If dimensionless points don't exist, does that mean space doesn't exist?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Space is supposed to be made up of an infinite number of points. It would follow that space can't exist if the points don't exist.

PhilX

[Eodnhoj7]

Space is supposed to be made up of an infinite number of points. It would follow that space can't exist if the points don't exist.

PhilX

My arguments:

The 0d point is merely an observation of relations between linear boundaries, it is not a thing in itself but rather a limit of unity.

The 0d point as a thing in itself is merely a point of inversion of this linear boundaries where a line cannot be seperated from itself but only folded through itself.

A theoretical 1d point exists as intradimensional direction that exist ad-infinitum and has no deficiency because of this. It theoretical would be the real foundation for all measurement with any "lines" being -1 dimensional structures that observe an approximate nature of this 1d point by observing multiple 1d points...hence the -1 dimensional line is merely an imaginary boundary or that which gives form.

a) The 1d point and -1d line would be an inversion of the 0d point and 1d line.

[surreptitious57]

A dimensionless point by definition cannot actually exist whereas space does
One should not confuse the map with the territory for they are not the same

As one is merely a representation of the other
Very accurate representation but nothing else

The laws of physics might be mathematical in form
But the Universe itself is not actually mathematical

[QuantumT]

It's like the year 0. It doesn't exist, except as a mind thing that separates the year 1 BC and the year 1 AD.

Even though it only exists in our minds, it is necessary to calculate values between: less than 1 and more than -1.

[Necromancer]

Only formal designators in a coordinate system, real or on "paper"? Space exists afterall?

[Eodnhoj7]

A dimensionless point by definition cannot actually exist whereas space does
One should not confuse the map with the territory for they are not the same

As one is merely a representation of the other
Very accurate representation but nothing else

The laws of physics might be mathematical in form
But the Universe itself is not actually mathematical

A 0d point as non-being is merely an inversion of being which causes a form of perceived separation. We can see

The laws of physics inevitably result in mathematics however considering these laws compose the processes of thought manifested through the various sensory organs matter gives structure too.

On the other hand there can be no consistent mathematical description of the universe due to Godel's incompleteness theorems...the laws would have to be continually redefined.

[QuantumT]

The laws of physics might be mathematical in form
But the Universe itself is not actually mathematical

Oh, but it is! Down to the very core! Actually QM is the most predictable thing in science.

Neutron stars were predicted by math. Two such ones colliding "recently" created gravitational waves - wich were also predicted by math - here on earth. A circumstatial evidence for TBB. Math rules. Math is God!

[Noax]

Space is supposed to be made up of an infinite number of points. It would follow that space can't exist if the points don't exist.

Others have already answered similarly. I've never heard of anyone asserting that space is "made up of an infinite number of points". Mathematical space, perhaps. Physics finds little use in proposing such a thing, and nobody has ever isolated a 'point' in some experiment or other. Where would a point be an hour later??? Can you stir them around?

Anyway, I wanted to ask: What is a dimensionless point that is distinct from a non-dimensionless point? What would the latter be? Why is it always described as 'dimensionless'? Seems redundant unless it actually adds meaning to the description.

The laws of physics might be mathematical in form
But the Universe itself is not actually mathematical

I actually suspect it is, but don't assert it as QuantumT seems to. Point is, keep an open mind about such things.

If it is such a thing, it seems not to work via 'points', especially space being composed of them.

[Noax]

Neutron stars were predicted by math. Two such ones colliding "recently" created gravitational waves - wich were also predicted by math - here on earth.

The collision was between black holes, not Neutron stars. In the less likely event of the collision between two such stars, yes, it also would produce gravitational waves, but so would dropping Jupiter into the sun.

Were Neutron stars predicted by math? Got a link for that? They might have been. Can't say I know myself.

[QuantumT]

The collision was between black holes, not Neutron stars. In the less likely event of the collision between two such stars, yes, it also would produce gravitational waves, but so would dropping Jupiter into the sun.

Were Neutron stars predicted by math? Got a link for that? They might have been. Can't say I know myself.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press ... e-gw170817

IMO neutron star is a bad name. I'd call it a deuterium star. Heavy hydrogen star. But there's a size issue there.

[Noax]

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press ... e-gw170817

IMO neutron star is a bad name. I'd call it a deuterium star. Heavy hydrogen star. But there's a size issue there.

Thanks for the link. Apparently it is a reasonably common event that they got to witness one so soon.
I was also asking if neutron stars were predicted by math. It seems they were predicted shortly after the discovery of the neutron in the early 30's. I see no reference to it being a particularly mathematical prediction similar to black holes being being a mathematical byproduct of the field equations of general relativity.

Neutron stars are not made of deuterium. Such a star would be incredibly unstable and explode immediately at relatively low density/temperatures. H-bombs are essentially artificial deuterium stars.
Neutron stars have almost no electrons and protons remaining. Only a little at the surface, with the rest being the dense core of just neutrons. The stars are well named.

[QuantumT]

Thanks for the link. Apparently it is a reasonably common event that they got to witness one so soon.
I was also asking if neutron stars were predicted by math. It seems they were predicted shortly after the discovery of the neutron in the early 30's. I see no reference to it being a particularly mathematical prediction similar to black holes being being a mathematical byproduct of the field equations of general relativity.

Neutron stars are not made of deuterium. Such a star would be incredibly unstable and explode immediately at relatively low density/temperatures. H-bombs are essentially artificial deuterium stars.
Neutron stars have almost no electrons and protons remaining. Only a little at the surface, with the rest being the dense core of just neutrons. The stars are well named.

Let me rephrase it then. Neutron stars are made mainly from deuterium. They contain alot of protons too.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ection.svg

[bahman]

Space is supposed to be made up of an infinite number of points. It would follow that space can't exist if the points don't exist.

PhilX

I think your problem is related to smallest real number which is not zero. This number can be found through a fractal, 1/x, in the limit that x->infinity. I am discussing the same issue in here viewtopic.php?f=26&t=24231.

[Noax]

Let me rephrase it then. Neutron stars are made mainly from deuterium. They contain alot of protons too.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ection.svg

I don't see deuterium mentioned anywhere in that picture.
Deuterium is a sort of atom, and neutron stars have very limited remaining atoms. A few at the surface at best, and most of them far heavier than a volatile thing like deuterium.

[QuantumT]

I don't see deuterium mentioned anywhere in that picture.
Deuterium is a sort of atom, and neutron stars have very limited remaining atoms. A few at the surface at best, and most of them far heavier than a volatile thing like deuterium.

Well, I don't mean that the deuterium atoms still are intact inside the star, but they are the building blocks of it. They were atoms before they became a star.