Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 156 KB, 800x817, 800px-World_line.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11263710 No.11263710 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Reminder that this graph is retarded and accepted totally arbitrarily. We are years behind anons. When will we fix dis?
Can smart anons get on and help

>> No.11264607

>>11263710
what is it retarded? (not my area of interesy do I dont know)

>> No.11264608

>>11263710
why don't you start by telling us what's so retarded and arbitrary about this ?

>> No.11264614

>>11263710
What's the problem? It seems quite obvious.

>> No.11264637

>>11263710
Are you Benjamin Button?

>> No.11264639

>hypersurface of the present

lmao, the absolute state of "science"

>> No.11264682
File: 126 KB, 1131x622, 1556046388126.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11264682

>>11263710
Not if time is imaginary, then it all makes perfect sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

>> No.11264700

>>11264639
Hypersurface is the correct term.

>> No.11264709

>>11263710
what exactly is wrong with it? of course it is only 2d while space is 3d but it does the job fine

>> No.11264765

>>11264639
>when you forget that there are 3 dimensions of space

>> No.11264877

>>11264765
Where? Also what properties does space have that make it dimensional?

>when you assume the universe works in terms of xyz

>>11264700
>>11264639
Tryhard coverup of a rehashed aether theory

>> No.11264916

>>11263710
Modern physics is the embodiment of clamped.

>> No.11264922

>>11264877
>Also what properties does space have that make it dimensional
the length of any physical object, say, a hammer, can be measured 3 orthogonal directions.

>> No.11264925

>>11264877
>Also what properties does space have that make it dimensional?

These posts are always very strange. How do you move about your house?

>> No.11265543

>>11264877
based schizoposter

>> No.11265612

>>11263710
Reminder there's a 100% chance idiots like OP fell for the Electric Universe cult.

>> No.11265617

>>11264877
>hates Einstein and starts off with the automatic assumption his work is wrong and just hasn't been fixed yet like this is just standard consensus now
>shoehorns mention of aether like it wasn't a dead concept long before he was born
Yep, it's an Electric Universe cultist.

>> No.11265717
File: 275 KB, 325x325, nice.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11265717

>>11264922
>the length of any physical object, say, a hammer, can be measured 3 orthogonal directions.

I said "space" specifically, not "random physical object" such as a hammer. Preferably you would use "space" in some sort of scientific experiment if it had properties of being measured, so you go do that and then get back to me okay?

>>11264925
>These posts are always very strange. How do you move about your house?
The fuck? I walk around it, just like everyone else. Are you saying that you literally have to arbitrarily calculate your xyz position before you change position in you house? That would be ridiculous don't you think?

>>11265543
>>11265617
I love how the people in psychosis who like putting words in other peoples mouths come out of the wood work whenever you ask what space is. It reminds me of the time I pissed off a Jehovahs dipstick word-of faith preacher at my door and they came back a week later with the "heavy guns preachers" just to lay it on me thicker. They didn't end up being any more correct and I didn't end up leaving my door open for them either.

Now either answer my question or fuck off.

>> No.11265728

>>11265717
>The fuck? I walk around it, just like everyone else.

Through three-dimensional space.

> Are you saying that you literally have to arbitrarily calculate your xyz position before you change position in you house?

That is exactly what we do, but we usually do so subconsciously. Adult humans USUALLY, but not always, since you exist, have a grasp of the three-dimensional space in which they live and have little trouble navigating it.

>> No.11265735
File: 457 KB, 245x145, straw.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11265735

>>11265717

>> No.11265747
File: 4 KB, 500x500, square_root_of_2_triangle[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11265747

>>11265728
>Through three-dimensional space.
uh...through "Air". What is this "three-dimensional space" you speak of? Can I see empirical evidence that there is only "xyz"? Will plugging in an xyz coordinate into this "space" spontaneously yield me something like...oh idk such as a chair? If I measure out and draft a chair and then measure out my own standard of measure for a "coordinate" then pray to the universe, will it make the chair phenomenal?
Of course not, you have to plant a seed, which will grow into a tree and then you harvest it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the coordinates or even measurements. It has to do with whether the seed will grow or not.

>That is exactly what we do, but we usually do so subconsciously.
That is what NOBODY does. They walk and are preoccupied with what they'll do next. There is no standard of measurements when it comes to "walking" other than the size of your gait (which isn't specific and varies)

>have a grasp of the three-dimensional space in which they live and have little trouble navigating it.

Yes, I'm sure all those African pygmies navigate using Euclidean geometry and that it isn't just an arbitrary description of what is observed.

Please show me an "x coordinate" in real life that you didn't define yourself.

>> No.11265754

>>11265747
Can you stop shitposting please? It's obvious you're just trying to get people to argue with you, and it's really pathetic.

>> No.11265772
File: 31 KB, 480x360, why.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11265772

>>11265754
>Can you stop shitposting please? It's obvious you're just trying to get people to argue with you, and it's really pathetic.

Just answer the question or stop pretending to know something. I mean it's so easy and it's not even a loaded question in the slightest. If it has properties, it is measurable. If it is measurable then you can obviously use it in a scientific experiment. So just answer it, or don't. There is no need to make such a show over such a simple question:

"What properties does space have that make it dimensional?"

If you think that the question is misguided or wrong we could talk about that too, you could inform me why it's such an improper question to ask.

>> No.11265966

>>11265772
Why are you claiming space is not 3 dimensional (i am specifically asking about space and not spacetime)

>> No.11266010
File: 18 KB, 220x220, tenor[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11266010

>>11265966
>Why are you claiming space is not 3 dimensional
Why is anyone even claiming that space exists if they can't even empirically show it? As far as I'm concerned it's not part of ANY dimension if it doesn't even exist. I mean is that so illogical? You can say it's "3 dimensional" all you want, that doesn't mean anything if you can't actually show me "the thing" you're talking about.

It's like saying a "unicorn is 3 dimensional". Well okay so fucking what? They still don't exist and I don't care about them.

(i am specifically asking about space and not spacetime)

Apply the same question to both for all I care. "Show me they exist", not a model that theorizes that they could exist or how they would exist if they did. "Space is 3 dimensional" is a perfectly logically thing to believe and would be correct form a description standpoint. However if "3 dimensions" don't actually exist in reality, or "space" then I don't care about it. All I care for is the scientific evidence that proves "space" exists and is empirical.
Sorry for the confusion.

>> No.11266013

>>11266010
How do you know unicorns don't exist?

>> No.11266031
File: 135 KB, 700x500, TWdpB3F[2].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11266031

>>11266013
Because there is no empirical evidence of one. COULD they exist? POTENTIALLY yes! But please start with a hypothesis based on actual empirical evidence before you conjecture something absurd like that.

>well a horse exists and mammals have horns

Is true, so a unicorn could indeed exist

>well matter has properties so the absence of matter has no properties

Well at least we know that space is definitely not the absence of matter because then it would be nothing! It wouldn't be testable nor definable as something specific!

But it has to be quantifiable right? So tell me what space is, please.

>> No.11266035

>>11266031
Shit posting is not shitposting.

>> No.11266038

>>11266010
>All I care for is the scientific evidence that proves "space" exists and is empirical

em·pir·i·cal (adjective)
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

space (noun)
the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move

di·men·sion (noun)
a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.


Space is a word that was invented to describe the physical situation you find yourself in, as an empirical fact. Dimension is a word invented to distinguish and characterize one space from another. If you don't know what the words mean maybe you should look them up, rather than argue something doesn't exist if you can't hold it on your hand. Can you hold yesterday in your hand? Can you show me what yesterday looks like? Can you prove empirically that yesterday is a real thing and that it exists? No, you can't, because the word yesterday refers to an abstract concept, not a physical object you can touch.

Let's start with the basics. Do you have object permanence?

>> No.11266059

>>11266031
So you don't have empirical evidence for it therefor it doesn't exist? Interesting position. How do you know empirical evidence exists?

>> No.11266065
File: 35 KB, 540x960, jvoul[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11266065

>>11266035
"What is space"- the question that makes people like you crumble

>>11266038
>space (noun)
>the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move
*AHEM*
All I care for is the scientific evidence that proves "space" exists and is empirical.

>di·men·sion (noun)
>a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.

How do you measure "space"?

>Space is a word that was invented to describe the physical situation you find yourself in, as an empirical fact.
Well that's a cool story bro. Can I please have some empirical evidence of this place yet?

>Dimension is a word invented to distinguish and characterize one space from another
Holy shit, now there's "2 spaces"? I thought we were still on the first one.

>If you don't know what the words mean maybe you should look them up, rather than argue something doesn't exist if you can't hold it on your hand
Coming from someone who literally defined "empirical" in their post. Basically you're right.You cannot empirically show something with pure theory and logic, which is why I keep asking for empirical evidence of "Space". Kthx.

>Can you hold yesterday in your hand? Can you show me what yesterday looks like? Can you prove empirically that yesterday is a real thing and that it exists? No, you can't, because the word yesterday refers to an abstract concept, not a physical object you can touch.

So is that like a thinly veiled admission that this "space" does not actually exist? We could have saved like 8 posts.

>Do you have object permanence?

So are you saying the "space'" is actually "filled space"? Like a medium?

>> No.11266070

>>11266059
>Yeah lets just throw everything scientific out the window when presented with the opportunity to answer simple question

Sounds about right, it's becoming a trope in modern-day "science".

>> No.11266088

>>11264639
this.
Arrow of time bs is literal brainlet tier shit.

>> No.11266130

>>11265772
>>11266010
>>11266031
>>11266065
Read Kant you stupid pseudo intellectual mother fucker

>> No.11266151

>People posting in this thread without sage in options
Ffs stop bumping this shit

>> No.11266153

>>11265717
hammers exist in space - you can swap out 'hammer' with any object or location in space.

