My problem with Free Will

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You can define space into physical existence, but then you've gone semantical.

--Brant

you cannot name one physical attribute of space for it has none; but there is something there, it's just not space--radiation for instance: properly speaking space is a void and is nothing unless you are using it to as a measure of distance (there is no void within the universe)

Brant,

You cannot define one physical thing, not one, that does not exist in space and move around in it.

Once again, I posit there are patches of "void" in outer space. And they will remain that way until something goes in them. That means those patches will have length, breadth, height, etc., relative to what else is out here.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

You can define space into physical existence, but then you've gone semantical.

--Brant

you cannot name one physical attribute of space for it has none; but there is something there, it's just not space--radiation for instance: properly speaking space is a void and is nothing unless you are using it to as a measure of distance (there is no void within the universe)

Brant,

You cannot define one physical thing, not one, that does not exist in space and move around in it.

Once again, I posit there are patches of "void" in outer space. And they will remain that way until something goes in them. That means those patches will have length, breadth, height, etc., relative to what else is out here.

Michael

In that sense the very ground you are standing on is "space"--look at the structure of an atom. Imagine you are standing on the nucleus looking out into "outer space." Gravity is capable of crushing an atom's "space" down to next to nothing as in a neutron star, but the mass remains while the density increases. Space, however, has nothing to do with density as such because space has no mass--no nothing--it's just one measurement of density or of distance.

--Brant

a void is what might exist outside a bounded universe which it is expanding into or contracting from. That is, the universe is expanding into an infinity of nothing and creating nothing if it contracts. The difference between "space" and "void" is space is for measurement and void is space sans measurement--even epistemologically it's nothing, a pure parasite on the idea of space.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I read your words, but I just don't understand the concepts behind them. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Probably too much space between my ears.

Michael

[Peter]

I am forgetting some of what has been written on this long thread so I apologize if this has been covered. And I see that since yesterday, Dan Lewis has chimed in answering some of the following but since I have already written it, here come the questions.

Francisco wrote:

Yes, there is evidence that the senses exist, that one can observe, that one has experiences, that the experiences have a totality, that one forms concepts. But none of this necessitates the existence of something called free will.

end quote

It is plausible that within the realm of future science an artificial processing unit could be “produced,” placed within a functioning human body, and thereby an *android* created. The android brain would need to connect with the body as a human brain is naturally connected. And a human body could be augmented with robotic appendages. The android robot and the robotic human would both “grow up,” interact with its parents, and environment. Both would “learn” from experience. If both are determined what would be their essential differences?

[Peter]

In a similar vein to my last letter, Darrell wrote:

The child's choice of goals and the methods he attempted to use to attain them would be his own, but his success or failure would be determined by the nature of existence.

end quote

Could a robot’s goals be self generated? What is the difference between an android (robotic brain in a human body) and a robotic body operated by a human brain? If both are determined completely or to some degree, as volitionists and determinists agree, (though creationists may disagree) are their “totalities” completely different, or similar to a certain degree? Obviously, evolution would not have been working for a robotic brain.

[Peter]

Tony Garland wrote:

It's just that (seems to me) although all mankind shares a single commonality of molecular composition, biology, and ancient origins and evolution (at the bottom of the hierarchy) and countless more shared or common influences (moving up)- to cut it short, by the time one gets to the individual level, the single man is differentiated by what seems small things, but which are also overwhelmingly original to his consciousness.

end quote

Would a determinist or a volitionist agree:

Individual humans are unique and possess a consciousness? If we are unique does that fact negate determinism because there cannot be an infinite number of differences in a determined universe?

When a normal child becomes self aware, they presume their own identity and volition to be axiomatic?

When a defective child, as with autism and other disorders, experience themselves they think they are “determined.”

That a child makes choices determining the actuality of their own growth?

What is the evidence required for an adult human to be positive they are determined?

Would a lack of conclusive evidence cause a determinist or a volitionist to doubt his theory?

