The Universe.

[VVilliam]

Now, as we were, we are, still, just waiting for "vvilliam" to explain how there could not just possibly be a so-called 'real physical thing' between actual physical things like 'particles of matter', but how there is a so-called 'real physical thing' between 'actual physical matter'.

Please reword your question as it is confusing to me in the present way you have written it..

you claimed: Space is a real physical thing.

I asked: How, exactly?

Hopefully you do not find this confusing.

We are still waiting for this answer/clarification.

Now, to reword my other question here.

If 'space', itself, is also a physical thing, then this means absolutely everything is a physical thing, which obviously means there is no separation anywhere. So, how do you explain this anomaly, inconsistency, or contradiction in relation to your claim that 'space is a real physical thing'?

I have already given my answer. You are still conflating "space" with "distance". If you ceased from doing that, the answer should become apparent to you. There is no "anomaly" or "inconsistency" or "contradiction" once the realisation of the truth that - even that everything THING is physical, (this includes what is in the space between things) and that distance is a measurement and thus not counted as "something physical".

The image below (which I had said I would provide) should (hopefully) help one understand.

[Age]

Please reword your question as it is confusing to me in the present way you have written it..

you claimed: Space is a real physical thing.

I asked: How, exactly?

Hopefully you do not find this confusing.

We are still waiting for this answer/clarification.

Now, to reword my other question here.

If 'space', itself, is also a physical thing, then this means absolutely everything is a physical thing, which obviously means there is no separation anywhere. So, how do you explain this anomaly, inconsistency, or contradiction in relation to your claim that 'space is a real physical thing'?

I have already given my answer. You are still conflating "space" with "distance".

1. you gave your answer, which just is; 'space is a real physical thing'. you have, obviously, not backed this up nor clarified this any way. So, you have not answer and clarified, how 'space', itself, is a real physical thing. Once again, just saying 'space is a real physical thing' does not make it so.

2. I only have asked questions here, I have not stated anything at all about 'space' and 'distance'. So, you making the Truly absurd and ridiculous claim that I, still, conflating 'space' and 'distance' is show and proving you either cannot understand what a Truly simple question, asked OPENLY for clarification is, exactly, or, you are just trying to deflect away from you not answering and thus not clarifying here.

If you ceased from doing that, the answer should become apparent to you.

It is 'your answer' that 'space' is, supposedly, a 'real physical thing' I am trying to get you to show and clarify. That you have not done this so far is showing and proving that you cannot.

'your, so far, answer' here is more than just 'apparent', it is clearly written down here for all here to look at and see.

There is no "anomaly" or "inconsistency" or "contradiction" once the realisation of the truth that - even that everything THING is physical, (this includes what is in the space between things) and that distance is a measurement and thus not counted as "something physical".

So, 'now' how do you separate 'space' from the other physical things?

If you cannot, for any reason, then what you are essentially just saying and meaning here is that Everything, or the whole Universe, is just 'one physical material', right?

If no, then explain this, and elaborate on this further.

But, if yes, then how are the smallest particles 'separated'? Or, are you saying that they are not?

The image below (which I had said I would provide) should (hopefully) help one understand.

you obviously are still a long way off comprehending and understanding what I have said, claimed, and pointed out here.

But, this is totally understandable considering what you have been and are continuing to do here.

[VVilliam]

Obviously we have reached an impasse. These things happen.

[Age]

Obviously we have reached an impasse. These things happen.

Progress can be very, very easily made here, and very simply so I will add. But, you obviously want to stay where you are and do not want to proceed and move forward, so then be it.

Now, obviously water is a real physical thing, and what is even more obvious is that absolutely all physical things are made up of the exact same thing. But, what you keep missing and misunderstanding here is that there is not just one physical thing only. As the exact same physical thing is 'separated' somehow. And how that is 'separated' I have already explained, and which you do not want to 'look at', and 'see' and understand.

So, you can stay 'stuck' where you are "vvilliam" for as long as you like.

[VVilliam]

I did think that progress could be very, very easily made here, and very simply, I will add. But, you obviously want to stay where you are and do not want to proceed and move forward, so that is that.

