What is Space?

[PauloL]

There is no ether.

I asked at a chemist's and they said they get one bottle tomorrow.

[PauloL]

We have seen Hegel's contribution, which helped a lot.

For space to be there, we need light and ether.

Bulbs are easy buying, but not ether, so some people think ether doesn't exist (actually you can buy it at a chemist's next door and at worst they get it overnight).

Defining surface is much more complex than space, but once again Hegel will be highly helpful:

The surface is indeed the limiting of space, yet it is not the free limit itself, like a negative, but rather the union of the negative and space, the synthesis of both. In other words, it is the opposite of space placed in relation to space itself, as the negation of space, so that this is only divided – there are two spaces, but in such a way that space is indifferent in this negation and remains equal to itself, and its negation is nothing at all.

[Philosophy Explorer]

We have seen Hegel's contribution, which helped a lot.

For space to be there, we need light and ether.

Bulbs are easy buying, but not ether, so some people think ether doesn't exist.

Defining surface is much more complex than space, but once again Hegel will be highly helpful:

The surface is indeed the limiting of space, yet it is not the free limit itself, like a negative, but rather the union of the negative and space, the synthesis of both. In other words, it is the opposite of space placed in relation to space itself, as the negation of space, so that this is only divided – there are two spaces, but in such a way that space is indifferent in this negation and remains equal to itself, and its negation is nothing at all.

The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved ether in space.

PhilX

[PauloL]

The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved ether in space.

PhilX

Great. But no need to make it that clear. The subject here is space in reply to the challenge "any ideas?".

[Philosophy Explorer]

The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved ether in space.

PhilX

Great. But no need to make it that clear. The subject here is space in reply to the challenge "any ideas?".

I always strive for clarity.

PhilX

[Dubious]

...to be decided by science not by philosophy or philosophers who can do nothing more than speculate premised on their own logic.

Then are there no philosophers who refuse to theorise until and unless they have begun by collecting a lot of evidence?

Philosophers, unless trained in science, theorize on nearly everything without requiring evidence. By excluding the latter in their "thought equations", and substituting it with their own predefined premises, any notion of "evidence" is precluded. Philosophers, to maintain the prestige they once had, feel compelled to insert their two-cents worth into everything and what better than all the uncertainties currently contained in physics and cosmology.

[PauloL]

I always strive for clarity.

PhilX

That's fine indeed, but please don't miss the hard core of the post, Hegel's definition of surface, something quite related to space, undeniably a corollary:

The surface is indeed the limiting of space, yet it is not the free limit itself, like a negative, but rather the union of the negative and space, the synthesis of both. In other words, it is the opposite of space placed in relation to space itself, as the negation of space, so that this is only divided – there are two spaces, but in such a way that space is indifferent in this negation and remains equal to itself, and its negation is nothing at all.

[Walker]

Any ideas?

Yes, it's the final frontier.

For that very reason, it inspires missions.

[Dontaskme]

...to be decided by science not by philosophy or philosophers who can do nothing more than speculate premised on their own logic.

Obviously, but as philosophers lets speculate using our own ideas, and other peoples ideas if they resonate with yours.
Any scientists reading may also join in with the discussion obviously.

Can evidence for space be collected? Space obviously is, but what it is I have no idea, and yet ideas are all I've got to describe and speculate with.

It's the same problem we have with the 'SELF' ... the same dilemma arises with what is ''SELF'' ?

A Self is obviously needed for any knowing to occur...and from that knowing arises another problem, what is this 'Self' that knows the answers?

Any one who say's life and reality IS NOT A mystery, would be a very very wealthy man by now.

It's got to be a mystery, a mystery has always been one of the greatest challenges for the human mind, can the mystery that is human mind ever be solved?

I believe that the concept SPACE has to be the fundamental primary starting block that will lead us to all our answers.

Lets discover....using the only tool we have available, our imagination, and thought.

Thank-you for all your ideas so far.

.

[surreptitious57]

Space has to logically exist because no thing can exist without it so that much is known
And space would also be all that was left if there were no objects at all in the Universe
And no atoms or particles or forces just an empty vacuum of total nothing and no more

[Belinda]

...to be decided by science not by philosophy or philosophers who can do nothing more than speculate premised on their own logic.

Then are there no philosophers who refuse to theorise until and unless they have begun by collecting a lot of evidence?

Philosophers, unless trained in science, theorize on nearly everything without requiring evidence. By excluding the latter in their "thought equations", and substituting it with their own predefined premises, any notion of "evidence" is precluded. Philosophers, to maintain the prestige they once had, feel compelled to insert their two-cents worth into everything and what better than all the uncertainties currently contained in physics and cosmology.

I would like to read up on the question of whether thought should be evidence-based or theory-based but don't know what to call this question. Would it come under philosophy of science, or nature of philosophy, or what?

[uwot]

There is no ether.

Well, there is definitely no luminiferous ether. However, as Nobel Prize winner Robert Laughlin says:
“The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum…The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
The thing is, 'space' appears to have physical properties; it is some sort of 'stuff'. Rather than break the taboo of calling this stuff ether, most physicists refer instead to quantum fields.
It is ironic that Special Relativity dispensed with ether, at least of the luminiferous variety, because Einstein himself argued that General Relativity is predicated on gravitational ether:
“Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.”
Details in the usual place: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

[PauloL]

Space has to logically exist because no thing can exist without it so that much is known
And space would also be all that was left if there were no objects at all in the Universe
And no atoms or particles or forces just an empty vacuum of total nothing and no more

That's quite in line with Hegel.

Space nach Hegel:

Space is the pure abstract continuity of the activity of light – not being active as such, however, but rather the form of its being uninterrupted.

[PauloL]

Philosophers, unless trained in science, theorize on nearly everything without requiring evidence. By excluding the latter in their "thought equations", and substituting it with their own predefined premises, any notion of "evidence" is precluded. Philosophers, to maintain the prestige they once had, feel compelled to insert their two-cents worth into everything and what better than all the uncertainties currently contained in physics and cosmology.

.




Those are the philosophers criticized by Stephen Hawking. Philosophers must recover their lost prestige by making theories again in accord with scientific data again.




.

[thedoc]

(actually you can buy it at a chemist's next door and at worst they get it overnight).

It's Aether not ether, to confuse the two is just stupid,