If space is not a physical tangible object then how can anyone say it exists? All things exist but space does not, there is no such thing as ‘somewhere’ and if there is no space then there can be no size to what we call ‘a’ ‘‘world’’?
Excuse the short post.
Rami.
What is a ‘physical tangible object’? I am unsure exactly what you are asking. If all objects must be in space, then space cannot be an object, otherwise it too would have to be ‘in space’. And yet we still need ‘space’ in order to have ‘objects’. Maybe it is better to think of it as a kind of ‘tool’ - better this way than to start with all the possible ontological confusions to be had when you start mixing categories, terms etc which are not consistent or interchangeable.
Or else, how about this; “If Mathematics is not a ‘physical tangible object’ then how can anyone say it exists?” There is something very wrong here.
Of course my responses carry their own terminology and definitions. So why don’t you tell me what is ‘exists’ - is it just whatever can be thought, everything in the ‘universe’ etc - is it wholly inclusive? Or else do you have some other definition in mind? Please clarify otherwise I am incapable of seeing where you are coming from.
Are you using ‘thing’ as some kind of indexical - are you thinking of that ‘thing’ which is ‘over there’ - as in, ‘somewhere’? ‘Thing’ usually goes along with ‘somewhere’ - yet you have affirmed one and denied the other. Hence you must define ‘thing’ anew, I think. If you have traditional geometric spatiality, then you have ‘somewhere’ and, usually, ‘thing’ also.
This is all rather unclear. So to answer your question;
James
Good question. I think there are many ways to deal with it.
I like the idea that “space” is a macrocosmic calmative absence of “particle fury,” to put it poetically.
It is essentially the ancient Greek paradox par excellence, who was it again, the guy who mentioned something about the infinite divisibility of objects?
If we take the smallest component of existence and cut it in half, what would happen?
My solution to this enigma is this. Get rid of the idea of “space” and you will no longer need the concept of divisibility. Space doesn’t exist, really. It is a slow point in the field where masses and objects maintain their shape and consistency, inciting the illusion of “distance” and “separation.”
Think about the first, say, thirty seconds of the universe’s existence (granting the big-bang theory). During this time “space” was something quite different than “the distance between the moon and the earth.” In fact, many physicists believe that the current laws we “observe” did not exist during the initial events of/in the universe. Likewise, a collapse would result in a singular point of infinite density, again defying the laws of known physics, i.e., the events in a black-hole.
So I think space is like what we would call the glass-lake long after the ski-boats are retired for the day. Its just a phase, not a distinguishing characteristic of existence, only temporary.
A tangible object is as others may explain it, an object which one can physically ‘feel’. Besides from that, Space is not something that exists, objects exist and they must exist somewhere. I am bascally saying that ‘‘space’’ is not something which you can say consists of some size or shape.
When i say ‘thing’, in this case, i mean objects. Lets say all objects exist, but where do they exist? Is it just a case of saying these objects exist somewhere or can you not say that since we do not know where these objects even exist.
Cofusing myself as much as i’m confusing you 
Rami.
Ok - a quick reply as I am going to sleep.
I reiterate that space exists as much as objects. That it has no size or shape is neither here nor there.
I think you are using ‘feel’ too broadly - which is to say your meaning is still unclear. Obviously you do not mean solely physical touch, but some kind of ambiguous intuitive sense.
I don’t know - I think your language is too ambiguous that we both can get lost in it. This is a constructive criticism though - as I think the problem exists mostly in your use of certain words. This is why it is so difficult for me to know precisely how to respond.
Perhaps it might be useful if I told you that ‘object’ was an abstraction, and that you are using ‘exists’ inappropriately? But how to explain this? You seem to be saying that ‘space’ is a kind of concept which might not be ‘real’. I say that it is a synonym for ‘somewhere’ in the description you have given.
So when you say ‘where do objects exist?’ I think - objects only ‘exist’ when there is a ‘where’ predicated alongside them.
Now I suppose maybe this linguistic approach is not so illuminating as I had hoped, so how about this… Imagine space is an ocean, and objects are like crests or the tips of waves. Stop thinking about space as a mysterious nothing, and rather imagine it as holistic. Objects only exist on the background of space, like a letter on a piece of paper.
So ‘object’ is an abtraction. Perhaps this is the most useful thing I can say. Otherwise I should tell you that you are using words with meanings which you seem to assume without knowing that you are doing so, and then wonder why when you put them together in certain ways you get the appearance that some are contradicting others, when really all that is taking place is that you are being confused by your own word games.
