God Does Not Exist - Question about that

[brokenhead]

From the human race's current perspective, a vacuum is a contrived mental construct. It is something we have imagined by mentally abstracting everything away from a conceived region of space. The question is, does such a conception actually refer to a reality in the physical world? Or alternatively, does our mental concept of a vacuum involve a contradiction in terms?

Does anyone want to have a crack at that one?

I'll have a crack at it.
Since the mental concept of the vacuum in the physical world is surrounded by what is not the vacuum (at the least an observer), it is logically impossible to say that absolutely everything has been removed from that conceived region of space. To say that there is absolutely nothing in this proposed vacuum would mean that it is infinte in nature, it would logically have to be the All since there is nothing else for it to relate to. The contradiciton in terms would be that this conceptual vacuum is actually everything, rather than nothing.

I'm not following you. Why can't there be a limited portion of space in which there is absolutely nothing at all situated within the Universe at large? Why would such a portion have to be infinite in nature? I can't see the connection you are making there.

Edit with a further thought:
You need conciousness to think up the notion of a vacuum in the first place, which in itself would lead to a logical contradiction in terms, i.e. no conciousness, no vacuum. Yet, even with conciousness, there is still no vacuum.

Isn't this a case of already presuming that a vacuum is nothing more than an abstraction? Why can't there be consciousness and vacuums in the same way that there can be consciousness and trees?

-

Because the vacuum is an idealization. Trees are not.

[David Quinn]

BH: There is no such thing as empty space. A vacuum is a mental construct and does not exist in the phenomenal world.
Are you saying that mental constructs are going beyond "phenomenal word"?

That they are related to the phenomal world at all is astounding.

On the contrary, given the crucible of evolution, it would be astounding if our mental constructs didn't have a close relationship to the phenomenal world. Natural selection would have quickly eliminated those individuals and species whose mental constructs seriously misrepresented the world.

-

[David Quinn]

Isn't this a case of already presuming that a vacuum is nothing more than an abstraction? Why can't there be consciousness and vacuums in the same way that there can be consciousness and trees?

Because the vacuum is an idealization. Trees are not.

You're merely repeating Robert's presumption without adding anything. Where is the proof that a vacuum is an idealization and nothing more? I haven't seen it yet.

-

[Ataraxia]

BH: There is no such thing as empty space. A vacuum is a mental construct and does not exist in the phenomenal world.
Are you saying that mental constructs are going beyond "phenomenal word"?

That they are related to the phenomal world at all is astounding.

On the contrary, given the crucible of evolution, it would be astounding if our mental constructs didn't have a close relationship to the phenomenal world. Natural selection would have quickly eliminated those individuals and species whose mental constructs seriously misrepresented the world.

-

Mental constructs represent the phenomenal world by definition.

[Robert]

From the human race's current perspective, a vacuum is a contrived mental construct. It is something we have imagined by mentally abstracting everything away from a conceived region of space. The question is, does such a conception actually refer to a reality in the physical world? Or alternatively, does our mental concept of a vacuum involve a contradiction in terms?

Does anyone want to have a crack at that one?

I'll have a crack at it.
Since the mental concept of the vacuum in the physical world is surrounded by what is not the vacuum (at the least an observer), it is logically impossible to say that absolutely everything has been removed from that conceived region of space. To say that there is absolutely nothing in this proposed vacuum would mean that it is infinte in nature, it would logically have to be the All since there is nothing else for it to relate to. The contradiciton in terms would be that this conceptual vacuum is actually everything, rather than nothing.

I'm not following you. Why can't there be a limited portion of space in which there is absolutely nothing at all situated within the Universe at large? Why would such a portion have to be infinite in nature? I can't see the connection you are making there.

I think I misunderstood your question/premise.
I was thinking about the mental concept, solely in the mind, of what a vacuum would in reality be. I thought that if such a concept means that there's absolutely nothing present, by definition it would have to be infinite in nature - since there isn't anything for the nothing in the vacuum to relate to. That was the connection I was making, but I can see how it doesn't work if you're referring to an actual portion of space somewhere. Now I'm not even sure if my logic works when thinking of the vacuum solely as a mental consruct... Does it?