Now, obviously water is a real physical thing, and what is just as obvious is that absolutely all things are made up of the exact same thing, that being "physical substance". But, what you keep missing and misunderstanding here is that there is the many physical things are all part of the one physical thing. Just one physical thing only. The exact same physical thing is not separated "somehow"and how it is not separated (even that it has many separate things) I have already explained, and which you do not want to 'look at', and 'see' and understand.

So, you can stay 'stuck' where you are "age" for as long as you like.

[Age]

I did think that progress could be very, very easily made here, and very simply, I will add. But, you obviously want to stay where you are and do not want to proceed and move forward, so that is that.

Now, obviously water is a real physical thing, and what is just as obvious is that absolutely all things are made up of the exact same thing, that being "physical substance". But, what you keep missing and misunderstanding here is that there is the many physical things are all part of the one physical thing. Just one physical thing only. The exact same physical thing is not separated "somehow"and how it is not separated (even that it has many separate things) I have already explained, and which you do not want to 'look at', and 'see' and understand.

So, you can stay 'stuck' where you are "age" for as long as you like.

But I am not stuck here "villiam".

I have already proved your claim here False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, you have, obviously, not been able to refute what I have said and claimed here.

So, as you stay 'stuck', exactly, where you are here. The rest of 'us' move along, evolving and proceeding.

Obviously, what separates 'the material' from itself cannot be itself. So, what you are trying to claim here is just ridiculous and absurd. Unless, of course, you can show 'matter', itself, is infinite, while there is also a thing existing contemplating this one solitary 'piece of matter'.

[Age]

I did think that progress could be very, very easily made here, and very simply, I will add. But, you obviously want to stay where you are and do not want to proceed and move forward, so that is that.

Considering that it was you alone who concluded that 'you had reached an impasse', while I obviously had not, then what you say and claim here about 'me' is just absurd and ridiculous.

Now, obviously water is a real physical thing, and what is just as obvious is that absolutely all things are made up of the exact same thing, that being "physical substance".

So, "vvilliam" is still 'stuck' and unable to 'see' the absolute contradiction of saying and claiming that, 'There is 'space' between 'matter', but that 'space' is made up of the exact same 'physical substance' as 'matter', itself.

This one here known as "vvilliam" is more CLOSED and BLIND here than I first thought.

Lest 'us' see how, and if at all, "vvilliam" can explain how the 'very thing' between 'physical substance' is 'physical substance', itself.

And, if it does not even attempt to try to, then just how Truly 'stuck' "vvilliam" is here just becomes more and more obvious.

But, what you keep missing and misunderstanding here is that there is the many physical things are all part of the one physical thing. Just one physical thing only.

Explain then how can there be 'many physical things', if there is only 'one physical thing', only.

The exact same physical thing is not separated "somehow"and how it is not separated (even that it has many separate things)

So, this one, literally, believes that the 'one solitary single thing' is not separated, even though this one believes that there are also, actually, 'many separate things'.

How and why this one is so utterly lost and confused here, I already know, very well. And, even why this one is not seeing what the actual irrefutable Truth is here, again I also already know, and also very well understand too.

I have already explained, and which you do not want to 'look at', and 'see' and understand.

This one has never ever explained how there can be one single solitary material thing, while there are also supposed to be many separated different material things.

So, you can stay 'stuck' where you are "age" for as long as you like.

you are the one unable to back up and support your Truly weird and strange claim.

And, what is making matters worse here is that you actually believe that you are right and correct here.

I suggest that if you want to keep claiming the exact same thing that you have been here, then you start explaining how it could even be a conceptual possibility, let alone an actual physical actuality "vvilliam".

[VVilliam]

But I am not stuck here "age".

I have already proved your claim here False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, you have, obviously, not been able to refute what I have said and claimed here.

So, as you stay 'stuck', exactly, where you are here. The rest of 'us' move along, evolving and proceeding.

Obviously, what separates the material from the material must be material. So, what you are trying to claim here is just ridiculous and absurd. Unless, of course, you can show 'matter', itself, is not eternal or infinite and that the universe hasn't always existed.

