The Nature and Definition of Space
Space, Aether, Nothing and Infinity
My first new paradigms article segment dealt with the nature and definition of time and why our thinking about it has been misguided. As I see it, another “fundamental” problem is prevalent thinking about space.
Heidegger said, “Nothing nothings!” In other words, “nothing” doesn’t DO anything, it can’t contain anything, like the universe, and it doesn’t make up real space or volume in the physical universe. There IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING! It is just a mental reference point. The philosopher Michael Miller says,
I wish we could do away with this word “space”! The term is only good for a vague reference to a region out beyond the observational point. There is the real VOLUME of the universe, which we often call space, and then there is the imaginary infinite extension of the Cartesian coordinates, xyz, which we call “space” and which we confuse with the volume of the real universe. But these are not the same thing! This false idea of space cannot be validly reified, but neither can “volume” be reified, for that matter, but only specified. Neither volume nor space can be reified into something that stretches, shrinks, curves, warps, or ripples.
Given that there can be no voids of nothingness, the EU paradigm has—because of both sound evidence and reasoning—confidently settled on the conclusion that the volume of the physical universe is filled with an aether. In other words, the existence of an aether is all but axiomatic. Currently the thinking is that this aether is composed of polarizable neutrinos where there can be no such thing as voids of “nothing”. Again, the philosopher Michael Miller has paved some of the way to this model:
"Curved space" is a staple of 20th Century thought. Space warps are a cliche of science fiction. Generations of science students have tried to make sense of curved space, and succeeded only in warping their minds. Curved space is taken for granted among the learned; if you protest that curved space is absurd, they roll their eyes and shake their heads pityingly.
But what the heck does 'curved space' mean, and how does it measure up against the principle of immutable units?"
Bottom line? The whole monstrous, mathematical edifice of Einsteinian thinking about relativity and there being no aether has a false foundation, and mainstream science is wandering in fantasy land when they invoke space-time, a double reification.
On the other end of things, “infinity” may be a useful mathematical construct but it cannot be applied to any countable aspect of the tangible, physical universe. It is misguided to think of "space" being infinite, The physical universe may be vast beyond our scope of visualization but it is equally misguided to think of it being infinite in its particulate makeup. The number of galaxies, stars, planets, atoms and sub-atomic particles including aether particles CANNOT be infinite. To think otherwise violates our foundational logic and opens the door to mysticism and intellectual and spiritual chicanery.
So, does the physical universe have a boundary? Of course it does. Think of this boundary as a limit of what is INSIDE, not what is outside. The non-sequitor question is often asked, "What is on the other side of the boundary of the universe?" The obvious answer is "nothing". NOTHING! The definition of the universe is that it includes everything that exists, and there can be no thing outside of it.
A poem by Michael D. Armstrong
Scientists have a large particle tree,
Electrons and Protons and Neutrons laid bare,
Photons glistening, what a sight!
Are they like bullets, or are they waves?
Particles virtual and particles real,
I surely wouldn't be telling you lies,
If this dilemma has Lepton your back
For some have found in this particle race,
But if you think it will do no harm,
Or maybe one with spin or flavor,
Is all this enough? Not quite!
They spend billions looking for Higgs,
Even out West where the Bosons roam
They never get Baryon boot hill,
What more can they possibly Gluon this tree,