I hope this does not come off as harsh or high brow.
Regards,
James
The pece of paper can physically be touched, it is a physical object which you and i could see and feel. I appreciate your reassuarance and your post was not at all harsh on me, it’s cool 
. Ignore language, Space is not a ‘thing’, we both understand this so there should be no problem in understanding what i’m saying. I am simply pointing out that space cannot be touched and nor can it been seen. Spatial distance obviously exists to allow ‘‘objects’’ such as celestial objects to exist but i guess we just refer to it as space.
I am asking no question by the way, only looking to gain different idea’s and see what others think of it etc. Good day and goodnight.
Rami.
Imagine u take away all the objects that exist, spacial distance would remain. We refer to this spacial distance as ‘space’. But what is this spacial distance and does this spacial distance even exist?
[/quote]
But what is this spacial distance and does this spacial distance even exist?
Hello Rami
I’ve thought about this before. The best that I could come up from my readings is that the universe is six dimensional even though we perceive it as three. Space cannot exist as separate but must be considered within the wholeness of these dimensions
The first three dimensions form three dimensional space. Starting with a “point”(no dimensions), it extends out into an infinitely of points forming a line, the first dimension. At right angles to each of these points a similar line of points extends out into infinity forming a plane or the second dimension. Now at right angles to each of these points of the plane, a line of points extends out into infinity forming a cube or the third dimension.
Existence is in time which is the fourth dimension. The fourth dimensional space of time is beyond our comprehension. Try extending a line out into infinity from each of these points of the cube and it forms something we cannot grasp.
The repetition of a moment in time is what creates existence and the volume of space. A person’s life is more than one moment repeating but a connection of moments repeating and this additional dimension is the fifth dimension of “eternity”. A man’s life then is lived in eternity. But there are many possible eternities. Much like a kaleidoscope, the elements linking all the aspects of eternity can form differing patterns many different eternities as they interact. All these possible eternities are the sixth dimension.
The volume of space seems to me to be actualized beyond potential by the dimensions of time since space is not really empty but filled with a repeating materiality of such a fine density that it is undetectable accept on occasion in quantum particle physics. Naturally for us limited to our three dimensional perception, it doesn’t seem possible to perceive this reality and just refer to space as empty.
Makes me wonder how oblivious I am in relation to objective reality.
Does it help or hinder that Wheeler said:
“Space tells mass how to move” while “mass tells space how to curve.”
[edit: from the paraphrase to the exact quote]
Dunamis
Dunamis
I’ll have to think on that since I sense something in it.
As I understand now, the involution and evolution of densities of matter within the six dimensions is determined by vibrations that follow the Law of Octaves as described by Pythagoras though known long before his time.
It’s not the usual but I’ll post it here for anyone interested.
Btw nice to see you back Rami, haven’t seen you post in awhile… or maybe I just haven’t been looking in the right threads
At the point of the big bang space was smaller then a grain of sand, so space does have some sort of property, as it it can be warped and such. If you accept that space can be warped, and stretched, then I see no reason why you couldn’t accept that space has properties, and thus not in the traditional sense albeit is some sort of substance, then discussing spatial distance would be equivilant to talking about the length of some object that has mass.
You say space was smaller than a grain of sand, but what is space? If i cannot see it and i can only experience it then how do i even know that i can define ‘it’ as a ‘thing’. somebody mentioned that space is like the background, i understand better what that person meant now. It’s like holding a football/soccer ball in your hand and then that ball suddenly vanishes, what then do you have left? The best way to describe space is that it is the absence of ‘‘someTHING’’.
When you said that space was once smaller than a grain of sand, don’t you think that by saying this, you are assuming that space is as ‘one’ and that it is a property of some sort. Infact, don’t you think that you are assuming space is even ‘a’ THING?
ps. Yes, i hadn’t posted for a while Rounder I just started reading John Paul Sartre’s ‘‘Being and Nothingness’’. I’m interested in this theory and was wondering if you have heard good reviews of it? I’ve heard both bad and good sides to tt, you think it’ll be a good read?
Rami.
Yeah thats pretty much what I’m saying. Before Einstien we thought that space was just a “backdrop”, the field where the cosmic dance played out, Einstien revolutionized our view of space, making it a dominant player. So yes I am definitly saying that space is “something” rather then the “absence of something”.
