/lit/ - Literature

>>5281050

>If we define space as "the dimensions of height, depth, and width..."

Well, that works for three dimensional space - but take away one of those dimensions and I think it's still fair to call it (two-dimensional) "space."

>"...within which all things exist and move."

Well, to define it like this would mean that space is not a thing, since space can't move within itself; thus, this definition would technically beg the question against the premise that space is a thing. So I'd prefer to change the end of your definition to "within which matter and energy move."

>Would you call space a thing?

Yes. Not totally unproblematic, I realize, but better than the alternatives I think.

>Would you say that it is possible to have nothing within a certain amount of space?

Only if the word "nothing" has an ambiguous and, in my view, improper meaning, synonymous with "emptiness." Like when we say "nothing is in the box," we don't mean "there is an absence of being in the box" (there is still air, radio waves, empty space in the box, and these are beings).

Think of it this way: if there is a section of space in which there is truly nothing, then at some point space borders on nothingness - that is, there is some edge where somethingness ends and nothingness begins. But if that's the case, then something is bordered by nothing - and if it's bordered by nothing, then it keeps going, because there is no border! These are the kinds of absurdities that we fall into when we treat "nothing" as if it were a coherent concept.

>If the universe is everything, and the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

From my very dim understanding of cosmology, space itself is expanding; there isn't a sphere called "the universe" which is growing outwards, but rather space is everywhere and is everywhere fluffing up, for lack of a better and non-pornographic term. I could be wrong about this, though.

But the idea of a spatially infinite universe runs into its own problems, which to me seem equally problematic as the idea of a spatially bounded universe ("bounded by WHAT?" we naturally ask).

So, since both alternative seem impossible, I think we might be at a point in our inquiry where we have questions that can't be answered. Maybe one day we'll learn more and the apparent contradictions will be resolved, but for the time being I'm persuaded by the weakly Kantian idea that a spatially infinite universe is as equally impossible as a spatially finite universe, and the difficulty of having only two alternatives neither of which is possible shows us that we've reached the limits of what our minds can process.

>>5198868

>>4665033

>>4610895

<----- This sexy beast right here.

kant - Critic of pure reason

ever had one of those days?