Must a determinist be able to prove no evidence for volition? If not what is the evidence for volition from a determinists viewpoint?

Must a determinist be able to predict their own future actions? If not whYNOT?

[deanwins]

Peter Taylor,

First... an android is not a "robotic brain in a human body". An android is a robot that is made "similar" to a human (similar can be in various respects: looks, sensors, actuators, data processing/thinking).

"Could a robot’s goals be self generated?" "Obviously, evolution would not have been working for a robotic brain."

A goal is a state or process which one acts to gain or keep. A goal is information that can be compared to one's sensations to determine whether the current state of reality is becoming a greater or lesser match. Given that informtion can be changed by oneself using sensors and data processing (such as deduction, induction, and other algorithms)... including goal information... yes a robot can generate its own goals (given that it has the design/structure/programming to do so). Computer programs can also be made to reproduce and evolve... but evolution is a very slow process, so for some design features this is really not a good way to attain the feature. Humans already have the design to self generate goals, and definately humans have an advantage in the evolutionary area of having millions of generations of natural selection that help them prioritize sensations that help shift focus/goal priorty/change goals when something is going wrong in order to survive.

[Peter]

Dean wrote:

. . . . Given that information can be changed by oneself using sensors and data processing (such as deduction, induction, and other algorithms)... including goal information... yes a robot can generate its own goals (given that it has the design/structure/programming to do so). Computer programs can also be made to reproduce and evolve...

end quote

Thanks for responding Dean and getting that definition right. “An android is a robot that is made "similar" to a human (similar can be in various respects: looks, sensors, actuators, data processing/thinking).”

Here is an interesting letter from a while ago, on the subject of AI from Nick Glover, who was at Clemson at the time he wrote this. Has our odyssey progressed since 2001?

Peter

Nick Glover on Atlantis, Subject: Re: Consciousness (was Re: ATL: Re: vast gulfs) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 22:51:08 -0400

. . . . Some list members have been asking for evidence or proof that strong AI is possible and have been claiming that the believers in strong AI only believe based on assumption or faith. There is no absolute proof that strong AI is possible, but I will attempt to show why I think strong AI is possible. I was initially hesitant about doing this because my argument requires knowledge of computing theory, but I have decided to try to briefly explain some of the needed computing theory as it comes up in my argument.

The Objectivist notion of causality is a key to my argument for strong AI. In ITOE, pp. 108-109, Peikoff says:

"Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so."

So based on this, we can see there exists a set of contingencies for each entity that exists. Each entity has a set of causal rules that say things like "If I encounter an entity of type X, then I will do Y in reaction to this encounter." For every possibility, what an entity will do in a situation is defined. So essentially, all of reality can be defined by sequences of potential actions for every entity. In computing theory, a sequence of actions is called an algorithm. The definition of an algorithm also includes potential or conditional actions. So all of reality can be defined by algorithm (albeit, an extremely complicated one ).

Now, it turns out that set of all of algorithms is precisely what we believe computers can do in theory (this statement is essentially the Church-Turing Thesis). I emphasize the word "believe" here because the previous statement is why my argument is not a proof. We are unable to come up with any problems which are algorithmic, yet not computable by a theoretical computer, nor are we able to come up with any analyses of algorithms (two of these are Turing Machines and recursive functions) that are any more powerful than what a computer can do in theory. Because of these reasons, the Church-Turing Thesis is generally accepted by mathematicians and computer scientists.