I’ve never read it. From the summaries I’ve read I seem to agree with some of the points he makes. What made you decide to pick it up? If anything I hear its a bitch of a read. Supposedly he didn’t write with too much clarity. Anyways good luck with that!
it is a local construction, a way of moving between things which have been associated. Take away the things and that particular space disapears… bring the things together again and the space re-appears…
to say that space somehow exists outside of the narrow networks of things for which it is an outcome is the most vulgar of idealisms… it is a magic story… a fairy tale…
follow a space as it is constituted locally, painstakingly, expensively, through the drawing of things together, the creation of commensurablility, the erection of a way of moving about between things…
that is all we can ever really do, empirically… map the costly liasions which give us spaces and times…
of course feel free to latch onto which ever space-time you wish and claim, without any valid reason, that it runs everywhere, even between the liasons which constitute it like a train which can happily leave its rails and move like magic across rough and unacommodating terrain…
but you will be missing the real work of space… enjoying one of its occasions like a single bottle of wine and disregarding the process which manufactured it and brought it to your table, and likewise remaining ignorant of the million other vitages…
part cut from previous post:
space is constituted by reversible displacements of associated things, time by irreverable displacements.
I asked a question in one of my previous posts, imagine one holds a ball in their hand, the ball vanishes so what remains? I’m assuming by your quote that you say the space which was occupied by that ball would too dissappear? Correct me if i missinterpreted what you were actually saying.
Fair point to you Rounder, who knows. Giving that ‘‘Space’’ really is just ‘‘space’’, i would then have the problem of wondering what holds the celestial bodies in place etc. But giving that space as you say is ‘‘something’’. Do you think space as a thing itself requires some kind of ‘space’/spacial distance in order to exist?
And, i bought the book because if you read one of my topics, Knowing/not knowing, being/not being etc, you’d see that i do think ‘being’ and ‘knowing’ is the almost the same thing, if i cannot think then there may aswell be no ‘me’. It is fascinating. And imagine you do not ‘know’ something, it’s as good as being dead…why should not knowing something bother you if you do not know about it? Same with not being. I do hope it’s a good read too, i’ve not had the chance to read yet because kinda busy doing college stuff etc…but never too busy to post on ILP 
Rami.
I don’t like the wording of that really. I might word it this way, since space exist’s(as something) it has spatial distance, it can be measured. Space is expanding, according to general relativity, space can either be expanding or contracting, but can never be static.
Here is an excerpt from Brain Green’s “the Elegant universe” pg 127. He starts off talking about how Einstiens theory imply’s that the absence of mass means space is flat…
“In seeking to merge general relativity with qauntum mechanics we must now change our focus sharply, and examine the microscopic properties of space.”
Here he starts referring to a illustration in the book so I’ll paraphrase a bit
"[i]At first when we zoom in, not much happens, the structure of space maintains the same basic form. Reasoning from a purely classic standpoint we would expect this placid and flat image of space to persist all the way to the arbitrarily small length scales. But quantum mechanics changes this conclusion radically. Everything is subject to the quantum fluctuations inherent to the uncertainty principle-even the gravitational field. Although classic reasoning implies that space has zero gravitational field, quantum mechanics shows that on average it is zero, but that its actual value undulates up and down due to quantum fluctuations. Moreover, the uncertainty principle tells us that the size of the undulations of the gravitational field gets larger as we focus our attention on smaller regions of space. Quantum mechanics shows that nothing likes to be cornered, narrowing the spatial focus leads to even larger undulations.
As gravitational fields are reflected by curvature, these quantum fluctuations manifest themselves as increasingly violent distortions the of surrounding space. By probing to even smaller distance scales, we see that the random quantum mechanical undulations in the gravitational field correspond to such severe warpings of space that it no longer resembles a gently curving geometrical object. Rather it takes on a frothing, turbulent, twisted look. John wheeler coined the term quantum foam to describe the frenzy revealed by such an ultramicroscopic, examination of space(and time) [/i]"
I’ve got to get my ass in gear this mourning, but I’ll be sure to check out that thread sometime soon 
space is as tangible as any physical object…the only differnce is the sense of touch that you don’t aquire…I like what dunamis said tho, because it’s true…mass exists because space curves and keeps it in place. It’s like a gel which has objects stuck inside of it…only thing is this same gel has the ability to move the objects, not by any external power, but by its own power, the power of relationship…
I take that back what I just said…you do feel space…hahahahahahaha… the constant sensation of having your skin attached to your body, the instinctive nature of every human being on this planet…the knowing your palm is your palm because you can feel it…not by touching it, just by feeling it, feeling the pressure on it from the space around you…ahahahahahahahahahaha…You feel space…!!!