### Virtual objects (and absolute space)

A point I'd like to make is that all proofs regarding absolutism about space require objects. Are there any proofs (that are both valid and sound) that do not require the use of objects. For example, one that involves a universe made solely of spacial vacuum. I can't really be opposed to relationism until I am sure that a massless universe can exist.

And here's a thought (not one I prescribe to persay...but I just want to get some input), concepts themselves do not occupy space, but a midpoint is a conceptual thing in our minds. Does giving a massless point a name make it a virtual object? Is there any way to describe space without using anything that involves points, names, or objects?

Another way to put it is, how do you tell how far apart two points are in an empty space without referring to either one in relation to the other? Using a third point doesn't count. Absolute space (in my opinion) requires that, like absolute time, a measurement of space exist.

## 2 Comments:

I don't think a proof like this can exist because it must reiterate the definition of absolutism, namely that space can exist without objects. A proof like this would basically be saying "Absolutism is true because ansolutism is true".

Here is my argument from chapter 3 which i used for essay 1. It contains exactly what you were looking for, a universe with only a vacuum.

Premise 1: If a vacuum is a place that exists in our universe, then it is possible that our whole universe could be a vacuum.

Premise 2: A vacuum is a place which exists in our universe.

Sub-conclusion: Therefore, it is possible that our whole universe could be a vacuum.

Premise 3: If it is possible that our whole universe could be a vacuum, then our whole universe could have no objects in it.

Premise 4: If it is possible that our whole universe could have no objects in it, then absolutism about space is true.

Sub-conclusion 2: Therefore if it is possible that our whole universe could be a vacuum, then absolutism about space is true.

Conclusion: Therefore, absolutism about space is true.

Essentially all premises are straigtforward except premise 1. Here is my explanation. If some area definitively exists in our universe, since it could exist in a part of our universe, it follows that it hypothetically could be the only thing in the universe. For example, take a box which exists in our universe. Say that all the rest of the matter in the universe was destroyed and all that was left was the box. That box would become the entire universe. The same reasoning can be applied to vacuums.

Post a Comment

<< Home