/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11272456
>Why would you stop using a useful tool? That seems like a waste.
Useful at what? Describing what doesn't exist? It's bad enough that just plain describing doesn't prove something exists. I am not going to listen to you redescribe space for years on end. It gets boring and is never going to answer my question. Either you know something or you don't, don't play pretend. So please test space in a scientific experiment and prove it exists. Tell me what it is and prove that "it is".a

>This is true for literally anything you learn empirically
You are wrong.

>What you perceive with your eyes is itself a model of what potentially doesn't exist.
Okay. I am done with you. Unfuck yourself and when you do get back to me with empirical evidence of "space".

>What you're grappling with here is the epistemological question of what science can 'prove' - and the answer is that it can't prove anything.
Correct. A tool used to test what actually exists. So please test "space" in an experiment.

>It's not a thing that's made of fundamental particles or anything like that - it's an abstract concept
particles are also an abstract concept. Can you please use an example that has actually been proven to exist?

>The observed phenomena is that things in our universe do appear to be positioned relative to each other in terms of three orthogonal dimensions.
That's another description! I don't care how they appear! I care about what they actually are and how they actually work. So test it! Test space in an experiment.

>You aren't going to get some deep, metaphysical truth about what the fundamental nature of the universe is.
I just want proof of space!

>>10831839
>Logically someingdoes come form nothing.
Put a 0 in a ratio and watch what happens. Hence the term "rational"; to be in accordance with reason or logic

>As Zero has no time for inaction.
Zero has no basis in reality. If anything it would be inaction itself. What an absurd statement.

>action only ever results. And its because action is at a minimum to situate satisfaction to logic that it imparts a Magnitude of greater potential if new ways, that resolves to a finite move possible.

Which doesn't just come from nothing.

>This isn't like I've invented a new math function that's a generator of particular results fitting a postulation in observed rational conceived.
Personally, I don't believe math can even answer my question.