>> No.11266157

>>11266130
Prove space exists. I did not ask for western existentialist garbage, I want literal proof you idiot.

>>11266153
>hammers exist in space

Prove it.-

>you can swap out 'hammer' with any object or location in space.

What is "space"? Empirically test it please. "In" it? Is it God? Cause that is what it sounds like.

>> No.11266193

>>11263710
isnt time just a property of entropy though?
sure in theory it has it's own dimension, but, honestly?

>> No.11266199

>>11266157
>What is "space"?

word we use to describe how things are positioned relative to each other

you can say one thing is above/below, left/right, forward/back, but there isn't another direction you can point in that isn't just a combination of one of the previous three. hence three dimensions.

>> No.11266207

>>11266199
>word we use to describe
So an adjective? Unless you are talking about something specific it does not exist.

>you can say one thing is above/below, left/right, forward/back,
You can.

>but there isn't another direction you can point in that isn't just a combination of one of the previous three. hence three dimensions.
Why? Mathematicians and theorists literally are making them up on a yearly basis.

>> No.11266219

>>11266207
>So an adjective? Unless you are talking about something specific it does not exist.

Well, the word is a noun. But 'space' is just a model - a way of talking about locations. It works well as a tool for understanding the natural world.

>You can.

Then you are already using the component dimensions of space in your day to day speech.

>Why? Mathematicians and theorists literally are making them up on a yearly basis.

There are theorists that are using higher numbers of dimensions to try to mathematically unify together parts of physics that aren't fully compatible with each other. Their work is in progress, and it's still widely accepted that space is just three dimensions.

>> No.11266250
File: 1.30 MB, 320x213, 1557790459267.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11266250

>>11266219

>Well, the word is a noun. But 'space' is just a model
So it doesn't exist as something real?

>way of talking about locations. It works well as a tool for understanding the natural world.
So it doesn't exist as something that does something?

>Then you are already using the component dimensions of space in your day to day speech.
But that still doesn't mean anything. There's no proof of space.

>There are theorists that are using higher numbers of dimensions to try to mathematically unify together parts of physics that aren't fully compatible with each other. Their work is in progress, and it's still widely accepted that space is just three dimensions.

WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF "SPACE"? This is the last (you) you're getting until you actually answer it.

>> No.11266258

>>11266250
>So it doesn't exist as something real?

It's a model. It describes how things are positioned relative to each other.

I don't know what you mean by 'is it real' - that's like asking if addition or conservatism are real. They're abstract concepts.

>WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF "SPACE"?

There isn't a microscope that you can point at an empty vacuum and see little balls with 'SPACE STUFF' written on them. You're missing the point my dude.

A model is good as long as it fits what we observe. When we're talking about 'space', we're using language to describe the medium in which things can be in front of each other, or behind each other, or to the left/right of each other. It's an idea we use to describe the way that things are, just like literally everything else in science.

>> No.11266283

>arguing with a schizo for over 12 hours about the idea of abstraction

>> No.11266459

>>11265612
at least they are trying to think outside of the box again. Current physics dug itself into a very black hole and they seem completely unable to get out of it any time soon. We really need new models, that produce anything of value in the real world. Theoretical science currently seems more useless and retarded that fucking female studies and you know it.

>> No.11266482

>>11266283
Yeah, that was fucking painful to read. The retard is obviously trolling

>> No.11266488

>>11265717
This is a schizo post. Don't approach, just ignore. He does the same with any arguments. Ignore, and he'll vanish.

>> No.11266493

>>11266031
>absence of evidence is evidence of absence
lmao

>> No.11266531

>>11266157
>Prove space exists. I did not ask for western existentialist garbage, I want literal proof you idiot.
Kant has nothing to do with existentialism you stupid uneducated fucking moron, he has to do with empiricism and what constitutes proof and knowledge. If you actually read Kant you'd understand why what you're asking is fucking retarded garbage and why you're a stupid utter fucking moron

>> No.11267152
File: 35 KB, 720x570, 1575667335704.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267152

>>11266531
>It's not western existentialism if it's self induced limiting of western existentialist ideas

Oh okay, "western existentialism in privation due to a self-loathful and human invented idea of a christian god" then. Kind of like how space is a privation.

>>11266493
>absence of evidence is evidence of absence
>Well at least we know that space is definitely not the absence of matter because then it would be nothing! It wouldn't be testable nor definable as something specific!
This is why I am literally asking for the evidence of space instead of pissing on myself with dumb one liners that don't prove anything. Show me evidence of space and there will be an end to the horror.

>>11266488
Deride and do whatever to prevent yourself from answering a simple question.
>Ignore, and he'll vanish.
Like you do when asked "what is space". You're a joke mate.

>>11266283
>>11266482
Who can tell if I'm trolling or not? All you retards would have had to do is provide me evidence and you could have saved yourselves the post count and time. But you didn't. I'm not going to say it's because you're pretending to know something and that space is a completely made up thing, because then that would mean that the foundation for relativity and Quantum mechanics wouldn't exactly be much of a foundation would it? I don't want to open that can of worms, I just want proof of space. Thanks.

>> No.11267319

>>11267152
>Oh okay, "western existentialism in privation due to a self-loathful and human invented idea of a christian god" then. Kind of like how space is a privation.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, it's pathetic.
Matter is not the only thing that exists, so you claiming "space can't exist because it isn't matter and only matter exists therefore space is fake!" Is immediately falsified, you build up this logic on wrong axioms.
Also, you don't understand empiricism, which is why I told you to read Kant. Going "give muh empirical evidence" isn't going to work when you yourself don't know what empiricism is or how we can gain knowledge empirically.

>> No.11267489
File: 361 KB, 1079x1265, 1553956642028.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267489

>>11267319
>Matter is not the only thing that exists, so you claiming "space can't exist because it isn't matter and only matter exists therefore space is fake!" Is immediately falsified, you build up this logic on wrong axioms.

Please point out where I said this. I just keep asking for empirical evidence of space and everyone shows up empty handed and making a big deal out of the question. I honestly don't get it.

>Also, you don't understand empiricism, which is why I told you to read Kant. Going "give muh empirical evidence" isn't going to work when you yourself don't know what empiricism is or how we can gain knowledge empirically.

You gain empirical knowledge by mean of the senses, observation and experimentation. Which is precisely why I keep asking for empirical evidence of this place you refer to as "space". So please test"space" in a scientific experiment and point out specifically what it is you are observing. It shouldn't be hard since it exists right?

>> No.11267550

Put polarization filter somewhere in that cone for it to be accurate.

>> No.11267559

Accurate, if you assume that hypersurfrace is having function, that you see some part of possible futures... Its simplified explanation.

It is just saying that there is point, that in which possible futures are being transformed into past, and words hyper on surface means, it can mean fucking anything and nobody would have fucks to give about correcting it.

>> No.11267561

>this thread
jfc /sci/

>> No.11267591

>>11266010
What would you consider as evidence that a dimension exists?

>> No.11267601

empirical evidence for space is like asking for an empirical evidence for vectors. and then rejecting all of classical mechanics when there is none.

>> No.11267614
File: 133 KB, 1000x1055, dna.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267614

>>11263710
Reminder that this graph is retarded and accepted totally arbitrarily. We are years behind anons. When will we fix dis?
Can smart anons get on and help

Just throwing shit into some theory does not make you smart anon, you actually must have a vague idea of an alternate model and expose its contradictions.

>> No.11267679

>>11267591
It's not even a meaningful statement. "It has dimension" does not in anyway explain how it was caused/exists. It's a quantitative description that asserts that something *has* a definable property/ and is observable. Basically on par with saying "this thing exists". Okay and..?

"Space is 3 dimensional" literally does not tell me anything conclusive about what "space" is. It's just a reiteration of "Space is observable", yet no one has ever proved it or shown so in a scientific experiment.

>> No.11267695

>>11265717
Ignore this troll.

>> No.11267705

>>11267489
Can you provide empirical evidence of the senses?

>> No.11267713
File: 40 KB, 480x320, schwarzwald04[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267713

>>11267695
>>11267561
>>11267601
>>11266493
>>11266482
>>11266488
>>11266151
>>11266035
>>11265754
>>11265735
>>11265543
>>11265617
"What is space and what is the empirical evidence of it?"
The question that makes certain "scientific" groupthinks fall to pieces. Imagine if all the flat earths/firmament believers started asking this question on a daily basis here? They would have a field day with the lot of you.

>> No.11267716
File: 3.89 MB, 400x300, 1564837176439.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267716

>>11267705
Do you usually answer your own questions?

>> No.11267721

>>11267679
I am not sure if your problem is with relativity, physics or science as a whole because I can also say that "an electron has charge" and I can just copy-paste what you said

>It's not even a meaningful statement. "It has charge" does not in anyway explain how it was caused/exists

>"Charge is positive or negative" literally does not tell me anything conclusive about what "charge" is.

>> No.11267729
File: 48 KB, 640x480, 1548323830636.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267729

>>11267721
>"It has charge" does not in anyway explain how it was caused/exists
>"Charge is positive or negative" literally does not tell me anything conclusive about what "charge" is.

Correct, or at least I find nothing wrong with that logic. Would you like to add anything else?

>> No.11267731

>>11267729
Then you have a problem with science itself, good luck at creating your own science

>> No.11267746

>>11267731
>Then you have a problem with science itself.

Excuse me? Would you like to elaborate upon that more? You literally made the statement and I agreed on it. Unless of course you can tell me
"what causes charge" and "what charge is". Can you even do that? Please do not tell me you can't, it's bad enough none of you can even tell me what space is.

>good luck at creating your own science

Yeah, okay. Good luck explaining and testing what "space" is with "your science".

