A quantum is just a quantity. Of what? Of whatever you are studying.
Which means that HumaniZe is half right.
When you quantize, you flatten the manifestation into a single discreet entity.
The half in which HumanIze is not right is in supposing that anything outside the quantum is postulated not to exist.
Anything is only ever quantized with respect to the field being studied.
Therefore, the observer, which is always included in quantic calculations.
Gotta run fellas but it has been a charm. I will be sure to check back here.
No. In quantum science, “quantum” refers to a definite quantity. Quantization is like digitalization: a quantum is a 1, the absence of a quantum (vacuum) is a 0. You’re right, though, that if a 0 is registered, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a bit pulse, just that its voltage is too low for it to be registered as a 1.
Science has no hope. 
You folks are using all this fancy math. I can do that too. It’s meaningless.
Existence is not symmetrical.
That’s all you need to know.
It exists and will always exist as a perpetual motion machine.
I can prove it by typing this message.
You guys are looking for proof through contradiction in the wrong way and getting confused.
You’re using existents, constructs, linguistic tokens, referents…
There will be no sychronist approach to this.
You really should.
It’s not because it all eventually equals zero that you do it. Unburden yourself of that need.
Of course, a clear mind is needed. You know what I mean here.
I have the idea that if you did, you would make all here look like monkeys.
You do it because it’s fun.
Right lol, a definite quantity, not a definite size. It can be a quantum of anything. It can be magnasuperatomic.
It’s not an absence of a vacuum. It is presence of itself. The backdrop is, far from nothingness, the entirety of the rest of existence.
I had come back to write this:
What angered Einstein, and angers many, is the idea that something without matter can be quantized. If you debarass yourself of the notion that only mass can have quantity, you can do quantum mechanics and start understanding some of the things that stumped Einstein.
Alright now I really have to go.
Sorry, one more thing, you say “no” as if talking about definite quantity was what you were replying to. You replied to that a quantum is a quantity of what, of anything you are studying.
That is in fact true. It is not 1 of any definite thing.
Ok now I’m gone.
By the authority of Jupiter, master of life, whose root is Io, the same as joy, juissance, I give you permission to enjoy life.
You seem to have switched what I said with what you yourself said. I’m saying a quantum, in the sense of quantum science, is not the same as a quantity. You can have a quantity of quanta, but not a quantum of quantities. A quantum in this sense is always 1 or a multiple of 1. It has no fractions, no decimal point.
And a vacuum is not a quantum, but the absence of a quantum.
A vacuum has properties of volume, which is 3 dimensional distance, otherwise known as “space.”
Light travels in space independent of objects in space. Otherwise stated, objects travel relative to light. There need not be 2 or more objects for motion, simply 1 object can have motion in space relative to light in space. Take away the light and the object is still in motion in space because it is changing its location in space over a duration of time.
Relativity seems to think that if there is only one object then there can be no motion in space. That is ridiculous.
By the way, it’s not even definitely 1. It’s simply quantity.
In practice it’s usually 1, but it doesn’t have to be. It is simply quantity that is there.
I undersdtood what you said. You are still wrong, 0 quantum X is not a void, it is literally the entirety of the rest of existence.
This is what is true.
And then the question is of defining space. If the criteria is light, then it is that which light travels through.
Light requires atomic matter to travel through. It doesn’t have to be a complete atom, it simply has to be such that it can constitute an atom, build up to one for example, doesn’t matter. Of type atom.
Atomic continuity.
The idea that that which exists between space is nothingness, this is where superstition comes in. And this is what I am trying to tease out by asking why even nothingness. Nothingness here has to be postulated, it is inserted. There is no actual a priori reason to guess it.
And, in fact, quantic science bears this out, as it has quantified that which exists between space and found that it is decidedly not nothing, but of course, why would it ever be it’s a hilarious idea.