So, as long as we accept the Church-Turing Thesis, we can see that reality can be implemented by a computer program. The obvious criticism is that this would just be a simulation and somehow not the same as the real thing. To see how this counter-argument fails we go back to Peikoff's notion of causality. Essentially in reality, entities only affect other entities on the basis of what they do. Every aspect of an entity's identity can be converted into a set of actions that aspect entails. For example, assume I claim to have implemented all of reality in a computer program. Debbie (fictitious person not meant to resemble anyone in real life :} ) claims that an apple in our reality is red, yet the implementation of the apple in my computer program is clearly not red. My response would be that an apple is only red in our reality because it reflects red light. In my computer program, the apple also reflects red light. The light is not the light in our reality, but within the computer program it does the exact same thing as light does in our reality, so it is light within the reality implemented by the computer program. So the apple in the computer program is not red in our reality, but it is red within the reality implemented by the computer program. So, my point is that in this case, all that matters is the interactions between the entities that form a closed system and not the actual nature of those entities in our reality. Of course there are some major differences of this computer-generated reality because on a whim someone could unplug the computer and destroy the reality, but as self-contained reality it works just like our own.

The next issue is if portions of reality can be implemented by a computer program and still act correctly when interacting with our actual reality. Some things cannot be implemented by a computer program in this manner. One example is a steel-cutting tool. This nature of a steel-cutting tool requires that it be physically constructed out of components that could cut steel. However, the human mind can be implemented by a computer program. To make this as easy as possible, we can assume we have a real human body except for the brain which is just some computer components running a computer program. Clearly the internal aspects of the mind can be duplicated, because all that matters is the interactions between the internal components. However, the mind also perceives the outside world using the senses and perceives various things about the rest of one's body. This problem is not hard in principle to solve. Our body state and perception arrive in the brain as electrical signals that can be understood by our brains. All we need are converters that convert those electrical signals to the proper format to be understood by the version of the mind implemented by the computer program.

So, if someone points to some aspects of our biology as being necessary to the human mind, all we need to do is implement that aspect in our computer program to make it meet this requirement for being exactly like a human mind. For example, if I implemented the human mind as a computer program except for neurotransmitter X, and someone criticizes my model, claiming that neurotransmitter X is necessary for some vital aspect of the human mind. I would say "What does neurotransmitter X do?" "Well it is produced by T part of the brain and it bonds with neurotransmitter Y to form Z, it is a catalyst for reaction A between B and C, and it does N to the nearby neurons." Then I would just modify my human mind program so that T part of the brain produces another component to the implementation which bonds with Y to form Z, catalyzes reaction A between B and C, and does N to nearby neurons within the computer program.

In conclusion, I believe my arguments provide a good reason for believing strong AI is possible, though not a proof because the Church-Turing Thesis is not proven.

References:

Leonard Peikoff, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy", _Introduction to

Objectivist Epistemology_, Meridian, New York: 1990.

R. Gregory Taylor, _Models of Computation and Formal Languages_, Oxford

University Press: 1998.

Nick Glover: nglover@clemson.edu

Computer Science, Clemson University

Homepage: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~nglover/

"It's good to be open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out." -

Jacob Needleman

[anthony]

Would a determinist or a volitionist agree:

Individual humans are unique and possess a consciousness? If we are unique does that fact negate determinism because there cannot be an infinite number of differences in a determined universe?

When a normal child becomes self aware, they presume their own identity and volition to be axiomatic?

When a defective child, as with autism and other disorders, experience themselves they think they are “determined.”

That a child makes choices determining the actuality of their own growth?

What is the evidence required for an adult human to be positive they are determined?

Would a lack of conclusive evidence cause a determinist or a volitionist to doubt his theory?

Must a determinist be able to prove no evidence for volition? If not what is the evidence for volition from a determinists viewpoint?

Must a determinist be able to predict their own future actions? If not whYNOT?

Peter, I think you're putting this all back on its proper track, and the key is self-awareness. I believe I've been mistaken in approaching this as largely epistemological. Surely, free will can only be righteously championed, metaphysically?

To get at "volitional consciousness", let its detractors first undermine man's nature:

His consciousness, followed by his 'self-consciousness', and only then try to discredit volitional consciousness. These come as a single irreducible 'package', I think.

It is self-defeating to allow oneself to get stampeded into detaching or isolating free will from its axiomatic base.

