Are Time and Space Real?

[Tycoon]

First of all, note that I am not using any sources here, only logic. If you think everything I say is complete bull then just explain why. This debate started in the thread on time traveling, and we decided to make a new thread on the subject.

My position is that time and space are not real, they are merely human systems.

To be more specific,
Time is a system used to define what occurs inbetween two events.
Space is a system used to define what kind and how much matter exists in a given area.

For example, you could take a ruler and measure part of something to find an inch. The inch doesn't exist, it's what is in that inch that exists.

[Kamehameha34]

First of all, your "inch" example is inapplicable because we live in a three dimensional universe and a line is one dimensional. That's why I brought up the cubic inch.

Secondly, what "really exists" is all dependent on your definition of existence.

[Tycoon]

The same rule applies to a cubic inch in my explanation.

exist - Definitions from Dictionary.com

To have actual being; be.

About as useless a definition as you can get.

[MplsBison]

So without doubt, space exists.


But it's not real?

[Domino]

As I see it, there is only one certain statement: something exists. Anything more specific than that must make assumptions.

[Kamehameha34]

Then space certainly does exist - it manifests as the volume between matter.

The space between object A and object B isn't just a void where there is no existence - it is filled by space.

[Halofan48]

well, lets define space as an area where matter can exist within. Lets then divide it into occupied space and empty space.

Though i do have some issues with empty space. If light is matter, and is reaching space, then isn't space always occupied unless no light whatsoever reaches it?

[MplsBison]

If you consider the z direction of space to be an index of several xy planes stacked on top of each other, I don't see why you can't in turn see time as an index of several xyz spaces stacked on top of each other.

[Merge]

Quote by: Halofan48 well, lets define space as an area where matter can exist within. Lets then divide it into occupied space and empty space. Though i do have some issues with empty space. If light is matter, and is reaching space, then isn't space always occupied unless no light whatsoever reaches it?

I agree with your definition of space and I think on that definition it exists. I am wondering why you have issues with empty space though. Would you mind explaining?

[Halofan48]

Well, if light is matter, which according to some statements it is, then any part of space where light can be seen coming from a star or other source, then light is at that point, therefore matter is also at that point?

[Tycoon]

Halo's trying to say that light will eventually reach all points in space.

So, all space will eventually be occupied by something, if only just light.

One of my arguments was that if there were empty space then a cubic inch wouldn't exist because there would be nothing for it to define. But then we came to the conclusion that it would still be a cubic inch because of the possibility that matter might eventually exist there.

[Merge]

Quote by: Halofan48 Well, if light is matter, which according to some statements it is, then any part of space where light can be seen coming from a star or other source, then light is at that point, therefore matter is also at that point?

Ah. I thought you had a problem with empty space as a concept, not as an actual possibility. I would agree that this sounds right, though it wouldn't be hard to imagine a place that no light reaches. But even if this were the case, you can always rely on other wave particles (and background radiation, right?).

Quote by: Tycoon Halo's trying to say that light will eventually reach all points in space. So, all space will eventually be occupied by something, if only just light. One of my arguments was that if there were empty space then a cubic inch wouldn't exist because there would be nothing for it to define. But then we came to the conclusion that it would still be a cubic inch because of the possibility that matter might eventually exist there.

Thanks for clarifying Halo's post. I agree with you that throwing "possibility" into the definition solves your problem for space without matter occupying it.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Tycoon Are Time and Space Real? First of all, note that I am not using any sources here, only logic. If you think everything I say is complete bull then just explain why. This debate started in the thread on time traveling, and we decided to make a new thread on the subject. My position is that time and space are not real, they are merely human systems. To be more specific, Time is a system used to define what occurs inbetween two events. Space is a system used to define what kind and how much matter exists in a given area. For example, you could take a ruler and measure part of something to find an inch. The inch doesn't exist, it's what is in that inch that exists.

Are you suggesting that the whole Universe is an image of Homo Sapiens' perception ? and it does not exist in reality ?

[Tycoon]

Are you suggesting that the whole Universe is an image of Homo Sapiens' perception ? and it does not exist in reality?

The universe is made up of matter, a physical thing that actually exists. Space and time are not physical things like matter, just human systems.

Somebody else said that if space wasn't real then the universe would collapse into one point. That's only true if you assume that space is a physical thing.

[another day]

How can matter exist independently of space? Matter occupies space does it not?

[Tycoon]

You think matter occupies space because of our system that we use to define where matter exists.

Think about it. Why does matter need to exist dependant on space? Space doesn't lay any restrictions. It's not a physical thing. It defines a physical thing.

[Merge]

Quote by: Tycoon Think about it. Why does matter need to exist dependant on space? Space doesn't lay any restrictions. It's not a physical thing. It defines a physical thing.

Matter takes up space, so there needs to be space for it to take up?

If space isn't real, then arguably you couldn't remove all the matter from a specific area (because without matter, there is nothing if space is not real). For example, pushing all the matter from the center of an apple toward the outside wouldn't make a hollow apple because there is no empty "space," only matter. The center of the apple would have to have matter in it, so the apple (and I guess the universe) would simply shrink.

Also, what is between particles of matter? How can there be different densities without empty space?

[Tycoon]

Skipping past your example of the apple...

Also, what is between particles of matter? How can there be different densities without empty space?

Exactly. What is between particles of matter? Nothing. Space is not a physical thing, it is a concept used to define the physical matter.

You are arguing that nothing exists. Because there is nothing between particles of matter.

[Merge]

Quote by: Tycoon Skipping past your example of the apple...

Why? If you accept that space doesn't exist and only matter does, then you can't posit an apple with no matter in the middle of it (an actually hollow apple). I guess we can skip it though. I don't think the discussion hinges on it.

Quote by: Tycoon Exactly. What is between particles of matter? Nothing. Space is not a physical thing, it is a concept used to define the physical matter. You are arguing that nothing exists. Because there is nothing between particles of matter.

So there is a concept between particles? I'm not arguing that nothing exists, I'm arguing that space exists and that empty space is between particles. If space didn't exist, there would be no such thing as empty space.

I agree, space isn't made up of physical matter, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What is wrong with saying "there exists empty space?" This isn't a claim about existing matter, but it can still be considered something that exists in the physical world.

Or would you rather say that space is a property of physical matter, kind of like length and depth? I think there is a difference, and my initial intuition says an indication of that difference is the fact that one can't point at depth but one can point at space. You can point at some thing with depth, so depth is dependent on an object. But you do not need an object to point at space, so space exists independently of objects.

[Tycoon]

What is wrong with saying "there exists empty space?"

There is no such thing as empty space. "Empty space" would only be a potential place for matter to exist in in the future.

But you do not need an object to point at space, so space exists independently of objects.

I know it's like saying the same thing, but I would word it as objects existing independently from space. As I said, space is simply a potential place for matter to exist. So, I would say that space exists dependant upon matter.