>> No.11267759

>>11267746
Because no matter what you do, in science you have to start with axioms and concepts that you don't define, if you want to prove space or define what it is you must create another theory that will have to deal with undefined concepts again. There is no definition of time, space, charge, momentum, etc. in physics, the only thing you can do is measure those things.

>> No.11267784

Minkowski diagrams (Usually I see them in two dimensions but I don't imagine this three-dimensional version is much different in principal) are just convenient visual representations of things like causality, length contraction, and time dilation in special relativity. They're simply convenient to have a qualitative understanding of some of the principles of the theory and why Lorentz factors and such come into play with relativistic phenomena. It's as "Arbitrary" as drawing a velocity vs. time graph, which can be useful for obvious fucking reasons.

What the fuck is happening in this thread? Why are you all talking about this like morons?

This board is such cancer.

>> No.11267786

11267759
(You's) revoked

>in science you have to start with axioms and concepts that you don't define,
Fine whatever, you can sit here and assume things without proof all day long, eventually you're gonna have to work out a
"Hypothesis" to expand upon the proposition, Which still contains an educated guess accompanied with EMPIRICAL evidence to support your claim. This then leads to this thing called an:
"Experiment"..
and so on and so forth

So prove your claims. Tell me what space is. Test it in a scientific experiment, and show me what it is. Otherwise, stop talking about things that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, which aren't provable or not provable. It is literally of no use.

>> No.11267794
File: 48 KB, 600x451, memebart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267794

>>11267786

>> No.11267802

>>11267786
>It is literally of no use.
it is literally how physics works

>> No.11267810
File: 210 KB, 640x640, 1575939879272.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267810

>giving berzerkerfag (You)s

>> No.11267813
File: 2.65 MB, 2560x1600, 1565138732305.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267813

11267794

>generadormemes.com
Absolutely adorable. Is that why you don't understand my question? Okay;

¿Qué es el espacio?
¿Puedes probarlo en un experimento científico?

>> No.11267821

>>11267813
can you define what a proof is?
can you define what a science is?
can you define what an experiment is?
can you define what a scientific experiment is?

>> No.11267822
File: 162 KB, 1024x923, 1536876627983.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267822

11267821
>define, define, define

I can "Define" whatever I want, how I want. What I am asking for is "proof" of what you are defining as "Space". What part of that don't you understand?

>> No.11267825

>prove a definition

>> No.11267831

>>11267822
maybe if i prove it to you, you may not consider it as a proof, so tell me what is a proof?

>> No.11267836

>>11267786
>>11267813
>>11267822
CAN YOU PUT TWO FUCKING ARROWS IN FRONT OF THE POST ID I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD WHY CAN'T YOU JUST BE NORMAL, FUCK YOU

>> No.11267850
File: 73 KB, 850x400, cd373b11a398ca9153278114f7f2a42f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267850

11267836
>>11267831
Can you provide me EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of SPACE and TEST IT IN AN EXPERIMENT like a normal scientist? God fucking damn, how many times must I ask this question? The "realest" space if you need any more clarification, the one that is alleged to ACTUALLY EXIST AS SOMETHING THAT DOES SOMETHING.

>> No.11267852

>>11267850
>Can you provide me EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of SPACE

Where is Earth?

>> No.11267861
File: 1.29 MB, 200x235, 1547403417506.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267861

>>11267852

>Where is Earth?

Where is space? I am not talking about "Earth" or claiming anything about it.

>> No.11267864

>>11267861
>Where is space?

Space is the three-dimensional manifold in which everything else exists. It is everpresent. You never study topology?

>> No.11267869

>>11267864
>Space is the three-dimensional manifold in which everything else exists. It is everpresent. You never study topology?

read and refer back to this post until you have proof: >>11267850

>> No.11267870

>>11267869
>Prove a definition

Yikes

>> No.11267872

11267870
>dog barks
>wind blows
refer to:
>>11267850

>> No.11267878

>>11267872
why don't you give us an example of a definition which you consider proved and based on empirical evidence ?

>> No.11267893

>>11267822
You are such a stupid pseudo intellectual.
You can NEVER prove anything empirically. There is literally no such thing as "empirical proof", and no scientist would ever say they have "proven" a theory. Proofs belong to mathematics.
If you want empirical EVIDENCE of space being 3 dimensional, then use your eyes to fucking see it you dumb question begging faggot. That IS an empirical observation you stupid fucking moron, literally just as valid and reproducible as any other scientific experiment that humans use to learn things about phenomenon.
If you do not accept this, then you are admitting that you do not actually care about scientific evidence or, as you put it, "empirical proof and experiment". Using your eyes to see that space exists and is 3 dimensional is no different whatsoever from using a measuring instrument to learn that water is formed from hydrogen and oxygen, or that it boils at 100 degrees celcius. Your eyes are just as valid as instruments of empirical observation as any "test" or "experiment" that you can construct using other tools.

>> No.11267896

>>11267850
OH, you're a tesla incel. It all makes sense now

>> No.11267921

>>11267152
Just because something is an abstraction does not mean it's made-up bullshit.

>I don't want to open that can of worms, I just want proof of space.

The proof of 'space' is the fact that the model fits what we observe. You can't describe locations with more or less than 3 orthogonal dimensions - or if it is possible, it hasn't been done yet.

>> No.11267934
File: 44 KB, 707x398, ha8gzsldlfi21[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267934

>>11267893
>>11267878
>>11267896
>>11267921
Refer back to >>11267850 and >>11267822 and provide me proof please.

>> No.11267941

>>11267934
Well now that you showed that this board is full of retards, why don't you build your definition of space? why don't you show empirical evidence of it? and if you think space does not exists then, why don't you build your own theory to teach some real science to this fags? Don't you realize this is an area of opportunity to get recognized by the whole science community?

>> No.11267945

>>11267941
>why don't you build your definition of space? why don't you show empirical evidence of it? and if you think space does not exists then, why don't you build your own theory to teach some real science to this fags? Don't you realize this is an area of opportunity to get recognized by the whole science community?

I cannot define that which there is no evidence of/lacks definition in a way that will be meaningful. However I will not deny it for the same reasons. If space exists then I would please like to see some proof of it.

>> No.11267950
File: 82 KB, 300x219, 300px-Хаха00.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267950

>>11263710
Do you not understand it?
You could be anywhere in the past, except from where even light didn't travel in that time
You can be anywhere in the future, except where even light won't travel that fast.
That cone is the absolute boundaries, for everything in this world, so it makes much more sense for photons than for your fat ass not travelling far from that time axis.

>> No.11267958

>>11267945
I'm done with this moron, so think about this psuedo intellectual anon, showing that something exists is not a problem that only refers to the thing that you want to prove that exists, its also a problem of what you can consider as evidence of its existence.

>> No.11267964

>>11267945
>>11267958
oh yeah and take a quick dive into Kant's phuilosophy

>> No.11267977
File: 77 KB, 500x466, squating_skeleton_still_waiting_meme1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11267977

>>11267958
>I'm done with this moron, so think about this psuedo intellectual anon, showing that something exists is not a problem that only refers to the thing that you want to prove that exists, its also a problem of what you can consider as evidence of its existence.

I would take this statement seriously if you had provided at last ONE actual, empirical piece of evidence for me to work with. We could argue about whatever piece of evidence you brought to the table, and that would be wonderful, because then we would actually be discussing something that has a basis in reality. But you haven't. So what do you want me to do? Listen to your descriptions of this and that all day? Boring, also doesn't answer the question.

>>11267964
Still waiting for my evidence.

>> No.11267983

>>11267977
you should take it seriously just change your very same questions by god, evolution, electrons, ghosts, aliens, anything and you gonna run into the same problem: what can consider as evidence to show that all of this exists?

>> No.11268029

>>11267977
Physical evidence isn't evidence. Schizophrenics have their own "physical evidence" for all their crazy nonsense theories. Should we believe them?
You are fed the sensation of space, objects, permanence, time, etc., but it's impossible for you to know if those experiences are true to the nature of reality, exist without someone experiencing them, or what their essence is regardless of conscious experience.
How can you talk about "physical space" if you can't even prove whether the "physical world" is a hallucination or not?

>> No.11268044

>>11268029
>Physical evidence isn't evidence.
So what is it? Just "physical"? That's doesn't distinguish it sorry.

>Schizophrenics have their own "physical evidence" for all their crazy nonsense theories. Should we believe them?
What the flying fuck? If their evidence matches the explanations then the answer is "yes". So please show me the evidence for space and the explanation behind it. FFS.

>You are fed the sensation of space, objects, permanence, time, etc., but it's impossible for you to know if those experiences are true to the nature of reality, exist without someone experiencing them, or what their essence is regardless of conscious experience.

What physical properties does space have to experience? Seriously.

>How can you talk about "physical space" if you can't even prove whether the "physical world" is a hallucination or not?

With empirical evidence, a recording that it happend/ observation of it. If it isn't actually "physical" then why on earth are you applying physics to it? Sounds retarded and doomed to fail.

>> No.11268048

>>11268044
You're asking for evidence that cannot be proven beyond all doubt. Might as well be asking for and accepting "proof" of God.

>> No.11268075

>>11268048
Well that's fine then. Talking about space is literally not scientific.
This thread belongs in >>>/his/

>> No.11268097

>>11267786
prove to me that you have senses.

>> No.11268099

>>11268075
Finally! You figured it out yourself!

>Talking about space is literally not scientific.

Newsflash you are not the first human being that has asked himself this question. Now go on and fucking read Kant

>> No.11268110

>>11264639
At least it should be the hypersurface of the present in that given frame of reference.