(I speculate that its origins were the reverse: free will emerged from man's self-awareness which in turn emerged from consciousness, one shared by all sentient creatures).

A challenge to 'psychological determinists': see if you can invalidate volitional consciousness without employing volitional consciousness - and while being unaware of possessing self-awareness - and while being unconscious of man's consciousness. (Heh,Francisco?)

Out on a limb again, it seems to me that the Universe - our little bit of it, anyhow - was a nicely ordered, predictable place until man and his self-awareness (and subsequent free will) came along. Nothing has been quite the same since those hooligans moved in and messed with the Law of Causality, assuming to themselves new agents of causality.

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" - not to forget that "to command" is the point, and has always been the objective of men with quite some success.

"Darling, we are NOT staying in this damp, smelly cave through one more Cold Time! - I'm taking the kids and following the Sun without you -- if I have to!!"

[in puckish P.Taylor style.]

[Peter]

Tony wrote:

Out on a limb again, it seems to me that the Universe - our little bit of it, anyhow - was a nicely ordered, predictable place until man and his self-awareness (and subsequent free will) came along. Nothing has been quite the same since those hooligans moved in and messed with the Law of Causality, assuming to themselves new agents of causality.

end quote

Our nicely ordered, predictable universe created us. Were we inevitable? Absolutely. We were caused by the universe. The physical engineering of the human mind was caused. Dan asked, “How can more order come from chaos?” Perhaps, chaos is a very small part of the universe and humans.

We cause things to happen. What is the degree of difference humans make on earth and in the universe? We certainly make an astonishing difference on earth, and if we are the only volitional species in the universe then we make an astonishing difference in the universe.

Are those statements hubris (false pride)? “Prove it” a skeptic might say. What kind of differences do we make? We physically engineer the earth to suit our purposes. When we started bettering our environments, we increased the time and quality of time we have on earth. We preserved history, which guarantees human advancement. Who can deny the tremendous difference the enlightenment made? And that enlightenment led to the electronic and space age that is accelerating our progress at a astonishing clip.

Is it inevitable we will SOON use the space beyond earth’s atmosphere? Perhaps not soon. Could a nuclear war set us back? Yes. Could an asteroid hit set us back? Yes. Yet, I cannot give credence to the idea of a dictatorship of the earth, could set us back. It is in our nature to be volitional and that necessitates freedom to act. Our progress will be in fits and starts but the starts are happening with astonishing regularity. No known species ever exterminated itself. Why should we be different?

[dlewis]

A friend recently led me on to book called "The Brain that Changes Itself"-- I haven't read it yet, but here's the description at www.normandoidge.com/normandoidge/ABOUT_THE_BOOK.html -- pretty interesting:

ABOUT THE BOOK

THE BRAIN CAN CHANGE ITSELF. It is a plastic, living organ that can actually change its own structure and function, even into old age. Arguably the most important breakthrough in neuroscience since scientists first sketched out the brain’s basic anatomy, this revolutionary discovery, called neuroplasticity, promises to overthrow the centuries-old notion that the brain is fixed and unchanging. The brain is not, as was thought, like a machine, or “hardwired” like a computer. Neuroplasticity not only gives hope to those with mental limitations, or what was thought to be incurable brain damage, but expands our understanding of the healthy brain and the resilience of human nature.

Norman Doidge, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher, set out to investigate neuroplasticity and met both the brilliant scientists championing it and the people whose lives they’ve transformed.

The result is this book, a riveting collection of case histories detailing the astonishing progress of people whose conditions had long been dismissed as hopeless. We see a woman born with half a brain that rewired itself to work as a whole, a woman labeled retarded who cured her deficits with brain exercises and now cures those of others, blind people learning to see, learning disorders cured, IQs raised, aging brains rejuvenated, painful phantom limbs erased, stroke patients recovering their faculties, children with cerebral palsy learning to move more gracefully, entrenched depression and anxiety disappearing, and lifelong character traits altered.

