Is it logically possible for there to be absolutely nothing between two points of reality

[setarcos]

This is an excellent contribution to the discussion. Spatial dimension would be lacking in absolute nothingness. On the other hand…its hard for the human brain to conceive of objects in higher dimensions. What about an object who’s boundaries demand dimensional relationship between them as a defining characteristic? Conceivably we define a container by its function. If it is defined as an object designed to hold something but there is nothing for it to hold then it is no longer a container. In comparison take a simple 2 dimensional object like a circle, once you remove its internal dimensions which define its boundaries you cease having a circle. Likewise with a square. So an object itself must retain its own dimensional qualities which define it in relation to some other object. Conceptually or in relational reality. The object who finds itself alone with no other object in reality with which to compare is subject to comparison only to its lack of existence which would be the “nothing” it finds itself in. Barring conceptual comparisons which would require a quality of the object to be sentient, concepts themselves not being nothing. Would a circle alone in nothing else be meaningful? Would any object…or entity? I think this would depend on if something is to be meaningful its meaning must be transferable. With no other object with which to transfer meaning, no meaning exists, consequently no meaningful object may exist alone in nothingness. As for the container…in order to be a container it must retain its qualifying characteristics. This includes its defining dimensional qualities, one of which is a dimension between the sides making it a container. Barring everything else it must retain this quality to retain its defining characteristics. Without this characteristic it is indeed no longer a container and ceases to exist as one which makes the question of how you can have a container with nothing between its sides a mute point. No contradiction. An object lacking its defining characteristics cannot exist.

 

[setarcos]

This would depend I think on how you define the one universe as distinct from the other and what you mean by between? Do you mean no characteristic boundary like the laws of one universe do not work in the other and stop at a certain boundary point? What defines the universe as the universe you are in? I believe any direct effect or relation between the defining objects of one universe and yourself may be taken as the universe you are in as compared to one in which its defining objects have no effect on you. Like a mixing of water and oil…barring the natural tendency of the one to separate out from the other, they each retain their characteristics but are comingled with nothing else between their mixing. The creature of the water lives and is capable of recognizing or relating to the water and the same with creatures of the oil. Their respective mediums they each are living in are for all intents and purposes mixed with nothing between them yet retain their own respective identities and creatures. Of course this is a physical comparison for simplicity sake but consider that many other conceptual mixings are possible dimensionally or otherwise that the human brain hasn’t the capacity to conceive of easily if at all. Some concepts can only be inadequately and vicariously modeled through tools such as mathematics.

 

[setarcos]

This is another good point. Zeno’s paradox has been answered, supposedly. Our experience of reality answers the question I believe. Mathematically how do we count from one to two without spending an eternity counting all the real numbers between? Perhaps mathematics itself is not reality but simply a tool used to serve the specific instances in which it is being applied. Is our purpose in applying math to this problem simply to count from one to two or to count from one to two by counting all the numbers between? One sets parameters in mathematics and then seeks a solution confined by these parameters. If you wish to get from one to two mathematically you count one then two. If you wish to get there by counting all the numbers individually between one and two mathematically then you either waist your life doing the impossible or you assign mathematical parameters defining all numbers between one and two which would include infinite sets etc. Reality gets us from one to two somehow, in a reasonable amount of time…our experience tells us this. The arrow eventually hits the target, or the hare eventually overtakes the tortoise. Mathematically we say the distance covered between the arrow and the target is represented using Convergent Series techniques where the sequence of a series of partial sums {S1, S2, S3,…} tends to a limit. This limit may be taken as the dimensional distance between two given entities in our discussion. Is reality continuous? We perceive it as such but then we would have to somehow travel through an infinite series converging on a limit. Unknown physics at work? Miracle? As for quantization, light seems to have been proven as a quantum packet of energy…is reality itself? I think someone already pointed this out…we also need to take into account what is meant by between. What do you mean when you say…between two points or between two numbers? The thing between two numbers is most probably not a spatial, as commonly defined, thing so it must be a relational thing. Do two things who have no spatial relationship exist spatially inseparate from each other or is this a meaningless statement? If the only thing between them is relational as each is defined by the other in a comparison, does their very existence indicate that there can never “not” be anything between them?

 

[RandomAlias]

But if there really is absolutely nothing between two points, how are they not the same object?

That is the case if time is discrete.

Exactly. In the set of integers, there is nothing between one and two. Similarly, if physical time is discrete, there is nothing between two adjacent moments, and if physical space is discrete, there is nothing between two adjacent positions. It is usually assumed, but has never been proven, that physical time and space are continuous (not discrete) at every scale. Perhaps at some small scale they are discrete.

 

[RandomAlias]

Oops! I repeated what Rossum wrote about 10 posts up. Sorry.