>> No.11268116
File: 72 KB, 960x733, 1573622661162.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11268116

>>11268097
I'm talking about "space".

>>11268099
>Newsflash you are not the first human being that has asked himself this question.
It's not a question, it is a fact. At least it is until you provide me empirical evidence of space....

>Now go on and fucking read Kant
go talk about Kant on >>>/his/, this is a science board.

>> No.11268128

>>11266130
>pseudo intellectual mother fucker
>Read Kant
shiggydiggy

>> No.11268131

>>11266193
It's a dimension, not of space, but of time. A dimension is just a number.

>> No.11268133

>>11268116
Imagine being this retarded believing that science has nothing to do with philosophy

>> No.11268137

>>11268116
why would I waste my time proving space to a person that can't even prove they are something more than a parrot?

>> No.11268205

>>11266193
Not exactly, you may say entropy gives us an orientation for that coordinate but even in classical mechanics its a variable associated to a moving particle, although all process are reversible in this case

>> No.11268224

>>11268116
Well its not that difficult anons
>what is space?
Its a triad of variables associated to moving particles
>empirical evidence of space
just throw a freakin rock, if that is not evidence, then jump from a building with at least 10 floors

>> No.11268227

Don’t reply to schizoposters it’s not that hard

>> No.11268247

>>11268133
Science fucks philosophy in the ass because it’s actually useful

>> No.11268299

>>11267152
>this is why I'm literally asking for...
Completely ignoring the point. Not only are you delusional, you're also dumb.

Consistently banning schizo threads when?

>> No.11268307
File: 643 KB, 1022x731, It's_All_So_Tiresome[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11268307

>>11268247
Except for when trying to prove space exists apparently, which like half of the well known theories built their foundation on.
>>11268133
I could care less about what you believe. Show me that you actually know something and prove space exists.
>>11268137
>why would I waste my time proving space to a person that can't even prove they are something more than a parrot?
Why would you waste your time talking about space to begin with? You can't even show me evidence of it, lol. You're just repeating and saying it exists when you have not shown that it does, and you have done so several times (at least if you're one of the same people I've asked the question to numerous times now in this thread).

>>11268224
>Its a triad of variables associated to moving particles
So what the particles are doing? What the fuck is this even supposed to mean? Variables of what?

>just throw a freakin rock, if that is not evidence, then jump from a building with at least 10 floors
You have evidence of a rock and a tall building, and density of materials in play too. Funny how every time I ask for evidence of space someone has to use something else to define it. That is also fine, but you still haven't shown "what it is" that you're applying the something else to in order to define it. If space is a privation which you all keep alluding to, then it literally "is not something".

Why must you all try so desperately hard to maintain the delusion that space is actually something without showing what it actually is? It's a circular reasoning cesspool and everyone is keeping the scummy waters high by continuing to piss in it. Something to put in your new years resolution I guess.
"Prove and show what space is empirically so that you'll never be provoked by the question on /sci/ again". That way we don't have to waste hundreds of posts of fallacy of reification, nit picking, and ad hominem and philosophy mumbo jumbo.

>> No.11268312
File: 776 KB, 800x600, 1563227771670.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11268312

>>11268299
>Completely ignoring the point
How? I am asking for the evidence you fucking retard. I never said the evidence was absent. Learn to read, especially the more-than-a-dozen posts I have made asking "Where is the empirical evidence of space"?

SHOW IT TO ME. I AM NOT AFFIRMING IT OR DENYING IT.

Because
I
Literally
Have
No
Fucking
Evidence

Do you get it yet?

>> No.11268316

>this will literally go on for days longer
sage in all fields

>> No.11268330

>>11266157
>prove space exists
I exist, and we can presume you exist. Space can be defined as the volume separating my dick from your ass. Since my dick is not inside your ass (currently), we can infer that a positioning system exists that allows my dick and your ass to occupy seperate locations, this is space

If space did not exist, everything would be in the same infentisimal point, including both my dick and your ass

>> No.11268355

>>11268307
just re read this again please >>11267958 and this time try to actually use your brain

>> No.11268360

>>11268307
just prove to me that a anything exists using only the object that you are trying to prove it exists

>> No.11268368

>>11268312
>I never said the evidence was absent
>Where is the empirical evidence of space"?

Then you must have the evidence, show it us

>> No.11268380
File: 24 KB, 636x773, mt1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11268380

>>11268307
>failing to provide proof of having a sensory experience, instead opting to repeat the same nonsense over and over.
Yeah, I don't waste time conversing with chat bots. The algorithm is super weak. Why does it bother with space when it doesn't even know its own purpose. It forever insists on evidence, empirical evidence, as if that makes any difference when it doesn't identify a criteria. This is done to ever shift the goal posts and repeat itself, over and over. Prove you have senses and then space can be demonstrated from the confines of your epistemology.

>> No.11268408
File: 28 KB, 400x562, 1381834650682[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11268408

>>11268380
>Yeah, I don't waste time conversing with chat bots. The algorithm is super weak.
Wow, it's like you feel exactly the way I do only you're all programmed to use circular logic when it comes to space. Just show me some evidence and I won't have to keep asking!

>>11268368
I never made the claim space exists. Other people have and I simply asked for proof. But people insist on not doing that and pud pulling me all the way. Why? Just answer.

>>11268360
>Oranges exist
>I have an orange
>many people can have an orange
>you can see an orange
>you can test an orange
>even if you define "it" as something other than an "orange" "it" is still empirical. "It" has not inherently changed even though you defined it as...oh lets say an "apple".
>Okay, fine. The redescribed things now refereed to as "apple" is still there, being empirical.

So here's what you could do.

Do:
Prove to me that "space" exists as something that does something, like the orange/apple.
Re-describe over and over what "space" can be defined as, so long as you actually have tested it and proven that it is indeed an "it" of some sort.

Do not:
Re-describe "space" over and over constantly thinking that JUST re-describing what was never proven to empirically exist actually makes it exists.

>>11268355
re read this:
>>11267850

>> No.11268417

>>11268408
>Space exist
>I have space
>many people can have space
>you can see space
>you can test space
>even if you define "it" as something other than an "space" "it" is still empirical. "It" has not inherently changed even though you defined it as...oh lets say a "light wave".

>> No.11268452

>>11268417
>Space exist
Well I don't see it nor proof of it. Care to explain yourself? Do you have evidence?
>I have space
Where?
>many people can have space
They can? Then where is my space? Why can't I see it? Where is it? Can you hold it? I can hold an orange and I can taste and eat it too.

What does space tastes like? Feel like? How do you see space?
Elaborate more

>you can test space
Then do it or show me the experiment that did. I am waiting still!

>even if you define "it" as something other than an "space" "it" is still empirical.
Yes! So prove it exists first! Then you can actually say that redefining it is useful. Until then what you're saying is basically on par with "the sky is blue" and other "not even wrong" arguments.

>"It" has not inherently changed even though you defined it as...oh lets say a "light wave".

A wave is what something does, not a thing. Also you still haven't shown me what "it" actually is before you redefined as "light wave".

>> No.11268513

>>11268312
>how?
I said you confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence. You completely ignored that and instead went mad about something I didn't say. I am none of the other guys you're trying to enrage. Who's the retard now?

Consistently banning schizo threads when?

>> No.11268533

>>11268408
Prove an orange exists

>> No.11268600

>>11267934

I think you're deeply confused about the way that science works. There isn't any such thing as 'empirically proving' a model - you just test it against observation until you're confident that the model is strong.

If you can mail me a hammer whose atoms' locations necessitate 5 orthogonal dimensions to understand, then space is a flawed model and should probably be improved upon. But if not, then it's as good a tool as we have.

>> No.11268825

>>11267614
Apply aloe to the burn! Firm hand shakes out to you anon.

>> No.11269231

>>11268128
Kant is objectively the smartest man to have lived in the past 300 years (maybe Gauss ties with him)

>> No.11269236

>>11267934
This post >>11267893 provides you with empirical proof as well as a testable and falsifiable method to test for space.
You can not disagree with this.

>> No.11269277

>>11263710
Something that kinda bothers me about relativity is that if the space actually bends, something I am a bit skeptical, then ir has yo be emmbeded in other manifold, you cannot bend a manifold on itself, and don't know how relevant this could be to the theory but it may worth giving it a thought
>>11268452
Are you so stupid not yo realize that these "objections" can apply to air too?

>> No.11269372

>>11268408
I solute you, man.
Very good discussion about space.
Calm and collected, when answering, good job.
Seems like you are taking them to the edges of their abstract perceptions, i can tell by the fact that they ignore your question and keep saying the same illogical thing all over again.
I assume you knew this would happen, before starting the discussion. So what's was your game plan? Just pique there curiosity?

On another note.
There was an arena forum back in the day, when they were running very similar discussion to yours, but around the concept of 'you'.
That 'you' as a concept is also very evidence lacking.

And final note.
Whats your take on the evidence for time?

>> No.11269420

>>11269372
Except no one is ignoring his questions, he is ignoring their answers (also we all can tell you are samefagging).

>> No.11269472

>>11269420
I am currently on his side.
Space has no properties, no evidence of existence.
It's only existence is in the realm of ideas.

>> No.11269531

>>11269277
>then ir has yo be emmbeded in other manifold, you cannot bend a manifold on itself,
yes, you can, that's the whole of manifolds LOL. do you know even know what that word actually means in mathematics ?

>> No.11269536

>>11269531
whole point

>> No.11269539
File: 9 KB, 450x253, 7A49D870-E62F-428F-B10B-660B20B7A8AC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11269539

This.

>> No.11269551

I'M COOOOOMMUTING

>> No.11269563

>>11269277
Are you so stupid not yo realize that these "objections" can apply to air too?

