In a message dated 02/10/2004 01:45:27 GMT Standard Time, janstr@xxxxxxx
writes:
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.
Jud:
Whoaaaawa!
No. Jan. The intention of me saying that vacuums didn't exist was not
intended to address the
interpreters of two-thousand-year-out-of-touch thinkers of long ago, but the
ACTUAL situation regarding
the present impossibility of creating a vacuum NOT a *partial* vacuum please
note but — a vacuum.
We are not interested in the esoteric fantasies of the Greeks [other than as
the archaeologists of dead ideas]
Toricelli and Pascal were no doubt revolutionary in their time — but that
time is long ago and the sparkle has gone out of it a bit by now I'm afraid-
in fact when I mentioned the dynamic duo to a guy who teaches science [he
borrows my lawnmower — but always brings it back clean and tidy]
he said he uses a football-supporter's rattle to keep them awake whenever
the names of Toricelli and Pascal are mentioned.
Jud:
{in times gone by]
(b) If they have, and they have created a true vacuum, does the
*nothingness* which doesn't exist in the flask exist?
Jan:
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.
Jud:
No, Jan, with respect, there is no problem AT ALL with the publicly accepted
and scientific definition of a vacuum. You are perhaps encountering a
*problem* with the definition because it is inconvenient to the question you made
[complete with 3 question marks] which implied that I was wrong in my
asseveration concerning the impossibility of creating a vacuum.
Jan:
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.
Jud:
But it is NOT a *negative* definition, and all operational attempts to
create a vacuum have failed. And one of the greatest physicists of the
20th-century has states that it is an impossibility. Scientists are very aware of the
physical reasons WHY a vacuum is out of the question, and the study of
particle detachment [every square millimetre of your body including your eyes is
losing and gaining particles as your view my words] is old-hat
as far as particle-science is concerned. Particle parturition [giving birth
to particle if you like] is so well documented, that they don't NEED to look
inside the flask to know what's going on. But IF THEY DID they would see
molecules detaching themselves from the glass/stainless steel/aluminium/ceramic
walls of the container and messing up the creation of the vacuum.
Jan:
(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.
Jud:
You are batting for me in the discussion now Jan - we all know that already
Jan:
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 possibility of a (de)finit knowledge about an absolute
theory of everything.
Jud|:
Thank God for that! - I mean rubbishing the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb of
primitive thinking [may they rest in peace]
However Jan, I think you are jumping the gun a bit on the TOE scene.
Scientists are very MUCH involved in pursuing the TOE question,
and when the big bang happens it will hopefully be *Goodbye Mr. Chips* to
religion and transcendentalism [except for the loony rump of course.]
Jan:
We have learned that the perfect vacuum, in its traditional theoretical
sense, cannot be achieved experimentally.
Jud:
Yes Siree - that's what I wrote to Michael.
Jan:
yet that does not withhold researchers to construct what is called a
'good' vacuum, i.e. an empty enough space wherein electrons and
photons and other crazy particles can travel with a constant velocity.
Jud: No,no, no, no Jan.
The word *empty* or *ledig* in Dutch [same in Swedish as it happens] means
*empty*
It doesn't mean *half-empty* or *partially empty* — it means *empty.*
A *vacuum* doesn't mean *a partial vacuum* or a *good-enough for the purpose
vacuum* it means a *vacuum.*
A *vacuum* scientifically is not the formation of a playground for electrons
and particles to run around — it is a place bereft of matter/energy and THAT
is what I was referring to when I wrote the three question-mark provoking
sentence.
Jan:
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'.
Jud:
As far as I am concerned what Roger the Dodger and Smarty-Pants Smolin say
on the question is a load of old rubbish [are they on drugs?]
*Time* and *space* [like *being* and *D-D-D-D-Dasein* ] don't exist — it's
all my eye and Betty Martin. ;-)
*Cubes of emptiness? * *intervals of time? * - I wonder what they do to
dispose of their needles - I hope they deposit them in the plastic container
provided? ;-)
Jan:
Further more this zero-dimensional space-time is structured by so-called
'spinnetworks'.
Jud:
Well, it no doubt provides much-needed employment for transcendentalist
spinsters of a certain age?
Jan:
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.
Jud:
That reminds me — have you read Alice - in - Wonderland?
Jan:
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.
Jud:
Any kid who as ever fallen off his bike will tell you that *matter* exists.
As for empty space as a *zero dimensional realm* with structure
[*properties* don't exist]
I personally don't believe that *space* [or Heidegger's *nothingness*] is
possible.
For me we live in a material universe and that means that *GOD* has always
been *surplus to requirements*.
If only the Jews hadn't ignored the old waster instead of giving him a job.
;-)
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---