If in an infinity [an emptiness] you had one thing e.g. a particle, then in the placing of the next thing e.g a particle of the opposing polarity, that second particle would always be ‘next’ [the spatial superposition of] to the first particle. Given; that there would always be a finite limit [metaphysical distance] between the two points, compared with the distance to the other side of one another ~ that being infinite.
I am just mulling over ways we can have an infinite and yet still finite universe. It seems to me that you would have to have every potential particle/thing in existence in a superposition, until such a time a the universe and all existence could occur at once.
What other kind of emptiness can their be? After all, if there were anyth9ing in it then it wouldnt be an emptiness. Maybe its our terms, but reality must be entire ~ even if we dont know what that would be like.
For sure, I am a very visual thinker is all. Infinity can easily become merely or only an abstract concept [e.g. in maths], where I think of it as what reality is at base.
There is no total emptiness. There never has been, nor can there ever be. Emptiness is merely an approximation to the mind, imagined, in order to limit relevance.
The vacuum of space is totally full, just not with anything relevant to your eyes.
not necessarily ~ if one considers that everything the universe is filled with is ultimately empty. …otherwise we would have to have ‘stuff’ filled with stuff e.g. electrons filled with ‘something’. eventually we end up with quantum particles and subatomic particles with nothing in them.
the way I see it, physical objects are more values acting upon or using energy, which is empty.
Well, if one considers that everything in the universe is filled with cheese, then… it isn’t empty.
No, you merely end up with the fact that absolute infinity doesn’t exist and thus absolute zero doesn’t either. There is no means to have absolute zero of the “stuff”. Quantum particulizing is merely an exercise of the mind, a fantasy of forms. Physical reality has no such quantized forms.
“Energy” is that “stuff”, not “empty”, merely empty of notable concentrations that we call “particles”.
Point was that things ultimately cannot be ‘filled’ with anything et al. If you filled quantum particles with something else, that would then be the next level down of particles and then we would have to fill them up with something. Rinse and repeat ad-infinitum ~ alas we cannot do that with finite objects. Besides, e.g. electrons, they are just a centralisation of energy moving in a spin which in part may disappear and reappear during the spin, there isn’t anything inside!
To answer the rest of your post, I think its false to state that reality is full or empty, but ‘empty’ is a better definition/utility due to the fact that it is not ultimately made of objects, objects don’t actually exist. Really we simply need another term which means; both empty and full but either, neither and both of those things. Reality at base isn’t a simple thing or non-thing, it is a very paradoxical [to our thinking] ‘entity’, one which must contain all that we and the universe ‘are’! - but in some ‘infinite’ manner.
Actually it is the reverse of that. Things ultimately cannot not be filled with something (as briefly discussed in the religion forum, “Beyond Aquinas…”)
Quantum Physics is a false religion.
I call it “Affectance”, similar but not identical to Lorentz’s “Aether”. It is also very similar to what science calls “Energy, in the form of EMR”.
You are right in that there are no actual “objects” as the Quantum Magi would have you believe. The universe has no need for such things, but the mind does. The mind must use objectizing so that it can handle the number of variables reasonably.
I think we just agreed [something or anything cannot be in the particles ergo they are ‘empty’ if we may use that term with this given context rather than its usual and incorrect ones]. for me emptiness simple means there are no edges to things ultimately.
Haha, well yes mate, the very term ‘quantum’ is properly non-representative, I am with you there.
I think perhaps you misunderstood me.
I said that a particle cannot not be filled. In other words, it must always be filled with something. There can be no void of reality within an object.