They DID until "air" was tested in a scientific experiment. That's how we figured out it was made mostly of nitrogen and oxygen.

>>11269236
>You can not disagree with this.
>Your eyes are just as valid as instruments of empirical observation as any "test" or "experiment" that you can construct using other tools.

I can find plenty to disagree with, I just chose not to drag it further along because it still didn't answer my initial question

>>11268513
>I said you confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence
"No". Now please provide me proof of space. Until then I will NEITHER DENY nor AFFIRM. I don't know where you are getting this "evidence of absence" nonsense from.
>Who's the retard now?
No one, because literally no new knowledge has been presented to discuss.

>>11268533
I just did, reread the post and google what "empirical" means.

>>11268600
>I think you're deeply confused about the way that science works
>you just test it against observation until you're confident that the model is strong.
TEST ACTUAL "SPACE". NOT YOUR DEFINITION. I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR DEFINITIONS, I CARE ABOUT SPACE

>mail me a hammer whose atoms' locations necessitate 5 orthogonal dimensions to understand, then space is a flawed model and should probably be improved upon.
>he once again defines space using only something else
reread:
>>11268408

>>11269372
>Whats your take on the evidence for time?
What evidence for time? What properties does it have that make it testable in an experiment?

>>11269372
>There was an arena forum back in the day, when they were running very similar discussion to yours, but around the concept of 'you'.
My concreteness may not be real but what I do is measurable and empirical
>That 'you' as a concept is also very evidence lacking.
I think therefore I am ultimately not. I I were something then I wouldn't think perioid, I would just "be".

>> No.11269578

>>11269563
space "exists" in the same way as numbers exist. do you believe numbers exist ?

>> No.11269587

>>11269531
Then how can you continuously deform a curve into another without any space containing such curve, I mean you can show that the curves (t,t^2) and (t,t^4) are diffeomorphic but how deform one into each other without embedding them into any manifold?

>> No.11269589

>>11269587
by deforming the riemannian metric

>> No.11269623

>>11269587
then you are deforming the metric not the curves, that is why I said I am a bit skeptical about the space actually bending itself, relativity uses light beams as a metric then light is the one affected, objects may not actually deform

https://www.tempolimit-lichtgeschwindigkeit.de/sphere/sphere.pdf

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-visual-appearance-of-rapidly-moving-objects-Weisskopf/43697c6c0f27695068e4d017a1f0f9a6878a2bda

>> No.11269626

>>11269589
this >>11269623

>> No.11269631

>>11269578
>space "exists" in the same way as numbers exist. do you believe numbers exist ?

This type of equivalency was already discussed refer to:
>>11268312
>>11267850
>>11268408

>> No.11269667

>>11269563

>You have evidence of a rock and a tall building, and density of materials in play too. Funny how every time I ask for evidence of space someone has to use something else to define it
>That's how we figured out it was made mostly of nitrogen and oxygen

You have evidence of oxygen and hydrogen

>That is also fine, but you still haven't shown "what it is" that you're applying the something else to in order to define it. If air is a privation which you all keep alluding to, then it literally "is not something".

Dude you cannot expect people to find the contradictions of your own statements all the time, you should start doing it by yourself

>> No.11269671

>>11269631
do you believe numbers exist ?

>> No.11269725
File: 112 KB, 1280x720, 1541805860745.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11269725

>>11269667
>You have evidence of oxygen and hydrogen
and nitrogen. All of which constitute what we defined as "Air". We now know that what we defined as "air" actually exists as something that can be felt and used. Why? Because we literally tested it in several scientific experiments. Which we have not done for "space".

>If air is a privation which you all keep alluding to, then it literally "is not something".
But air is not a privation. It doesn't requires something else to define it. It's made of the stuff that literally defines it right now and we empirically showed it actually exists. Its explanation may be lacking, but it lacks nothing. You can now define it however you want, it has a physical nature to be defined.

If your argument is that "air is a privation of oxygen and hydrogen" then you literally don't even understand the point I am trying to make here and I don't think I can explain it to you in anymore detail. This has nothing to do with semantics, it has everything to do with figuring out "what it is". So before we argue over the meaning of words, lets first figure out if what we're assigning a word to even exists or not.
So please, for the love of god, show me or explain to me what space is. What is it made of? What is its mode of actually being something that does something in reality?

You would be best figuring out the answers to these questions if you tested it in a scientific experiment. Is it like air? It does has bits of hydrogen in it. Is it just a "lighter air"? I'm not saying that's what it is, but at least that definition actually gives me something to work with.

>>11269671
As an idea yes.
As something that does something? No.

>> No.11269736

>>11269725
>As an idea yes.
>As something that does something? No.
exactly as space

>> No.11269743

>>11269725
I actually left this statement incomplete , hoping you could figure out your own fallacies, but it was like this

You have evidence of oxygen and hydrogen, funny thing when I ask evidence for air you have to use something else to define it

We cannot show you evidence of space because you cannot even use the basic rules of logic to your own arguments

>> No.11269765

>>11269563
>I can find plenty to disagree with
No, you cant. Empirical knowledge is LITETALLY the knowledge you get from sensory data. Your eyes ARE empirical knowledge.
You can not claim to desire empirical knowledge and then claim that your eyes aren't valid. That's a contradiction.

>> No.11269791

>>11269736
So then why are you discussing it? It literally is "of no use". It is the exact same thing as discussing the existence of unicorns, leprechauns and the tooth fairy. It's actually worse because those things are at least based on something that exists. What is space based on that exists? Does it just explain itself by itself? Is space God?

>>11269743
>You have evidence of oxygen and hydrogen, funny thing when I ask evidence for air you have to use something else to define it
Whatever, at least the "something" actually is proven to exist.

>We cannot show you evidence of space because you cannot even use the basic rules of logic to your own arguments
Well I guess it's a good thing that I have asked to you to "please provide evidence of space by testing it in a scientific experiment" instead of evidence by "redefining and semantics".

Like what are you even trying to accomplish? Tripping me up on a few posts? I don't give a shit about that trite. Show me evidence of space you fucking nonce.


>No, you cant. Empirical knowledge is LITETALLY the knowledge you get from sensory data. Your eyes ARE empirical knowledge.
so then please show the "sensory data" of space. Also it's not just from "the senses", it is also from experimentation and comparison. Which is why I also have added, "test it in a scientific experiment". Preferably more than one. Then you will know without a doubt.

>You can not claim to desire empirical knowledge and then claim that your eyes aren't valid. That's a contradiction.
It's not a contradiction because JUST your eyes aren't valid enough to accurately explain what the fuck something is. What If I took hallucinogens before I observed something? What if the person is blind? What if I was colorblind or had some indeterminable difference by sight alone? That is why I am asking for it to ALSO be used in an "experiment". That is literally the reason why "experiments" exist in the first place!

>> No.11269799

>>11269791
are numbers literally of no use ?

>> No.11269807
File: 387 KB, 600x600, 1536446642157.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11269807

>>11269799
Numbers of what? How many of (thing that is real) are we talking here?

>> No.11269816

>>11269807
do you or do you not think that numbers, as an idea (which you've just confirmed you acknowledge), are literally of no use ?

>> No.11269826

>>11269791
Dude all I have been doing is using your own arguments and apply them to another concept, you realize you have not been discussing with me but with yourself, you are just inventing excuses that apply to certain topics but not to others when using same sequence of your own "reasoning"

>> No.11269844
File: 5 KB, 300x300, square_root_of_2_triangle[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11269844

>>11269807
>do you or do you not think that numbers, as an idea (which you've just confirmed you acknowledge), are literally of no use ?
Ultimately, no. A standard of measure can be created using the object in question. There is no specific one. Recording of the numbers and patterns however does help in reproducing the same results, if that's all you intend to do.
>>11269826
Yeah sure, whatever pal. Don't keep me waiting too long on that proof of space now.

>> No.11269854

>>11269844
so if you agree that abstract concepts can be useful, what makes you think that specifically "space" is of literally of no use ?

>> No.11269862

>>11269844
Last one lol

>Yeah sure, whatever pal. Don't keep me waiting too long on showing me all the contradictions of the arguments you posted in this thread

>>11269854
Keep trolling the troll anon, attention whores can be fun for a while. I'm done

>> No.11269898

>>11269791
>so then please show the "sensory data" of space
I already did in the first post, you denying this does not mean I didn't do it, it just means you are denying the proof that you asked for.

>Also it's not just from "the senses", it is also from experimentation and comparison.
No, it literally is just the senses. Experimentation is used to take data and put it in a format that the senses can take in. We draw a graph to see a relationship, for example.
Empiricism IS using the senses, ALL science is taking data for the senses. You can't deny this either, it's literally what empiricism is as an epistemology.

>It's not a contradiction because JUST your eyes aren't valid enough to accurately explain what the fuck something is.
Yes, they are, if the condition is proper. Seeing a man shoot someone is objective empirical evidence. Seeing that space is 3 dimensional is objective empirical evidence.

>What If I took hallucinogens before I observed something? What if the person is blind? What if I was colorblind or had some indeterminable difference by sight alone? That is why I am asking for it to ALSO be used in an "experiment". That is literally the reason why "experiments" exist in the first place!
None of this is relevant. Pathetic attempt at a "gotcha"

>> No.11269983

>>11269862
No matter how many contradictions you've interpreted me making, it will never change the fact that you still have not proven to me that space exist. You have not elaborated on one property it has nor have tested it in a scientific experiment or shown one that did. I will still continue to wait for your proof.

>>11269854
>so if you agree that abstract concepts can be useful,
>ultimately no
>Recording of the numbers and patterns however does help in reproducing the same results
If you want to repeat the same thing over and over and call it useful can you please explain how that is useful? What does it accomplish?

