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

[IWantGod]

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.

 

[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”.

 

[catholicray]

We would not observe them as two realities separated by an absence of reality. We would instead observe the whole as one reality and the absence of reality would be observed as a part of the whole reality.

I do not think that this poses a logical problem but we would not comprehend it the way you are suggesting.

 

[PJH_74]

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

We’re definitely getting into philosophy here. Scientifically what are you defining as reality? Energy exists everywhere in both gravity, electromagnetic, and a number of others. Time is also present everywhere as far as I’m aware, though it could appear non-existent depending on the point of the viewer. So, there is a “reality” to that. In space there is not a true vacuum, there are definitely particles floating around.

 

[IWantGod]

Are you specifically referring to two spatial “ points ”?

Those points can be just two islands or two pens or two copper coins. It really doesn’t matter what they are, they merely serve as two points. The question is can there be absolutely nothing between those 2 points; and by nothing i mean no space, no being of any kind. Is it logically possible for there to be an absence of reality between two balls of matter.

 

[setarcos]

Why not? Where the one ends the other begins…no time elapses between leaving the one and entering the other. Given two possibilities of being your either in the one or the other. No unimaginably miniscule limbo like state, time of travel, or energy expense to pay between them. You just are in one then are in another. The question itself is a little misleading. There would be no between for there to be nothing in.

 

[cathapolo]

No. All reality has a relation in as much as they objectively exist.

 

[setarcos]

according to physics you can’t have two points separated by nothing.

I disagree…sort of. Quantum entanglement. One particle instantaneously effecting another no matter the measured distance between them. Instantaneous communication requires nothingness between the transference of information. Matter is itself a form of information. Any transference of information instantaneously is a form of nothingness between.

 

[setarcos]

That is merely a matter of perspective but not a defining point as to whether or not we have two things or two combined things into one new thing. What reason would dictate that two distinct things once having every possible thing removed between them but retaining their respective individual properties would make them have to be defined as one single thing now? Perhaps the slightest disturbance would send them on their respective ways, injecting more and more things between them again. Do we simply arbitrarily define the number of things we have by the space between them then, even though the one thing can in no way effect the other things existence or defining qualities?

 

[IWantGod]

That is merely a matter of perspective but not a defining point as to whether or not we have two things or two combined things into one new thing. What reason would dictate that two distinct things once having every possible thing removed between them but retaining their respective individual properties would make them have to be defined as one single thing now? Perhaps the slightest disturbance would send them on their respective ways, injecting more and more things between them again. Do we simply arbitrarily define the number of things we have by the space between them then, even though the one thing can in no way effect the other things existence or defining qualities?

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

 

[1Lord1Faith]

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

Are you referring to a multiverse model? I don’t see how there could be an absence of reality within a universe.

 

[setarcos]

Each object has its own boundary defined by its own self contained characteristics. Cant there be nothing between a circle and a square at the point of contact while each retains its respective individual identities? What would you call this newly formed single entity? A squarcle perhaps? Having characteristics of both circles and squares? How do we define single entity then if none of its parts comingle nor effect in any way the others? What’s the difference between an infinitely close circle and square, as far as each is defined, and an infinitely separated circle and square? How close do I have to be to a giraffe before we can be considered a single organism? Even though we may be indistinguishably, infinitely close, no one would consider us a single organism since we still retain our individuality’s.

 

[STT]

That is the case if time is discrete.

 

[Gorgias]

Now as a solipsist, I would question whether there actually is such a thing as matter, and put forth the possibility that matter is merely a mental construct and as such two things could in fact be separated by “ nothing ”.

Nah. If matter is a mental construct, then the ‘space’ between the two mental constructs would, itself, be a mental construct. Therefore, it would be just as much ‘something’ as the two mental constructs are ‘something’.

So, even in a solopsist’s worldview, the answer to the OP’s question would have to be ‘no’.

 

[Dovekin]

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.

Could we define some terms? “Logically possible” “absolutely nothing” and “points of reality”

In a mathematical sense, there is always something. Between a and b is (a+b)/2, where a and b are points on a line. It is not possible for a and b to be adjacent to one another.

On an ordinary physical level, sure, you can put things next to each other. If you mean two nonadjacent points, there will always be something. Gravitational fields.

On a quantum level, confusion reigns. Anything is possible! It is just hard to imagine lol. Two particles can also be two waves, which overturns v the idea of betweeh. There are other spaces, subspaces, that exist everywhere. Do those count as real? Then there are planck units, which limit what we can know.

 

[rossum]

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

If reality is continuous then no, there is always a half-way between two points. Mathematically there is always a real number between any two other real numbers.

If reality is quantized then yes, there can be nothing between two adjacent quantized points. Mathematically there is no integer between 5 and 6.

What sort of reality are you talking about?

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Therefore, it would be just as much ‘something’ as the two mental constructs are ‘something’.

Indeed, which is why I added:

But then I would also wonder just what constitutes “ something ”.

LOL! I had a feeling you were going to go there!

Still, if you’re willing to call anything a “something”, then the space between – being itself a mental construct – is likewise a “something”.

So, it doesn’t matter what you consider to be a ‘something’ – as long as you’re willing to call it by that name, we don’t need to bring your musings on solipsism into the mix: either all these are “no thing”, or they’re “something”. Simple. Concise.

 

[Gorgias]

Ah, but you seem to be assuming that I can only consider things from a solipsistic perspective, in which case anything that I can form a mental concept of would indeed constitute something.

Nope.

If you’re willing to answer “no”, then it either means that you perceive of somethings separated by something, or else you reject the concept entirely. No recourse to solipsism required.

I know how I would answer it, but I’m curious as to how others will answer it. I want to know how other peoples’ minds work.

That’s really just a question about the nature of boundaries. Meh.

 

[IWantGod]

Personally, I’m still patiently waiting for IWantGod, or anyone else for that matter, to address setacros’ assertion that:

I think he is just saying that what distinguishes a thing from another thing is not just some sort of separation like having a space between two things. Rather, real ontological distinctions occur whenever there is a differentiation between the nature of one thing and the nature of another thing. Thus a things nature is what distinguishes them as distinct even if they’re all rolled up into one ball together.

Another question i would like to ask is regarding multiverses. If there is absolutely nothing between one universe and another universe, then wouldn’t they just be the same universe?

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Nothingness only makes sense in a relative sense. One can’t talk about absolute nothingness without ending up in a contradiction. For example, I have a container with “absolutely nothing” in it. But then the sides of the container would be touching, in which case I don’t have a container at all.