But that just leads me to ask, how do you measure nothing? Is it empirically possible to make the observation that there's absolutely nothing in that portion of space?

Edit with a further thought:
You need conciousness to think up the notion of a vacuum in the first place, which in itself would lead to a logical contradiction in terms, i.e. no conciousness, no vacuum. Yet, even with conciousness, there is still no vacuum.

Isn't this a case of already presuming that a vacuum is nothing more than an abstraction? Why can't there be consciousness and vacuums in the same way that there can be consciousness and trees?

-

Right. Again though, how do you measure a vacuum?

Edit :
Is that the point? That you can't actually be certain that what you're observing is a total vacuum since you can't ever be empirically sure there isn't something you just can't detect?

[marcothay]

Is interesting how you start with questioning god existence and still,
later on, taking the op on pondering about Space and/or Vacuum.

[David Quinn]

Is interesting how you start with questioning god existence and still,
later on, taking the op on pondering about Space and/or Vacuum.

I realize that space is your pet subject, but I'm not sure that anyone else here thinks it is very important. For me, and a few others here, the point of interest is the nature of logical proof, what its limits are, what it can and cannot prove, etc.

Your fixation on space makes you appear delusional.

-

[David Quinn]

Again though, how do you measure a vacuum?

Edit :
Is that the point? That you can't actually be certain that what you're observing is a total vacuum since you can't ever be empirically sure there isn't something you just can't detect?

Yes, that is my reading of the situation as well. Since there is nothing self-contradictory about the concept of a vacuum, its possible existence falls into the category of an empirical uncertainty. As you point out, it will always be impossible for us to establish that an observed portion of space really is a vacuum or not. The limitations of our observing equipment will always make such a determination impossible either way.

This differs from, say, a mathematical point. A mathematical point cannot exist beyond the mind because its very definition - i.e. an entity with zero dimensions - negates the possibility of it existing within the dimensions of space.

-

[Loki]

Okay, so now you have a conflict. According to your original criteria (namely, that two things are separate when each of them are finite with space in between), the molecule is separate from the chair.

How do you know that molecules are actually separate from each other? What if they are all tied together by some electrical field?

You mean, like the way that the chair and the earth are tied together by a gravitational field?

Not quite. More like how, in a soup, the various chunks of meat and vegetables have no empty space in between them, there is the liquid soup holding all the chunks.

The molecules in a chair might all be held together by another form of viscous matter, much like the chunks in a soup are held in place by the liquid broth.

[JohnEDPMalin]

To the Group:

Since experimenters have created vacuums in various sort of chambers (another triumph for the human technological mind), I fail to understand the word battles here.

The 'white noise' here about 'entity' [Medieval Latin, 'entitas,' "existing thing" from present participle of Latin infinitive 'esse,' "to be"] is more heat than light.

There was a disparagement about M's love of space. The group might want to reconsider this issue. Especially, when you factor in the tedious detail that space moves faster than photons or light; it moves about 5% faster. What makes/moves space? It is dark energy.


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

--

[Blair]

There's no "Group" here, it's just the enlightened and the rest.

[JohnEDPMalin]

Prince:

Well stated !

Prince Siddhartha [c. 563-c. 483 BCE] might disagree about your claim that enlightenment is self-referential and cannot be shared or possessed by others as well.


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

--

[David Quinn]

To the Group:

Since experimenters have created vacuums in various sort of chambers (another triumph for the human technological mind), I fail to understand the word battles here.

These experimenters have no way of knowing whether they have created a true vacuum. At best, all they can say is that the "vacuums" they create appear empty of the objects that concern them.

There was a disparagement about M's love of space. The group might want to reconsider this issue. Especially, when you factor in the tedious detail that space moves faster than photons or light; it moves about 5% faster. What makes/moves space? It is dark energy.

Or, perhaps, nigger energy. Spirituality as an Olympic event .....