Doidge takes us into terrain that might seem fantastic. We learn that our thoughts can switch our genes on and off, altering our brain anatomy. Scientists have developed machines that can follow these physical changes in order to read people’s thoughts, allowing the paralyzed to control computers and electronics just by thinking. We learn how people of average intelligence can, with brain exercises, improve their cognition and perception in order to become savant calculators, develop muscle strength, or learn to play a musical instrument, simply by imagining doing so.

Using personal stories from the heart of this neuroplasticity revolution, Dr. Doidge explores the profound implications of the changing brain for understanding the mysteries of love, sexual attraction, taste, culture and education in an immensely moving, inspiring book that will permanently alter the way we look at human possibility and human nature.

[Peter]

Rambling.

Someone else mentioned the “who’s going to care factor,” if we are proven to be “determined” by factors 98 percent of the time. Would it change people’s behavior in any way? No, though the referenced article on neuro-plasticity shows the promise of using science to improve our lives. Would determinism make people think about themselves in a different way? I doubt it has made Francisco distrust his judgment 8- ) It might make it’s way to jokes on late night TV. The lame excuse, “The devil made me do it,” won’t change to “the stimulus and my genes made me do it.” I wonder if Fox will pick up Jay Leno? If “the market” or ratings were any way predictable there would only be one network.

It would be nice to know there is research to curb criminal behavior, autism, and Alzheimer’s but will research allow despots to use mind control to rule? Bring it on. That has been tried since ancient times through cults and propaganda and occasionally it does seem to win over 51 percent of the population as it did in Nazi Germany, for a time. The State Run Media, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc., is effective and most Americans have yet to catch on. Ah, Obama. Sieg heil! “Don’t cry for me, Argentina!” “Introducing the Beatles!” Ah, celebrities. How fleeting.

We always rebel against despots. Trends in humanity go in cycles and right now I think the West, China, and India are going to continue to be variations of democracies. Market forces are in play and I think science will better our lives, “to boldly go where no one has gone before,” forever. I feel better now.

[anthony]

Our nicely ordered, predictable universe created us. Were we inevitable? Absolutely. We were caused by the universe. The physical engineering of the human mind was caused.

Yes, inevitable - the stuff of the universe is our composition, though not our defining characteristic, as everything is made of it.

Is it the crux of the hard determinist/volitionist divide? one reduces life to atomic particles, the other asserts that life doesn't begin until the cellular level. Is that all? It's physicists debating biologists...

Originating in their volitional consciousness, men put causes into effect anticipating desired outcomes.

[Peter]

Tony wrote:

There's the hard determinist/volitionist divide, the one reduces life to atomic particles, and the other asserts that life does not begin until the cellular level.

end quote

Atoms that will be caused to form a more complex element are not the final element. What does that mean to us? *Potentials* are not actualities. Life begins when life begins. A person begins when a person is there.

I am certainly not one who holds that a *naïve* view is superior, but only a person who dwells on determinism will ever twinkle think they are determined. That will only make them woozy. We naturally think the opposite, that we are volitional. We are the masters of our own destiny in the sense that we can affect reality. We can’t change physical laws but we can raise our own conscious awareness and focus on particulars that are not determined to the nth degree.

Here in America we have some silly insurance commercials that use the premise that “. . . everybody knows that, but did you know . . . this made up, new example from an alternate history?” which demonstrates the multitude of possibilities available to humans. So again I ask myself, “What does that mean to us?” Telescopes change our perception of the Universe. Microscopes change our perceptions of ourselves. The universe will always be changing. As the “determinism question” is rephrased, utilizing scientific advances we will still refocus on our internal consciousnesses as epistemological proof, because that is how we are made. The correct concept may be *space/time* but we will only experience *time.* Our personalities may learn of other dimensions but our shoes will only trod the few we were made to trod.

