is and all there ever will be.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(KacyRay, welcome back; missed you.)

Thanks!

I don't think time "exists in the universe"... I thought that Einstein demonstrated that time is nothing more than a relationship between space and motion. At least, that's the way I always understood it.

Space can be bent. It can be examined. It can be traversed. It is expanding. It obviously exists. Space is not something the universe it sitting in... it is part of the very fabric of the universe.

In other words, if ever there was a time (if I can use that term) when this universe didn't exist... then neither did the space we currently observe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't get the impression Newton thought that [the universe is in space] from the quotes you provided, either. I got more the box-like idea with the graph paper in it (even if the walls might be infinite. :smile: )

Maybe this from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will help on the difference:

link

Isaac Newton founded classical mechanics on the view that space is distinct from body and that time passes uniformly without regard to whether anything happens in the world. For this reason he spoke of absolute space and absolute time, so as to distinguish these entities from the various ways by which we measure them (which he called relative spaces and relative times). From antiquity into the eighteenth century, contrary views which denied that space and time are real entities maintained that the world is necessarily a material plenum. Concerning space, they held that the idea of empty space is a conceptual impossibility. Space is nothing but an abstraction we use to compare different arrangements of the bodies constituting the plenum. Concerning time, they insisted, there can be no lapse of time without change occurring somewhere. Time is merely a measure of cycles of change within the world.

Associated with these issues about the ontological status of space and time was the question of the nature of true motion. Newton defined the true motion of a body to be its motion through absolute space. Those who, before or shortly after Newton, rejected the reality of space, did not necessarily deny that there is a fact of the matter as to the state of true motion of any given body. They thought rather that the concept of true motion could be analyzed in terms of the specifics of the relative motions or the causes thereof. The difficulty (or, as Newton alleged, the impossibility) of so doing constituted for Newton a strong argument for the existence of absolute space.

Rand had a plenum notion which she called "little stuff."

I repeat that I don't know if Rand had Newton in mind. It just sounds to me as if she might have. She knew little about physics and might just have picked up something vague about there being an idea of space and time which opposed Aristotle's relational view.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I just had a thought.

Here is a notion in my mind that cuts clearer to the point I try to make with the inside and outside the universe.

In my view, existence and the universe are synonyms. When we examine them separately, it's merely a shift in perspective, not an ontological distinction, i.e, not a different animal (not a great metaphor, but useful :smile: ).

My beef with Rand's formulation, treating the universe and time as if they were distinct, is that this implies existence can be made up of things that do not depend on belonging to the universe.

In fact, I begin to wonder what she means by "universe." It seems foggy, especially if she wants to make it more fundamental than time (or less) as separate forms of existence. The best definition she came up for existence was the arm waving "I mean this" ostensive definition, so, in my mind, she did not think this concept through, but instead, reasoned based on surface-like assumptions.

I don't know of anyone, outside of implications in religious utterances like the great void in Genesis, who posits space and time exist universe-less and somehow the universe was poured on top of them, so to speak. That would imply that the universe could be destroyed, but space and time never. And that would imply that this universe could be destroyed and another could be somehow poured into the "soup of nothingness" to get real Biblical (i.e., the space and time soup of nothingness, although Rand would have never stated it that way since for her, "nothingness" is not something but lack of something--and I agree with that).

Separating space/time from the universe opens a wonderful door for those who posit separate realms of existence like heaven and hell. But I am unaware of anyone who has used that argument. They normally make God the background and source at the same time.

In my view, we're all part of the same thing, space and time are part of this "same thing," and man knows precious little about what all is out there so far (and, for that matter, what all is in here). But he does know something.

btw - On Rand's "little stuff," leave it to Peikoff to come up with "puffs of existence." :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one believes that there may exist, or may have existed, or may at some future point existed, *universes* either parallel to this one, or existing prior to or after the death of this one....

then it would be useful to draw a distinction between the "universe" and "existence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one believes that there may exist, or may have existed, or may at some future point existed, *universes* either parallel to this one, or existing prior to or after the death of this one....

then it would be useful to draw a distinction between the "universe" and "existence".

The cosmologists use the terms universe and multiverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm familiar with that, and that's my point... if one accepts a multiverse, then those other universes would be subsumed under the concept "existence", however they would not be subsumed under the concept of the "universe" in which we dwell.

Hence the need to distinguish between those concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way to avoid the concept "everything there is in some state or form or another". The only problem is that this concept does not have a referent in our actual experience. It is an abstraction derived from other abstractions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right.

Most people, when they use the term "universe", they are using it synonymously with "everything there is". The problem is that science is speculating that this may not be the case. There could be entire realms of existence that are not only separate from ours, but metaphysically unreachable from ours. i.e. No possible way for our universe to observe or examine them, even in theory.

How then can we know of their existence? I have no clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now