Anecdotal observations indicate that it is experimentally possible to construct a one inch diameter sphere inside which there is no space at all.
What does this proposal say for our concepts of “inside” and “space”? Can we dismiss it out of hand?
Yes but the observations projected from anecdotes are seldom inside the space reserved for the reverberating tautologies that emanate soley from sky-hooks. And whether one inch or one mile a sphere in space is “experimental” only to the extent “reality” itself is encompassed parenthetically in turn. And need I remind you concepts mean precisely what we say they do here. No more and no less. That’s the genius of philosophy for some.
I’ve heard something similar. It occurs in regions of space where one dimension orthogonal to the sphere’s diameter is contracted infinitly so as to be ‘flattened’. Yet it isn’t really considered flattened. It’s consider to conform to all the properties and rules of space/geometry except that the space/geometry in question is, shall we say, unorthodox.
So far, my idea of “inside” remains unchanged.
are there any neutrinos inside that experimental sphere?
.
They are you know.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Hurrah! Jolly good show! That’s what I say. That’s what all my friends say, too. Me and all my friends say Hurrah! Jolly good show!
Do you want to buy any stuff? Like stuffing to fill empty bags with.
[
I liked your phraseology of “unorthodox”. But I lost it way before then mate. Write it again.
Humdreds of em sunshine.
Please give us another clue.
I’m merely reminding you of what Shopenhauer trumpeted all those years ago:
What was senseless and without meaning at once took refuge in obscure exposition and language. Fitche was the first to grasp and make use of this privilege; Schelling at best equalled him in this, and a host of other scribblers without intellect or honesty soon surpassed them both. But the greatest effrontery in seving up sheer nonsense, in scrabbling together senseless and maddening webs of words, such as had previously been heard only in madhouses, finally appeared to be Hegel…
Such a grand tradition!
Countless empty bags emptied all the more.
But, of course: the pedantic intellectuals continued flocking to Hegel and his ilk. Still today Will Durant’s “epistemologists” leave the Shopenhauers in the dust.
Unless perhaps you are being ironic. As perhaps I am too.
It means that when space is considered ‘flattened’, the geometrical shapes that reside in that space aren’t. This all comes out of Einsteinian geometry.
See new post
That’s having a cake and eating it. If, as a stipulation, there is no space inside a particular sphere, then we cannot define that sphere in terms of it.
It’s not about the space in the sphere, but the space outside - or rather, the space that’s used as the reference frame. Look at this for an example:
It seems to us that the red lines are of different lengths - and they are (obviously) - but that’s only because we don’t take their dimensions to be determined by the reference frame that is the white grid in the background. But if this grid were the reference frame by which all their spatial properties were defined, then we would say that they are indeed the same length. The tops match up with the same points on the vertical axis and so do the bottoms.
Something similar is being said here about the volume inside a sphere when the reference frame that defines its spatial properties is flattened along one of its dimension.
Is this a solid sphere? Or some actual crazy thing like what Gib is talking about?
One leads to the other, and possibly cannot exist without the other to define it.
I’m guessing not.
If the spaces inside and outside the spherical boundary are not continuous then there is no spherical boundary.