We will more extensively know the way the universe works. We will evolve to be superior beings. We will need to give our species a different name. But I am positive we will never fashion our new selves to be *determined.*

And this final question is for Tony and others who live off the beaten track. Do you consider yourselves to be *western?* in the sense of culture and science? Dumb question?

[Brant Gaede]

Here in America we have some silly insurance commercials that use the premise that “. . . everybody knows that, but did you know . . . this made up, new example from an alternate history?” which demonstrates the multitude of possibilities available to humans. So again I ask myself, “What does that mean to us?”

We will more extensively know the way the universe works. We will evolve to be superior beings. We will need to give our species a different name. But I am positive we will never fashion our new selves to be *determined.*

Beware. Beware of monsters from the Id!

--Brant

"My beloved Krell could hardly have imagined what was happening to them." (Morbius)

[Peter]

The actor Hugh Brant wrote:

Beware. Beware of monsters from the Id!

end quote

You did a smashing job in “Notting Hill,” Mr. Brant!

Since I proclaimed we would never make a newer, better human “more determined” I have been thinking about the cloned army in the “Star Wars” franchise. They would be monsters from the id, or monsters of the idway.

However, if you, dear reader, were constructing your replacement (sometimes termed procreating) what attributes would you give your progeny? I think the same is what a scientist would make of a cloned human: the best and the brightest.

[anthony]

And this final question is for Tony and others who live off the beaten track. Do you consider yourselves to be *western?* in the sense of culture and science? Dumb question?

Not dumb: it's a balancing act Peter, which isn't so uncomfortable, despite the fact (because of?) that after all this time I don't really feel this is my country.

The Settler Afrikaners used to call us (new English immigrants -and ones who'd stayed here for generations from the UK -alike) "sout-piels". Clever and rude . They regarded us as one foot here, and one foot cravenly rooted back in the Old Country, ready to flee..

"Sout" is salt, the other refers to what could get wet hanging over the ocean.

(They, or many, had long memories back to the Boer War, so Brits were not popular. With just cause.

Now we despised "Colonists" of whatever stripe are all in the same boat.)

But I'm drifting off your question, yes -western in culture and ideas with a few indigenous touches in there.

[Selene]

They would be monsters from the id, or monsters of the idway.

I prefer the original Monsters of the Midway...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1106/best-nicknames/content.25.html

[Darrell Hougen]

Space doesn't have an identity because it doesn't exist.

Darrell,

This is the kind of statement that just doesn't make sense to me.

I think in terms almost like a painter, and I believe Rand's concept theory is similar. There's background and subject.

Rand's definitions (and I have already found these terms with Aristotle) are genus and differentia. This is abstraction, but I believe it reflects the way reality is.

I consider space to be the background where things exist and move around in.

I don't consider myself, for example as existing with a "space-like" field all around me that will provide measurements between me and other individual things all endowed with their own "fields." And my "field" will extinguish once I am no longer existing. Hell, it is still there for the vermin that will eat my corpse.

I prefer to call space a universal background for everything.

This is an excellent premise for a science fiction story, though. Imagine if individualized space-fields were the way reality works and some evil warlord or mad scientist invented a way to sabotage such fields. All hell would break loose.

Hmmmm... I might think about this.

Michael

Well, Brandt made most of the arguments I would have made. What are the properties of space? If it doesn't have any, does it exist?

You could look at the cosmic background radiation. Supposedly, all interstellar or intergalactic space at least has some non-zero radiation temperature. But, according the theories that give a non-zero background radiation, space is also finite.

Also, gravitational fields seem to give some structure to space locally. But, perhaps it is matter that exists and one of its features is a gravitational field.

Is mensurability a property of something? That seems to be your argument. Space doesn't have a length or a distance, but any two points in space have some distance between them. But, if the points are just a mathematical construct, perhaps space is too.

Darrell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Darrell,

I just looked into the Standard Model of particle physics to get a gist of how physicists think of fields. (Don't worry. I'm not going to pretend I understood even half of what that article says. I'm a layman and proud of it. )

But it occurs to me if the brainiacs can posit a big-ass Higgs field as a "background" for everything, I don't see why space can't be the background of that.