-

[Shahrazad]

David, the "n" word was banned from the English language. Were you not aware?

Oh, wait, that was only in the USA, and you live in Australia.

Carry on.

[JohnEDPMalin]

David:

As idle luck would have it, I just went down stairs to have some late dinner food, and picked up a copy of the Science, 21 November 2008 issue. On p. 1198 is the article, "The Weight of the World is Quantum Chromodynamics" by Andreas S. Kronfeld.

It discusses vacuums that had nothing in them: "The first obstacle is describing the "vacuum."
In classical physics, the vacuum has nothing in it (by definition), but in quantum field theories, such as QCD [Quantum Chromodynamics], the vacuum contains "virtual particles" that flit in and out of existence. In particular, the QCD vacuum is a jumble if gluons and quark-antiquark pairs...."

Would you concur with these lucid recent scientific observations, David?

What do you mean by nigger energy? Black Energy?

Have you studied about dark matter, dark energy, strings or gravitons?

About Space? How exciting of a topic that can be, few would understand.

A place to begin would be the Second Edition of Jeffrey R. Weeks' book, "The Shape of Space" (2002) p. 261 "Observations show that space is currently expanding at a rate of about 7% per billion years. In other words, if the universe were to continue expanding at its present rate, after a billion years all cosmic distances would be stretched by 7%."

By simple mathematical calculations, our galaxies are moving away from each other 5% faster than the speed of light. Remember they are each in different inertial reference frames.

David, any comments? Would you want more pagination or detail?


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin
--

[Robert]

In classical physics, the vacuum has nothing in it (by definition), but in quantum field theories, such as QCD [Quantum Chromodynamics], the vacuum contains "virtual particles" that flit in and out of existence. In particular, the QCD vacuum is a jumble if gluons and quark-antiquark pairs...."
--

Oh boy. That "flit in and out of existence" will need some 'splaining, eh John?

[marcothay]

David wrote: On the contrary, given the crucible of evolution, it would be astounding if our mental constructs didn't have a close relationship to the phenomenal world. Natural selection would have quickly eliminated those individuals and species whose mental constructs seriously misrepresented the world.

Do you really think so? Could actually being viceversa, evolution is pushed forward by
"minds" who think different from the "status quo"?
"Minds" that not wish to adapt to the external environment, but on the contrary, adapt the
environment to their will. ( You told me that the path of truth doesn't pursue 'non-determinism', remember?)

Are you aware that your comments, including the "nigger energy"'s one, plus the opinion of JohnEDPMalin:...consciousness shuts down when the brain is dead.

if taken as authoritarian truths could lead to EUGENICS ????
Definition of the word eugenics: if natural selection can't dispose of those individuals who seems to represent the world in a different way from what our enlightened and superior
brains (it's all about neurons's bio-electromagnetic complex interactions, isn't?)
see things, ...well we can eliminate those delusional people by our means!

With respect, Marco

[brokenhead]

You're merely repeating Robert's presumption without adding anything. Where is the proof that a vacuum is an idealization and nothing more? I haven't seen it yet.

As you point out, it will always be impossible for us to establish that an observed portion of space really is a vacuum or not. The limitations of our observing equipment will always make such a determination impossible either way.

You are answering your own question.

One can create a hypothetical space that is devoid of matter. It is an idealization as such. When physicists attempt to isolate a region of space and have that region be devoid of matter, virtual particles come into play.

The limitations of the observing equipment have nothing to do with it.

[brokenhead]

David, the "n" word was banned from the English language. Were you not aware?

Oh, wait, that was only in the USA, and you live in Australia.

Carry on.

It hasn't been banned in the US, Shah, but it should be. How do you ban a word, anyway? Personally, I just don't use it. David's usage of the word nigger in this thread came from out of nowhere. I suppose one cannot at the same time be a sage and a racist.

[brokenhead]

The group might want to reconsider this issue. Especially, when you factor in the tedious detail that space moves faster than photons or light; it moves about 5% faster. What makes/moves space? It is dark energy.