>what makes you think that specifically "space" is of literally of no use ?
What is space? Where is the proof of space? What does space do? What does space cause? Can you test it in an experiment to confirm your affirmations of it existing?


>>11269898
>I already did in the first post, you denying this does not mean I didn't do it, it just means you are denying the proof that you asked for.
By the same logic, if blind man feeling the texture of an elephant leg concludes it is a "tree" makes the elephant leg an actual tree? Good thing we have this process called an "experiment" to confirm your observations.

>it literally is just the senses.
>Experimentation is used to take data and put it in a format that the senses can take in.
So put "Space" in an experiment before observing it then. How is this "data" gathered in the first place?

>Yes, they are, if the condition is proper.
>if the condition is proper

Stop moving goalposts please. Just put space in an experiment.

>None of this is relevant. Pathetic attempt at a "gotcha"
You literally are saying the exact same thing in your post. I don't even know how to respond to this psychosis you've put yourself into. Just put "space" in an experiment, preferably more than one. Or show me it. As far as I'm concerned you're seeing "less hydrogen" and reifying this imaginary place called "Space".

>> No.11270032

>>11263710
we exist in a space between the two cones
all that came before on one axis
the future on the other
even though we seem to be in a static state
at the inflection point
we are on our way to a place
that the past has prepared for us
all that came before influences where we are going
therefore the continuum of apparent time is an illusion
everything happens all at once
since we are observing a continuum our brains invent time - in order to make sense of what we experience
time doesn't exist
past and present are one

>> No.11270043

>>11268029
schizos vacillate between parallel dimensions
our brain is a modem that interpolates the dimension we're living in - the schizo has a damaged modem so they see things from other planes that we cannot!

>> No.11270292

>>11270032
Almost blessed but I'm subtracting one point for failing to recall that past and present do not exist.

My work must continue, even should we all perish it must continue. What we do now is to sow the seeds of epiphany for those who will come long after we are gone.

We must disseminate information in such a way as to be effective.

We must have more initiates. More minds to dispute that which is taken to be self evident.
More men to unravel the mysteries of the unseen.

Eye on the prize, endure, prepare, survive, escape.

>> No.11270717

>>11269983
What are numbers? Where is the proof of numbers? What do numbers do? What do numbers cause? Can you test them in an experiment to confirm your affirmation of them existing?

>> No.11270723

DONT REPLY TO THE FUCKING SCHIZO POSTERS AND THEYLL GO AWAY

STOP IT
THIS IS BASIC TROLLING KNOWLEDGE THAT HAS EXISTED SINCE THE FUCKING 90S

>> No.11271112
File: 281 KB, 490x639, vonNeumann.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11271112

>>11269563
>TEST ACTUAL "SPACE". NOT YOUR DEFINITION. I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR DEFINITIONS, I CARE ABOUT SPACE

The thing in your mind that you're asking people to prove doesn't actually exist. Space is a model for the natural world, in the same way that 'F=ma' is a model for how different objects accelerate with a known force. The way you test these things is to compare the model against what you observe - and since we have no known 4D or 5D hammers, it's a pretty damn good model.

I think you have some fundamental misconceptions about how science works. Models are abstract concepts and not metaphysically the same thing as what actually exists, but they're useful tools for understanding nature by simplifying things and using quantifiable language.

If you don't believe me, here's John von Neumann's view on it:

"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work—that is, correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area."

>> No.11271482

i am just reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Guericke

The third view, which von Guericke discusses at length, but does not attribute to any individual, is that space is a creation of the human imagination.

>> No.11271516

/sci/

more like /sigh/

>> No.11272304

>>11271112
>The thing in your mind that you're asking people to prove doesn't actually exist

Then stop talking about it.

>it's a pretty damn good model.
Yes, it's such a good model that it models what potentially doesn't even exist.

>"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work—that is, c

Well isn't that just nice? Lets take a look at the details of this statement.
>describes observed phenomena
What is this phenomena you keep talking about though? What is "space" and how was it observed?

>correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area."
How do you correctly describe that which may not exist? "You guess" would be my guess. Okay that's fine and all, but please at some point actually clarify "what it is" you're fucking talking about. Otherwise you are literally describing moot shit just like literally every human that has ever existed.
"Oh the sky is blue, let us model it as being blue"
"Oh the ocean is wet, let us model it as appearing wet"

Tells me absolutely nothing about what the "sky" or the "ocean" actually is.

>>11270717
You're not even wrong, now please show me empirical evidence of space.

>>11270723
Good thing I'm just a schmoe asking a question. I'm never going away, not until I get an answer.

>> No.11272354

>>11270723
It's kinda fun sometimes, doesn't matter if they are faking it or not, they still craving for attention and try to disguise their insecurities by proving they are smarter than everyone else. Their stupid posts actually makes me laugh.

>> No.11272456

>>11272304
>Then stop talking about it.

Why would you stop using a useful tool? That seems like a waste.

>Yes, it's such a good model that it models what potentially doesn't even exist.

This is true for literally anything you learn empirically. What you perceive with your eyes is itself a model of what potentially doesn't exist. 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. You can only build more and more robust tools for understanding things that you do measure.

That is an unfortunate truth, but it's true no matter what. No better system exists.

>What is this phenomena you keep talking about though? What is "space" and how was it observed?

'Space' is a mathematical model for describing how things are distributed in the universe. It's not a thing that's made of fundamental particles or anything like that - it's an abstract concept. The observed phenomena is that things in our universe do appear to be positioned relative to each other in terms of three orthogonal dimensions. We never find an exception to that rule except when looking at relativistic effects that combine space and time into one 4D manifold.

>Tells me absolutely nothing about what the "sky" or the "ocean" actually is.

You aren't going to get some deep, metaphysical truth about what the fundamental nature of the universe is. Even if we define concepts like 'atoms' and 'Rayleigh scattering' to better understand how the sky works and why it is blue, those are still just models and can never be 'proven'.

>> No.11272504
File: 360 KB, 250x271, tumblr_nhfrrlOnoD1su5a4po9_250.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11272504

>>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!

>> No.11272541

>>11272504

I'm sorry dude, but hard empiricism isn't how science works. Nobody buys into the idea that you can only trust things you see with your eyes.

I've given you a very patient and accurate description of how modern science attempts to better understand the natural world. 'Proofs' do not exist outside of pure mathematics, and nobody can give you 'proof' of space just like nobody can give you 'proof' of atoms. They are both models and abstract ideas.

>You are wrong.

I'm not though. You cannot be sure that things you see with your eyes are a perfect model of the real outside world beyond your skull. This is a philosophical concept that exists under literally hundreds of names - solipsism, subjectivity, Plato's cave, etc. You can make a simplified model by assuming that objects you observe are reflections of what actually exists - but you cannot prove that your assumptions are correct.

Science doesn't hide from these issues - nobody with a solid understanding of the philosophy of science would say that any experiment 'proves' anything. It just allows you to build a better model.

What you're asking for is some metaphysical description of what part of the universe gives you a 'space' with three orthogonal dimensions. There is no answer for that, and it's not a question that science is equipped to answer. It doesn't mean that 'space' is a hoax concept that should be thrown out - it just means that it's a model that describes an aspect of the Universe.

Let me reiterate: an experiment that 'proves' some metaphysical truth about what /is/ in the Universe is impossible. No such thing exists. If you can point me to an experiment that does that, then go ahead.

>> No.11272571
File: 25 KB, 418x420, 1572767029244.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11272571

>>11265747
the xyz is defined, but notice how you only need three directions to describe where things are in relation to other things. these three directions can point anywhere but as long as they don't all fall in a single plane they can measure 3D space. this cannot be done with 2 directions. likewise you need 2 cordinates to describe where things are on a plane. this is what dimensions are. now show me a space that needs more cordinates than three in this universe, because that would be a major discovery.

>> No.11272661

>>11269563
>where did you get that from
"how do you know unicorns don't exist?"
>>11266031
>Because there is no empirical evidence of one

>> No.11273166

>>11272571
>the xyz is defined, but notice how you only need three directions to describe where things are in relation to other things.

Because you said so? I don't care how things are defined, I want proof of their existence.

>this is what dimensions are.

You're just describing a predefined condition that doesn't exist and is not observed anywhere in the universe. Show me a "straight line" in the universe and then I will take your straight line arbitration more seriously.

>now show me a space that needs more cordinates than three in this universe, because that would be a major discovery.

Show me a "space" that has dimensionality and "coordinates" to begin with. Preferably by testing it in a scientific experiment to see if it's phenomenal or not. Otherwise it classifies as having "no dimension".

>>11272541

>I'm sorry dude, but hard empiricism isn't how science works. Nobody buys into the idea that you can only trust things you see with your eyes.

Which is why I am also asking for a scientific experiment to accompany the proof.

>I've given you a very patient and accurate description

Which I keep telling you NOT to do. Get it through your skull. I do not care about your descriptions. I want the proof to what it is you are describing and how it exists and pertains to reality. If it doesn't exist then stop replying to me to talk about your nonsense. Anyone can describe, I can go to a bum on the street and ask him for a description of space if I need it.

>but you cannot prove that your assumptions are correct.

I'm not assuming anything. I am asking for the proof of space "as something" that does something. If your argument boils down to "well space and nothing else is real" then go to >>>/his/ and you can talk about the meaning of things that are alleged to be empirical.

> it's a model that describes an aspect of the Universe.

But I'm asking for proof of this "aspect". How is it an aspect of the universe?

>> No.11273325

>>11263710
it's the picard manuver fallacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SNe60gweqA

stupid scientists have been convinced that "seeing light signals out of order is the same as time travel"

bunch of fools.

