eh

Bob, can you condense what you have to say into much less text? A lot of what you write in 20 sentences could have easily been writen in 3, and it would save a lot of time.

It seems that the entire basis of your claims against modern cosmology is your concept of space as nothingness. I think once you understand this is wrong, you'll see that a lot of the problems you envisioned, were imaginary.

And here is where you're confused. You are not seeing the difference between a 'thing' of real substance like matter, a person, place etc., and something more abstract like an action, or property of such things. Anything that exists, be it a property, action, relationship, concept or real substance, is defined as a thing. Is that clear, or do I need to get a dictionary for you?

I don't care to get into semantics here, though discussions about logic sometimes require us to do so. If you want to say 'space' is not a thing, it's your choice. But the moment you say this 3D space exists, you are contradicting yourself because 'nothing' is negation of existence. It's as simple as that.

As it stands now, you have the statement: 3D Space exists. 3D Space is nothing.

This is a contradiction, because to say space is nothing is to say it doesn't exist.

Here is a challenge for you. Show me how your statement that this infinite space is not a logical contradiction. Then we can move on in the discussion.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>

Shadowy Man

And where do you propose we might find such a place?

Answerer

Does it mean that without energy-matter, spacetime could only exist at quantum level?

eh

A cosmological constant is, like the name suggests, an energy with a constant density. If the constant is vacuum energy, it would just be a small but non zero energy everywhere. Such a universe will expand, even without matter.

Answerer

Oh I see, actually my original question is, " Without energy and matter, can spacetime still exist?"

eh

Lee Smolin says no. Much like how a sentence cannot exist without individual words.

Friar Bellows

OK, eh, I understand you now.

idiom

If flat infinite space was rolled up like a scroll, would that be a "Big Crunch" or a "Big Oops!"

Ernest Sparks

Answerer,

Exactly! They are theoretical concepts, and therefore of the mind and not of the external world. That does not invalidate these concepts from considerations of the world. It has been a long time since it was possible to maintain seriously that the world can be encompassed by ideas all susceptible to direct confirmation. It is by their results that we can judge them. For instance, it is not the psi equation itself (continuous and unbounded) by which we judge the quantum theory of the microcosm, but its eigenvalues (definite and discrete) that give us the energy levels of a system, possibly informing us.

If by 'myth' and 'mythology' you mean to disparage the value of theoretical concepts, then I won't agree with you; if you mean that we ultimately don't really know if our concepts are good for everything, then I can agree with you. Concepts may later prove insufficent, and that is the constant risk of scientific theorism.

Ernie

Friar Bellows

I think you should insert the word "necessarily" between the word "not" and the word "of".