Could you please expound on this "tedious" detail?

[Tomas]

David, the "n" word was banned from the English language. Were you not aware?

Oh, wait, that was only in the USA, and you live in Australia.

Carry on.

It hasn't been banned in the US, Shah, but it should be. How do you ban a word, anyway? Personally, I just don't use it. David's usage of the word nigger in this thread came from out of nowhere. I suppose one cannot at the same time be a sage and a racist.

They have Aborigines. Close enough..

[David Quinn]

David:

As idle luck would have it, I just went down stairs to have some late dinner food, and picked up a copy of the Science, 21 November 2008 issue. On p. 1198 is the article, "The Weight of the World is Quantum Chromodynamics" by Andreas S. Kronfeld.

It discusses vacuums that had nothing in them: "The first obstacle is describing the "vacuum."
In classical physics, the vacuum has nothing in it (by definition), but in quantum field theories, such as QCD [Quantum Chromodynamics], the vacuum contains "virtual particles" that flit in and out of existence. In particular, the QCD vacuum is a jumble if gluons and quark-antiquark pairs...."

Would you concur with these lucid recent scientific observations, David?

I have no reason to doubt that scientists are making these observations, which is why I find it strange they are continuing to call it a "vacuum". Unless they have changed the definition of a vacuum to "a region of space empty of everything except glutons, quark-antiquark pairs and other assorted particles", it looks a little insane.

What do you mean by nigger energy? Black Energy?

I was satirizing your belief that the speed of a thing has spiritual importance. Aren't you aware that only black people have soul? And they can run about 5% faster too.

Have you studied about dark matter, dark energy, strings or gravitons?

About Space? How exciting of a topic that can be, few would understand.

A place to begin would be the Second Edition of Jeffrey R. Weeks' book, "The Shape of Space" (2002) p. 261 "Observations show that space is currently expanding at a rate of about 7% per billion years. In other words, if the universe were to continue expanding at its present rate, after a billion years all cosmic distances would be stretched by 7%."

By simple mathematical calculations, our galaxies are moving away from each other 5% faster than the speed of light. Remember they are each in different inertial reference frames.

Studying these things, though interesting in their own right, won't help you to understand the nature of reality. You have to go entirely beyond science and empirical observation if you want to see into the heart of things.

-

[David Quinn]

You're merely repeating Robert's presumption without adding anything. Where is the proof that a vacuum is an idealization and nothing more? I haven't seen it yet.

As you point out, it will always be impossible for us to establish that an observed portion of space really is a vacuum or not. The limitations of our observing equipment will always make such a determination impossible either way.

You are answering your own question.

One can create a hypothetical space that is devoid of matter. It is an idealization as such. When physicists attempt to isolate a region of space and have that region be devoid of matter, virtual particles come into play.

The limitations of the observing equipment have nothing to do with it.

If we had more powerful observing equipment, it is possible that we could see beyond the realm of virtual particles and observe a true vacuum there. On the other hand, that too could be an illusion generated by the limitations of that particular observing equipment. We would have no way of knowing.

-

[David Quinn]

How do you know that molecules are actually separate from each other? What if they are all tied together by some electrical field?

You mean, like the way that the chair and the earth are tied together by a gravitational field?

Not quite. More like how, in a soup, the various chunks of meat and vegetables have no empty space in between them, there is the liquid soup holding all the chunks.

The molecules in a chair might all be held together by another form of viscous matter, much like the chunks in a soup are held in place by the liquid broth.

Does that mean that if a piece of meat and a bean are thrown into a soup, one after the other, they are no longer separate? Why is a liquid deemed to be an acceptable joining force, but not space or air?

-

[Shahrazad]

Brokenhead,

It hasn't been banned in the US, Shah, but it should be.

You are right. It was only banned in New York.

How do you ban a word, anyway?

Well, the ban doesn't carry legal weight, but it's an attempted ban:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6406625.stm

But to answer your question, you'd have to forbid using the word in movies, songs, books, etc. People would still get away with it in verbal language, except maybe in radio shows.