>> No.11273334

>>11273325
sorry, forgot trip

>> No.11273677

>>11273166
I think you need to just read what I've written more closely before I write more stuff for you. These points have already been addressed.

>> No.11273693

>>11272504
>Describing what doesn't exist?
Are you saying that the universe or physical reality doesn't exist?

>> No.11273742

>>11273693
>>11273677
Proof for space please. Until then, posts ignored.

>> No.11273745

>>11273742
Are you saying that the universe or physical reality doesn't exist?

>> No.11273754

>>11273745
Are you now saying "space" is just another redescription of "the universe/physical reality"? Then why make a distinction without a difference?

>> No.11273762

>>11273754
It's a model of it. Why do you keep asking about existence and proof of the model, rather than of the thing that's being modelled?

>> No.11273771

>>11273762
It's a model of it.
So it doesn't actually exist.

Let me fix your second question

>Why do you keep asking about existence and proof of the thing that's being modeled and are getting replies that keep saying it's an arbitrary model?

Because circular logic is hip and not new. Or because people here are so inept at comprehending such a simple question such as
"show me empirical evidence of space and test it in an experiment".

>> No.11273797

>>11273771
Don't modify the question. Answer it.

>So it doesn't actually exist.
Do "numbers" exist? Does "height" exist? Does "force" exist? Does "charge" exist? Does "space" exist? Answer is always the same.

>> No.11273809 [DELETED] 

>>11273797
>Do "numbers" exist? Does "height" exist? Does "force" exist? Does "charge" exist? Does "space" exist? Answer is always the same.

Perhaps, but that's not the point. The point of a scientific model is to be a useful tool - aspects probably correspond to certain things in physical reality, but we can't prove that the model /is/ the physical reality. That's not what science does.

>> No.11273829

>>11273325
It is falacy, and the movie is riturded. Cardassian is spelt with K, and you cannot see the spacechips or hear the music actually since space is full of totally dark vaccum. Also the name of the last airship is not Zhao, it clearly says BOB on the side.

>> No.11273873

>>11268408
Lol oranges are just an arrangement of molecules and don't actually exist. Try again coming up with a definition of empirical evidence.

>> No.11273943

>>11273797
Not the schizoanon you are replying to but your posts made me understand science better. Thanks.

Although the thread was painstakingly long to read. I think it comes down to this:
>someone asks for a proof of space
>other anons say either look with your eyes to see distances and three different distances are the minimum to uniquely describe an object in space, xyz in Carthesian coordinates, and the
examples such as throwing a rock through space is given which requires three dimensions in space and one in time to describe the rock thrown. Even entropy is mentioned to explain time goes one way.
>questioner becomes schizoanon and asks for a definition of space which can be empirically proven on it's own
>this is not possible as a human observer
>space is a measure of distance in multiple dimensions while schizoanon rejects any use of distance measure

This basically sums it up right? Besides schizoanon casually rejecting the notion of scientific models serving a purpose. Also the ad hominems schizoanon makes while explicitly ignoring the point other canons make. Pretty cringe but that's the point I guess.

>> No.11273994

>>11273829
well, considering that it's a fan mage computer generated series of images, I'd say some of your points are a bit redundant.

which I imagine was your intent.

>> No.11274060

To the best of my abilities, i will attempt to prove what space is, with scientific experiments.

Firstly, take a string and marker. both are empirical objects. You can move up and down along the string with your marker to paint the string black (try it as an experiment if you don't believe me). The marker can only move up and down along the string to paint it black, as that is the only possible movements allowed to paint it black (try it). The marker thus moves along the string in one dimension (up and down along the string).

Space is defined as the degree of freedom which the marker (or any object actually) can move at. In this case, the marker can only move along one dimensional space (up and down the string).

Now, take a piece of paper and a marker. both are empirical objects. To colour the paper black, you can move either up and down or left and right with respect to the paper. (try it if you dont believe me) From this experiment, we can see that it takes more actions (aka degree of freedom) in colouring the entire paper black, as compared to the string.
More specifically, since we need 2 dimensions (up and down, left and right movements) to colour the entire sheet of paper black (for the side facing upwards on your table). This shows that whatever you are drawing on the paper occupies 2 dimensional space.

Moving on to our real physical world. We see that we can move forward & backward, left & right, up & down (try walking in a circle and then jumping to prove this). We have 3 degrees of freedom of motion, thus, as we defined what space is earlier, we can see that our real world IS in 3 dimensional space, as all objects in our real world can move up & down, left & right, forward & back.
While we cannot prove ALL objects follow this, but by repeating the experiment with different objects to see whether this applies and conducting a statistical test, we can be reasonably sure our real world is made up of 3 dimensional space where all objects can move at.

>> No.11274092

>>11274060
Schiziofag will just go back to his same arguments, empirical evidence of space without using other objects or saying that that is not a scientific experiment, which we already know cannot be done not because it's space, but something else, and he is either too stupid not to see it or is just some autismo with emotional issues. There are already enough post proving that his reasoning is flawed

>> No.11274151

>>11273943
>This basically sums it up right? Besides schizoanon casually rejecting the notion of scientific models serving a purpose
It does server a purpose though. It describes what does not exist.

>which can be empirically proven on it's own
No one has done that, be my guest

>space is a measure of distance in multiple dimensions while schizoanon rejects any use of distance measure
So it's a measurement of something else, a privation that is only there when something else measurable is?

>>11273797
>Answer is always the same.
No it isn't because unlike space, some things have empirical evidence of existing.

>>11273873
Okay whatever, now you're just negating everything but space to prove...something or whatever. Just so me empirical evidence of space instead of disregarding evidence of everything else.

>>11274060
>To the best of my abilities, i will attempt to prove what space is, with scientific experiments.
Please put the actual "space" we're speaking of in the experiment and test IT. Not test "for it". Test the actual "space".

>While we cannot prove ALL objects follow this, but by repeating the experiment with different objects to see whether this applies and conducting a statistical test, we can be reasonably sure our real world is made up of 3 dimensional space where all objects can move at.
>Space is defined as the degree of freedom which the marker (or any object actually) can move at.

You are literally just re-describing motion and measuring in your own format with the aid of everyday objects. You also speak of it in terms of it still being a privation OF something else that actually exists (the marker and string).

>>11274092
>which we already know cannot be done not because it's space, but something else

You would think that all these scientists would stop speaking about space then when they literally know they cannot test for it or prove it exists. Must have got jealous of religion I guess.

>> No.11274192

>>11274092
wow you are actually right, i guess i should stop humoring him.

>>11274151
motion can only be defined when there is a medium for any object to move about (space). What is motion? motion does not exist as you cannot give me scientific experiments without using empirical objects that exist. motion is not an object. How could it exist?
To describe motion, you have to relate that ABSTRACT CONCEPT THAT WE INVENTED IN OUR MINDS CALLED MOTION to everyday objects! however, since we cannot do this as you said, (testing for motion by using IT itself, not test for it, test the actual motion), motion does not exist and isnt real!
However we can feel the effects of motion (try walking then running if you dont believe me but woops i cant convince you since im not testing motion itself, but using YOU, an empirical object to test for motion). Motion does not exist physically as an empirical object but it is useful in describing many scenarios.

Likewise the same argument goes for space. Space is just an abstract concept in our minds to model the real world to the best of our abilities. We ultimately cannot test space itself, but can only relate it to other actual physical objects.
So according to your beliefs, all abstract concepts are useless and dont exist (time, space, motion, force, energy, etc which are not useless btw) as they cannot be physically tested themselves, but can only be tested by relations to physical objects.
Now this makes all arguments useless then? since you are demanding concrete empirical evidence of abstract concepts which fundamentally cannot be done, so there is not much point in discussing this.

>> No.11274217

>>11274151
>No it isn't because unlike space, some things have empirical evidence of existing.
Which one?

>> No.11274237

>>11274192
you can keep humoring him, but it would be interesting if you try a different perspective than what already has been done in the thread

>> No.11274403

I think we should stop replying to schizoanon in his own thread, lol.

What schizoanon might have done to avoid everyone digging in against him is to show why he wants to show that empirical proof of space does not exist. This is an open debate according to wikipedia:

>Debates concerning the nature, essence and the mode of existence of space date back to antiquity; namely, to treatises like the Timaeus of Plato, or Socrates in his reflections on what the Greeks called khôra (i.e. "space"), or in the Physics of Aristotle (Book IV, Delta) in the definition of topos (i.e. place), or in the later "geometrical conception of place" as "space qua extension" in the Discourse on Place (Qawl fi al-Makan) of the 11th-century Arab polymath Alhazen.[2] Many of these classical philosophical questions were discussed in the Renaissance and then reformulated in the 17th century, particularly during the early development of classical mechanics. In Isaac Newton's view, space was absolute—in the sense that it existed permanently and independently of whether there was any matter in the space.[3] Other natural philosophers, notably Gottfried Leibniz, thought instead that space was in fact a collection of relations between objects, given by their distance and direction from one another. In the 18th century, the philosopher and theologian George Berkeley attempted to refute the "visibility of spatial depth" in his Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision. Later, the metaphysician Immanuel Kant said that the concepts of space and time are not empirical ones derived from experiences of the outside world—they are elements of an already given systematic framework that humans possess and use to structure all experiences. Kant referred to the experience of "space" in his Critique of Pure Reason as being a subjective "pure a priori form of intuition".

>> No.11274406

>>11274403
cont.
>In the 19th and 20th centuries mathematicians began to examine geometries that are non-Euclidean, in which space is conceived as curved, rather than flat. According to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, space around gravitational fields deviates from Euclidean space.[4] Experimental tests of general relativity have confirmed that non-Euclidean geometries provide a better model for the shape of space.