 

[STT]

Exactly. In the set of integers, there is nothing between one and two. Similarly, if physical time is discrete, there is nothing between two adjacent moments, and if physical space is discrete, there is nothing between two adjacent positions. It is usually assumed, but has never been proven, that physical time and space are continuous (not discrete) at every scale. Perhaps at some small scale they are discrete.

Yes. In this case one can then conclude that there should exist at least a mind which experiences things in former and creates things again. Reality is then mere illusion because it is created, there is no reality between two points.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Is it logically possible for there to be absolutely nothing between two points of reality. ( By nothing, i mean an absolute absence of reality )

To make it easier, imagine that these two points of reality are two islands.

No, because between implies spatial reality, and “space” is a thing.

 

[RandomAlias]

There is no necessity for a mind which experiences and creates. Planets in their orbits do not need someone to measure and calculate their trajectories. It is simply in their nature, or I should say in the nature of the universe, that they move as they do, with no thought or effort.

The physicist uses mathematics to describe the movement of planets. He may think of it as law that govern nature. He measures the past and predicts the future. The planets have no need of any of that. They just do what comes natural.

Getting back to discrete space and time: The physicist can come up with a discrete mathematical description, perhaps using difference equations rather than differential equations. From the configuration of nature at adjacent times and positions, he can calculate the configuration at future moments. But once again, nature has no need of those mathematical concepts or procedures.

 

[STT]

Is there any reality between two moments? IF not, how could you have something out of nothing? How the future events could be correlated with past events if there is no mind and nothing between two events?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

A moment is a meaningless categorization we apply to a nondescript block of time used to categorize and organize the flow of events. Philosophically speaking, a “moment” is meaningless because it lacks definition apart from what the observer gives it.

Moments can overlap, they can act sequentially, or the can be separated my any number of other, infinitely small, moments. The only thing between two moments are other moments which are smaller/shorter than what we chose to define as a moment.

Your argument is meaningless because there is no actual between moments, because moments don’t actually punctuate and separate time, they only categorize it by grouping one or more “events” together.

 

[rossum]

Perhaps mathematics itself is not reality

It isn’t. Mathematics is an axiomatic system, and we can pick any set of consistent axioms on which to base it. For example, all the following mathematical statements are true because they are based on differing axioms:

• 1 + 1 = 0 (mod 2)
• 1 + 1 = 1 (symbolic logic)
• 1 + 1 = 2 (base 10)
• 1 + 1 = 10 (binary)

rossum

 

[Vonsalza]

Would you consider the vacuum of space ‘real’? If so – and unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to ask – I think the answer to your question is “no”.

You ever get a reply on that? It was the first place my mind went to also.

 

[mythbuster1]

Space is quantized. At the Planck Scale, black holes randomly pop in and out of existence, defining the smallest scale of length possible.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Would you consider the vacuum of space ‘real’? If so – and unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to ask – I think the answer to your question is “no”.

You ever get a reply on that? It was the first place my mind went to also.

No, I did not.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

I’m no scientist but I don’t think it’s possible to have an absolute vacuum. Even anti-matter possess physical properties.

 

[IWantGod]

Would you consider the vacuum of space ‘real’?

Yes

unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to ask

I think you are. I mean the absolute absence of reality, not an empty space.

Let me put it another way. Can two physical realities, or better yet two universes, exist apart from each-other having absolutely nothing in between them. And is it possible for there to be an absence of reality between two points.

 

[Vico]

Is it logically possible for there to be absolutely nothing between two points of reality. (By nothing, i mean an absolute absence of reality)

To make it easier, imagine that these two points of reality are two islands.

I take it that you mean matter as reality. Werner Heisenberg wrote:

the atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.

 

[Gorgias]

I think you are. I mean the absolute absence of reality, not an empty space.

That’s what I’m saying.

If there really is never nothing between two somethings, then there can’t be a ‘gap’ in reality between them. See what I mean?

Let me put it another way. Can two physical realities, or better yet two universes, exist apart from each-other having absolutely nothing in between them. And is it possible for there to be an absence of reality between two points.

The “two physical realities” exist in the same universe, right? Then, the answer to your question is ‘no’.

Two universes? Since that’s merely a theory, we can’t really say what’s ‘between’ them. Ask the folks posing as scientists what they think sits between their multiple ‘universes’.

 

[Vonsalza]

Gorgias:

Would you consider the vacuum of space ‘real’?

Yes

unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to ask

I think you are. I mean the absolute absence of reality, not an empty space.

Let me put it another way. Can two physical realities, or better yet two universes, exist apart from each-other having absolutely nothing in between them. And is it possible for there to be an absence of reality between two points.

Then would the existential gap between universes under a multiverse theory apply?

(Not that I actually comprehend that)

 

[Gorgias]

Then would the existential gap between universes under a multiverse theory apply?

Not existential – that’s not what @IWantGod asked. He asked about reality. The gap would exist and be real, even if it were empty.