[Age]

But I am not stuck here "age".

Okay. If this is what you want to believe here, then I will not prevent you from doing so.

Please, believe whatever you want to "vvilliam".

I have already proved your claim here False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Where, when, and how, exactly?

Also, what do you think or believe what my claim' is, exactly, which you, supposedly and allegedly, have already proved False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect?

Obviously, what separates the material from the material must be material.

So, how, exactly, could the one physical material thing be separated from itself?

[Age]

One might wonder if anyone could disprove and/or refute any of this corrected version below, or would even like to try to?

The Universe can only ever exist infinitely

The Universe can only ever exist eternally

'Space' is nothing more than just that distance between and around physical matter.

'Matter' is nothing more than just physicality, or just material, itself.

The Universe, fundamentally, is made up of or consists of matter, and, space.

Energy exists always, along with 'matter' and 'space', thus why the Universe, Itself, is eternal.

The particle free space between matter is what allows matter to always be able to move about, freely, which allows matter to always be able to interact with itself.

There is always matter surrounded by and separated by space.

Matter cannot just come into existence from nothing.

Matter and space have to always be existing, in one way, shape, or form.

[VVilliam]

I did think that progress could be very, very easily made here, and very simply, I will add. But, you obviously want to stay where you are and do not want to proceed and move forward, so that is that.

Now, obviously water is a real physical thing, and what is just as obvious is that absolutely all things are made up of the exact same thing, that being "physical substance". But, what you keep missing and misunderstanding here is that there is the many physical things are all part of the one physical thing. Just one physical thing only. The exact same physical thing is not separated "somehow"and how it is not separated (even that it has many separate things) I have already explained, and which you do not want to 'look at', and 'see' and understand.

So, you can stay 'stuck' where you are "age" for as long as you like.

I have already proved your claim here False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Where, when, and how, exactly?

Also, what do you think or believe what my claim' is, exactly, which you, supposedly and allegedly, have already proved False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect?

And, you have, obviously, not been able to refute what I have said and claimed here.

[Consul]

I have already given my answer. You are still conflating "space" with "distance". If you ceased from doing that, the answer should become apparent to you. There is no "anomaly" or "inconsistency" or "contradiction" once the realisation of the truth that - even that everything THING is physical, (this includes what is in the space between things) and that distance is a measurement and thus not counted as "something physical".

According to spatial relationalism, space is a nonsubstantial structure, i.e. a web of spatial (distance) relations between material substances rather than a substance itself.
Charles Peirce speaks of "the fallacy of treating the measure of a quantity as if it were the quantity itself"; and the mathematical (numerical) measure of a spatial distance is actually not to be equated with the spatial distance itself, which may hence be called a physical relation. Of course, physical relations aren't physical like physical objects, in the sense of consisting of physical stuff (matter). Physical relations aren't thin long material objects like wires. They are physical only in the sense of being part of the ontology of physics.

[Iwannaplato]

I have already given my answer. You are still conflating "space" with "distance". If you ceased from doing that, the answer should become apparent to you. There is no "anomaly" or "inconsistency" or "contradiction" once the realisation of the truth that - even that everything THING is physical, (this includes what is in the space between things) and that distance is a measurement and thus not counted as "something physical".

According to spatial relationalism, space is a nonsubstantial structure, i.e. a web of spatial (distance) relations between material substances rather than a substance itself.
Charles Peirce speaks of "the fallacy of treating the measure of a quantity as if it were the quantity itself"; and the mathematical (numerical) measure of a spatial distance is actually not to be equated with the spatial distance itself, which may hence be called a physical relation. Of course, physical relations aren't physical like physical objects, in the sense of consisting of physical stuff (matter). Physical relations aren't thin long material objects like wires. They are physical only in the sense of being part of the ontology of physics.

is this the pierce that died in 1914?
I don't think we can point to any part of space anymore and say it is empty, it is merely between things. Everywhere, so far, has fluctuations that are physical going on there in the quantum foam. So, it's not so much calling the distance a physical thing, but rather that, so far, it seems that there is no space that is merely between things and not in itself also physical.