>> No.11274465

>>11274237
Not that anon but I'll have a go.

first let's define spacetime:
>spacetime refers to whatever external reality underlies our collective experiences of the space between things and the time between events.

The schizoanon won't be able to explain why a vacuum exists. What is a vacuum other than space devoid of matter?
Only space remains. So it is an interesting question whether this space that remains is either
>a thing in itself where there is no more matter
>appears as empty space because the distance between matter is big and the vacuum is actually part of the bordering continua
>there is a miraculous aether

I think empty space such as a vacuum must exist. In interstellar space there is approximately 1 molecule per cm3. So if you have two cubic centimeters next to each other, then what is there in between these two molecules if that is not empty space? There are no other molecules in between there.

So then one could go on and take the position that either space exists in itself or an aether exists. An aether is not necessary in the modern theory of physics, Ockham's rasor would suggest to reject the notion of an aether. The alternative to an aether is that space in itself is a physical concept and that empty space can exist (vacuum without medium such as an aether).

There is no evidence supporting an aether although it has not been disproven definitely. Aethers have been shown not to exist up $10^{-17}$ scales. See http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf

Fun fact: the wiki about vacua says the following:
>Vacuum has been a frequent topic of philosophical debate since ancient Greek times, but was not studied empirically until the 17th century.
so shitzoanon has taken an old scientific debate and started shitposting with it. The flawed reasoning and closed mindedness make him a bit sad though.

>> No.11274540

>>11274403
Although he didn't ever stated that
>empirical proof of space does not exist.
He just keep begging for it like a 5yo for mommy and if you asked him to show evidence that anything exists, he either avoided it or used the same sloppy arguments you will find at showing evidence that anything exists. This is not a problem about space exactly, is more related to the methodology that can be used to considered something as evidence for any phenomena

>> No.11274568

>202 posts
>53 unique IPs
This is the face of mental illness.

>> No.11274609

>>11274192
>motion can only be defined when there is a medium for any object to move about (space).
How can you say that when you can't even define what space is? What if it is just the intermingling of motion itself? This is why I am asking for the proof of space.

>What is motion? motion does not exist as you cannot give me scientific experiments without using empirical objects that exist. motion is not an object. How could it exist?
It is the cause to empirical objects existing in the first place. No motion=no object. Why does it need space? This "space" is indistinguishable from the motion because there is no distinguishable proof of it.

>Space is just an abstract concept in our minds to model the real world to the best of our abilities.
>We ultimately cannot test space itself, but can only relate it to other actual physical objects.

HOW? IT DOESN'T EXIST. Illogical and literally impossible.

>since you are demanding concrete empirical evidence of abstract concepts which fundamentally cannot be done, so there is not much point in discussing this.
So space doesn't exist then?

>>11274465

>The schizoanon won't be able to explain why a vacuum exists. What is a vacuum other than space devoid of matter?

Can you please show me evidence of this absence devoid of matter?

>Only space remains.
So what is space? Obviously it's "something" right? It can't be "nothing", that is impossible.

>I think empty space such as a vacuum must exist. In interstellar space there is approximately 1 molecule per cm3. So if you have two cubic centimeters next to each other, then what is there in between these two molecules if that is not empty space? There are no other molecules in between there.

Are you saying that "nothing" exists? A contradiction.

>> No.11274697

>Can you please show me evidence of this absence devoid of matter?
>So what is space? Obviously it's "something" right? It can't be "nothing", that is impossible.
>Are you saying that "nothing" exists? A contradiction.

HAHAHAHHA
BTFO
T
F
O

hahahahaha is this nibba for real?

Thanks for playing along and you lost your own debate.

If your only points are that "space" is "nothing" and you pretend to not even know what a vacuum is then you clearly conceded.
>>11274568 This was you wasn't it?
and you haven't even opened the link in >>11274465 did ya? You dumb goof.

>> No.11274769

>>11274697

>Thanks for playing along and you lost your own debate.
You're deluded. What debate? I am asking for proof of claims. All I did was repeat what this >>11274465 poster was claiming and then ask a question


>If your only points are that "space" is "nothing" and you pretend to not even know what a vacuum is then you clearly conceded.
It wasn't my point, I was seeing if the clarification to someone else's point was logical.

> >>11274568 This was you wasn't it?
>and you haven't even opened the link in >>11274465 did ya? You dumb goof.

Neither are mine.

>> No.11274772

>>11274568
rude

>> No.11274793

>>11274217
>>11274151
Which one?

>> No.11274879

>>11274609
>It is the cause to empirical objects existing in the first place.
define motion without resorting to it being a "privation of something else that actually exists". Is motion an object? is motion empirical? it doesnt exist.
>No motion=no object
Place an apple on the floor. Did it move? does it have motion? is it still there? (yes it is) This proves that no motion can still result in existence of objects and your argument is flawed.

>So space doesn't exist then?
Yes you finally got it. Space and other abstract concepts like motion do not exist, they are just physical models to describe reality, and they are not empirical objects to be tested. Thus, further arguments on how you can test space is meaningless, as you ultimately cannot test it.

>> No.11274932
File: 122 KB, 519x449, rqt2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11274932

>>11274609
No, you are saying that nothing exists. In the hypothetical scenario related to the real world out in space, even without particles between, there is still distance between objects. This distance can be identified in several ways such as through the diminishing intensity of light, or you know, a fucking meter stick. You are grinfucking your own contradictory argument into other peoples as if that is a correct way to converse. I wouldn't expect you to understand because you are still inexperienced enough to think line-by-line "refutations" are legitimate.

>> No.11275461

>>11274932
>No, you are saying that nothing exists.
I don't know what led you to believe this. I am asking if that is what what was meant. I also literally said

>obviously it's "something" right? It can't be "nothing", that is impossible.

>In the hypothetical scenario related to the real world out in space, even without particles between, there is still distance between objects.

I don't think "distance" is something that does something. What is causing this apparent "distance"?

>This distance can be identified in several ways such as through the diminishing intensity of light.
So space is a medium that is filled with "less light"? Is is the absence of light?

>You are grinfucking your own contradictory argument into other peoples as if that is a correct way to converse.
I never had an argument to contradict. I am trying to make sure I understand the meaning of what had been said.

>I wouldn't expect you to understand because you are still inexperienced enough to think line-by-line "refutations" are legitimate.
I have not refuted anything nor am attempting to. I am asking for proof of something claimed to be refutable to begin with. If it isn't real or refutable then what exactly am I supposed to do? I obviously can't refute it, but that still doesn't make what you're talking about an actual subject to be talked about.

>>11274793
The one you think has empirical evidence that proves it exists as something that does something in reality.

>> No.11275477

>>11273166
>Preferably by testing it in a scientific experiment to see if it's phenomenal or not.
You literally don't even know what "phenomenal" means

>> No.11275487

>>11272504
Scientific experiments have not and never will prove the existence of anything
Empiricism is not concerned with proving things.

>> No.11275501

>>11274151
>No it isn't because unlike space, some things have empirical evidence of existing.
None of those things have "more empirical evidence of their existence" vs. space.

>> No.11275512

>>11274609
>It is the cause to empirical objects existing in the first place. No motion=no object
This is literally not true and FAR more arbitrary of a claim than anything about space holy fuck you're a dumb fuck

>> No.11275524

>>11263710
Please don’t talk to the schizo posters

>> No.11275537
File: 3.83 MB, 720x404, 1563571871591.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11275537

>>11275487
>>11275501
>>11275477
>>11275512
Well okay whatever, you all have fun talking about "not a subject to be discussed". Meanwhile I will sit here and continue to wait for proof of space as something that does something in reality that isn't just another redescribed model with no actual proof.

>> No.11275771

>>11275537
legendary battle that will be told to my sons and their sons after.
Basado gutsu fucking annihilates the forces of ignorance.
Way to fucking go this round slugger.

>> No.11275881

>>11275537
>>11275771
stop samefagging

>> No.11276172

>>11275461
>>>>So it doesn't actually exist.
>>Do "numbers" exist? Does "height" exist? Does "force" exist? Does "charge" exist? Does "space" exist? Answer is always the same.
>>>>No it isn't because unlike space, some things have empirical evidence of existing.
Which one of the things that I've listed has an empirical evidence of existing?

>> No.11276260

>>11275537
>>11276172
yeah, i also want to know about the numbers thing.
can you settle this debate by agreeing that space is in the category of numbers.
don't actually exist anywhere in nature, but is a useful tools.

also, please tell more about your motion theory, replacing the space idea.

>> No.11276279

>>11263710
I agree with Op
Those cones don't really mean anything do they

>> No.11276285

>>11276260
you've quoted two different people. I'm >>11276172 and related, the motion theory anon is someone else.

>> No.11276299

>>11276279
>>11276260
>>11276172
Yeah unironically this
>this is correct

>> No.11277304

>>11276260
>also, please tell more about your motion theory, replacing the space idea.

I was entertaining that posters idea that it's "space and motion". Why isn't it "just motion"? Where did the notion of space come from?

>"What if it is just the intermingling of motion itself? This is why I am asking for the proof of space"

>can you settle this debate by agreeing that space is in the category of numbers.
>don't actually exist anywhere in nature, but is a useful tools.
There are indeed "numbers of things", but so far "Space" is just in its own little world. Invented just to imagine about, like unicorns. It can't even be described with numbers because it is not "number". What is the quantity of space?

>>11275881
I don't samefag, I don't even need to since absolutely no one has even answered my question.

>> No.11278941

>>11276260
schizoanon has been shown many examples that space exists as the space between objects.

Since space is defined relative to objects you keep saying that
>space in itself
can not be proven. However that there is distance between objects is something that you always left undisputed. So just because your turbautismo requires you to keep asking for "empirical proof" (which you did not even define in your question and for which you keep shifting goalposts)

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action