You don't prove space (or time, for that matter) in the same manner you don't prove existence or identity. Everything that exists does so within space and time and that's where you start.

You want one property of space? OK. It's a big-ass infinite expanse holding the potential for things and fields and forms to exist within it. That potential is a characteristic.

It exists together with time in the same manner identity and existence are joined. To use a metaphor, it is like facets of a gem-stone. You cannot remove a facet and make it a stand-alone thing. But that does not mean "facet" does not exist.

(This is off the top of my head, but it makes sense.)

Michael

[tmj]

Is space the "stuff" between the earth and the moon, or just the between?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I read your words, but I just don't understand the concepts behind them. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Probably too much space between my ears.

Michael

When we think of space we naturally think of something without anything in it. But that is a void. What space actually is is a measurement of distance and/or volume, never mind what's between A and B (or in a box with its lots of space). There is always something between them. It's not space. The something is physical. The space is an idea. If you travel to the moon you travel through background radiation. If you fly from Chicago to New York you fly through air. Outer space means space not of this earth and its atmosphere. This is not the space in your living room. Space can be envisioned as one, two or three dimensional. A line, a plane, a block (of space). If you travel 200,000 miles to the moon you have covered 200,000 miles of space. It is only distance.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

To me, measurement is an idea.

Space can exist without the human mind. Measurement cannot.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

To me, measurement is an idea.

Space can exist without the human mind. Measurement cannot.

Michael

It takes a little more than two seconds for a beam of light from earth reflected off the moon back to earth to make the journey. That's the distance involved--the "space" between A and B. The human mind or not that is the attribute of something measured. It's best not to call "space" space here for it implies space is something--distance--which in itself is nothing but measurement--confusing the issue. It's kinda like putting clothes on a scarecrow when there is actually no scarecrow, something you can do in your mind, not in the field.

Let's assume the Big Bang and the purported existence of background radiation from the Big Bang. If true everywhere you go in the universe there will be that radiation which in turn means no "void" and space cannot in turn represent any void for it's nothing at all. What space represents is the existence of things in space (measured and IDed) if only that radiation. Things are identified and measured, density of a thing being one possible measurement. (I don't think you measure radiation by density.)

When we talk of space we need to ID what kind of space. When it comes to a void we say it's the absence of anything and everything. The problem is when the two ideas or words are used interchangeably. We commonly think of "outer space" as a void. That's really a contradiction. Is the space in your living room a "void"? Is a void the "space" in your living room? If no void is there then neither is space in that sense so what does the mere idea of space represent applied to your living room? Has to be a void plus something(s): chair, sofa, table, walls, ceiling, etc.

"Space" is the victim of verbal promiscuity. Just use the word without any idea of a "void."

--Brant

I know, I know: I've made things worse

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I still don't see what's wrong with the existence of an empty expanse.

I see the idea of it bothers you, but I don't understand why, yet. You say a void is a contradiction and seem to equate void with nothing at all. That's still an idea, not a reality.

If we come across a patch of universe with nothing at all in it, it will have size relative to the rest of everything. In fact, the potential for size is an attribute of space.

In other words, space is only a void in that in its purest form, it excludes everything else that exists except space. It's a form that is not made up of smaller stuff.

I have not thought of it before, but it's a top thing when I use the top down and bottom up metaphor for existence. In the same manner subparticles exist as a primary, space exists as a primary. (Time, too.) You don't reduce it any farther than it is by itself. It just is.

How do we know it? Hell, like with subparticles, we observe that is is part of everything.

Saying space doesn't exist sounds to me like the other side of the coin of what certain religious folks (and philosophers) do when they say physical reality doesn't exist, only consciousness does. Folks look at only half of reality and say the other half doesn't exist because the half they look at doesn't explain the half they don't.

Michael