[Will Bouwman]

'space' is nothing more than just that distance between and around physical matter.

Are you sure about this? Everywhere you go in the visible universe, something is visible and there is gravity. Where is there nothing but distance between objects?

[Consul]

According to spatial relationalism, space is a nonsubstantial structure, i.e. a web of spatial (distance) relations between material substances rather than a substance itself.
Charles Peirce speaks of "the fallacy of treating the measure of a quantity as if it were the quantity itself"; and the mathematical (numerical) measure of a spatial distance is actually not to be equated with the spatial distance itself, which may hence be called a physical relation. Of course, physical relations aren't physical like physical objects, in the sense of consisting of physical stuff (matter). Physical relations aren't thin long material objects like wires. They are physical only in the sense of being part of the ontology of physics.

is this the pierce that died in 1914?

Yes, but his name is spelled "Peirce" (and pronounced like "purse").

I don't think we can point to any part of space anymore and say it is empty, it is merely between things. Everywhere, so far, has fluctuations that are physical going on there in the quantum foam. So, it's not so much calling the distance a physical thing, but rather that, so far, it seems that there is no space that is merely between things and not in itself also physical.

I was just describing spatial relationalism without defending it. Actually, I think it's false.
According to spatial relationalism, absolutely nothing is literally between spatially related material objects, not even the spatial relations "between" them. But how can there be a nonzero spatial distance between two material objects when there is absolutely nothing between them that separates them spatially from one another, and prevents them from touching one another?

If there were a substantial space and spatial paths between material objects—as is the case from the perspective of spatial substantialism—, then their spatial separation could be defined and measured in terms of the respective lengths of the spatial paths between them, with spatial paths not being spatial relations but parts (1D boundaries) of regions of space (qua substance).
According to spatial relationalism, no such spatial paths between material objects exist; so it has a hard time explaining how spatial distances are definable and measurable without recourse to spatial paths (as parts of a substantial space).

(Generally, relations are said to obtain between their relata; but they cannot literally be located between them, like an electrical cable is literally located between two electricity pylons. Realists about relations who regard them as immanent universals or particulars have the problem of explaining where relations are, literally speaking.)

Here's my list of conceivable relationships between space and matter:

1. identity: space = (spatially extended) matter
[Here, "matter" means "prime matter" or "aether". Matter in the form of massy particles can then be interpreted as a mass-density field with prime matter as its substrate.]

2. difference: space ≠ (spatially extended) matter.

2.1 attributionalism about space:
space is an attribute of (prime) matter, being its spatial dimension or extension.

2.2 substantialism about space:
space is a substance in its own right (so there's a physical substance dualism: the space-substance plus matter-substances):

2.2.1. material substances occupy regions of space (the space-substance):

There is space where matter is, so parts of the space-substance are penetrated by material substances. This means that the space-substance isn't "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable. The space-substance is penetrable (by movable material substances) but immovable.

2.2.2 material substances occupy holes in space (the space-substance):

There isn't space where matter is, so parts of the space-substance only surround material substances. This means that the space-substance is "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable. However, when material substances move through it by displacing parts of it, it behaves like a fluid or liquid substance. (For example, when a stone is thrown into a lake, it sinks and moves through the water by displacing parts of it, with the stone not being penetrated but only surrounded by water.) The space-substance is impenetrable (by movable material substances) but movable.

2.3 supersubstantialism about space:
(apparent) material substances are (really) (bundles of) physical properties (quantities) of regions of space (the space-substance).
The space-substance is both impenetrable (by other substances) and immovable. The (apparent) motions of (apparent) material substances "are replaced by spatiotemporal trajectories of successive lightings-up of properties of spatiotemporal regions." (C. B. Martin)

[2.3 can be regarded as including 1: space = prime matter/aether and elementary particles (and all things composed of them) are bundles of physical properties (e.g. mass density) of parts of it. But the parts of the substantial aether aren't reducible to property-bundles, so there's still a difference!]

3. antisubstantialism or relationalism about space: space is a structure consisting of spatial relations between material substances (or events). Motion is change of distance relations between material substances.