Hi Jud, you asked:
>(a) Have Toricelli and Pascal rebutted one of the known laws
>of physics ?
If we place their findings in the scientific context of their time, i'd say,
yes they have. As you of course know the cosmo-physical paradigm
of those days was the Aristotlean theory of an eternal but finit and
fixed cosmos, i.e. a closed sphere limited by on the down side pure
matter [hule] and on the upper side pure form [eidos/morphe]. In this
Aristotlean system there was no room for empty space, the complete
cosmo-physical sphere was filled with the five substances/elements:
earth, water, air, fire and aether. And it is against this background that
the experiments of Toricelli and Pascal were truely revolutionary, they
showed for the first time the possibility of the absence of (one of) the
elements.
>(b) If they have, and they have created a true vacuum, does the
>*nothingness* which doesn't exist in the flask exist?
This is a very interesting ontological question. Let's first take a look
at the traditional definition of a vacuum: a space or region totally
devoid of matter. There are two problems with this definition; the
first is that it is a negative definition, i.e. it states not what a vacuum
is really 'made' of, but what it lacks, namely matter. A problem with
negative definitions is that on the operational level they are difficult
to verify and impossible to falsify in a conceptual non-arbitrary way.
(Popperians btw. hold such propositions to be unfalsifiable, and thus
unscientific.) The second problem is that this definition presumes
some kind of Platonism, the concept of a perfect vacuum seem to
refer to some kind of (empirically independent) ideal state, only
accessible via platonic intuition, much like the idea of the perfect
circle.
In modern quantum science all has completely changed, not only
have we abandoned the Platonic/Aristotlean conception of science,
but we have also given up the worldview of a static cosmos and the
idea of the possiblity of a (de)finit knowledge about an absolute
theory of everything. We have learned that the perfect vacuum, in
its traditional theoretical sense, cannot be achieved experimentally,
yet that does not withhold reseachers to construct what is called a
'good' vacuum, i.e. an empty enough space wherein electrons and
fotons and other crazy particles can travel with a constant velocity.
What then is the scientific ontological status of this 'empty space' ?
Lately, some daring hypotheses have been proposed on this subject
[cf. R.Penrose, L.Smolin]. In their ideas empty space is decribed as
a zero-dimensional space-time, which contains 'cubes of emptiness'
that cannot be divided into smaller 'cubes of emptiness' and 'intervals
of time' that cannot be divided in shorter 'intervals of time'. Further
more this zero-dimensional space-time is structured by so-called
'spinnetworks'. When matter and energy are added to or travelling
through this zero-dimensional space-time, they will cause changes
in the 'spinnetwork' structure of the empty space and then, in a jump-
like rhythmic, more and more dimensions start to emerge. Anyway,
it's all very complex stuff and i only understand a fraction of it, but
one thing is clear for me: this theory not only postulates the existence
of matter and energy, it also tries to give a positive description of
empty space as a zero-dimensional realm with structural properties.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>(a) Have Toricelli and Pascal rebutted one of the known laws
>of physics ?
If we place their findings in the scientific context of their time, i'd say,
yes they have. As you of course know the cosmo-physical paradigm
of those days was the Aristotlean theory of an eternal but finit and
fixed cosmos, i.e. a closed sphere limited by on the down side pure
matter [hule] and on the upper side pure form [eidos/morphe]. In this
Aristotlean system there was no room for empty space, the complete
cosmo-physical sphere was filled with the five substances/elements:
earth, water, air, fire and aether. And it is against this background that
the experiments of Toricelli and Pascal were truely revolutionary, they
showed for the first time the possibility of the absence of (one of) the
elements.
>(b) If they have, and they have created a true vacuum, does the
>*nothingness* which doesn't exist in the flask exist?
This is a very interesting ontological question. Let's first take a look
at the traditional definition of a vacuum: a space or region totally
devoid of matter. There are two problems with this definition; the
first is that it is a negative definition, i.e. it states not what a vacuum
is really 'made' of, but what it lacks, namely matter. A problem with
negative definitions is that on the operational level they are difficult
to verify and impossible to falsify in a conceptual non-arbitrary way.
(Popperians btw. hold such propositions to be unfalsifiable, and thus
unscientific.) The second problem is that this definition presumes
some kind of Platonism, the concept of a perfect vacuum seem to
refer to some kind of (empirically independent) ideal state, only
accessible via platonic intuition, much like the idea of the perfect
circle.
In modern quantum science all has completely changed, not only
have we abandoned the Platonic/Aristotlean conception of science,
but we have also given up the worldview of a static cosmos and the
idea of the possiblity of a (de)finit knowledge about an absolute
theory of everything. We have learned that the perfect vacuum, in
its traditional theoretical sense, cannot be achieved experimentally,
yet that does not withhold reseachers to construct what is called a
'good' vacuum, i.e. an empty enough space wherein electrons and
fotons and other crazy particles can travel with a constant velocity.
What then is the scientific ontological status of this 'empty space' ?
Lately, some daring hypotheses have been proposed on this subject
[cf. R.Penrose, L.Smolin]. In their ideas empty space is decribed as
a zero-dimensional space-time, which contains 'cubes of emptiness'
that cannot be divided into smaller 'cubes of emptiness' and 'intervals
of time' that cannot be divided in shorter 'intervals of time'. Further
more this zero-dimensional space-time is structured by so-called
'spinnetworks'. When matter and energy are added to or travelling
through this zero-dimensional space-time, they will cause changes
in the 'spinnetwork' structure of the empty space and then, in a jump-
like rhythmic, more and more dimensions start to emerge. Anyway,
it's all very complex stuff and i only understand a fraction of it, but
one thing is clear for me: this theory not only postulates the existence
of matter and energy, it also tries to give a positive description of
empty space as a zero-dimensional realm with structural properties.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---