As I said in a previous RG occasion, the notion of space in physics is not easy to describe. Some philosophical questions concerning the subject include:
• Space is absolute or purely relational?
• Space has an inherent geometry, or the geometry of space is just a convention?
Many scientists have taken part in this debate, including Isaac Newton (space is absolute), Gottfried Leibniz (space is relational) and Henri Poincaré (the spatial geometry is a convention).
Great progress of thought was the formulation of the theory of relativity ("restricted" in 1905 and "general" in 1916) by Einstein, according to whom time is not absolute but depends on the speed of light which is a universal constant and on the spatial reference taken into consideration. According to Einstein it is more correct to speak of space-time, because the two aspects (chronological and spatial) are inseparably related to each other; it is modified by the gravitational fields, which are able to deflect the light and slow down time (general relativity). So, from Einstein on, the two bodies that seemed primitive become intrinsically linked.
Quantum theory gave rise to numerous disputes regarding its philosophical interpretation. Since the early developments its systems contradicted many accepted philosophies. However, its mathematical predictions matched the observations.
In the track of Newton, most scientists agreed on the assumption that the universe was governed by strict laws of nature, which could be discovered and formalized through scientific observation and experimentation. This position is known as determinism.
We recall that In philosophy determinism is that conception of reality according to which all the phenomena of the world are connected to each other and occur in an order necessary and invariable (which excludes the presence of free will).
Determinism concerns the relationship between cause and effect, between universal natural law and single specific phenomenon. According to this relation, in nature, given a cause or a law, a certain effect or a particular phenomenon can only occur, and nothing else. So there is no space in the Universe for the pursuit of goals freely chosen.
On the path leading to the prevalence of these theses about a unified space, two scientific contributions should be remembered, those given by the two Byzantine philosophers: John Philoponus and Damascius. The first opposed to the Aristotelian definition his own description of place as three-dimensional "interval", corresponding, as a measure, to the volume of the object; this empty repository, in which the body is contained, is immaterial and remains unchanged if the body would come out.
At the opposite point of view, that is the doctrine of space as quality relative to the position of material objects, there was the analysis of the neo-Platonic Damascius. For him, in fact, the place or space is nothing more than a measure of the position of the different parts of an object or of the object in relation to others. Contrary to the ambiguous thesis of Aristotle, that while not having an empty place, the place is still "different" from its content and 'remains' the same should it move away. In the more rigid analysis of Damascius relative to the position of a body in motion, it never becomes the position of another object for how many new positions it assumes.
With the Newtonian theory of absolute space, the relative views as an universal container of bodies seemed to mark an important achievement, though not unchallenged. His main opponent was, as is well known, Leibniz, who to the notion of absolute space contrasted the concept of space as an ideal preparation that rises from the consideration of the change of mutual relations of the bodies, to which only improperly it can confer an objective reality.
With Lebiniz and Locke, it began to take shape a new perspective in the analysis of space which placed in the foreground the way this concept is part of the world of knowledge of the subject. A road, this, which would have walked with Berkeley mainly the maximum theorists of empiricism, for whom the problem of space was situated in an epistemological and psychological perspective. It would have been Berkeley, in particular to draw the extreme consequences of this line of reflection, radicalizing the position of Locke - for whom the overall idea of space arises from the mental correlation of simple ideas coming from visual and tactile sensations.
With these arguments, a way is opened for the Kantian critical solution. The need to react to this subjective-empirical dissolution of the concept of space and to give a certain foundation to geometry, mechanics and Newtonian astronomy, led, in fact, Kant to investigate the space itself as a transcendental condition of knowledge.
Refuting the nature of the absolute reality of space, Kant conceived space as a pure form of the insights of the external sense, and then as a necessary condition of human knowledge, having the function, together with time, of organizing the manifold of sense in view of its unification under the pure concepts of intellect.
On the other hand, studying the antinomies, Kant did nothing but renew, in his new perspective, the argument with which Zeno showed the contradictory finity-infinity of each manifold and each space (as was aptly noted by Hegel).
In the twentieth-century philosophy reflection on space was uncnstrained by epistemological problems. You may recall, e.g., the theory of Bergson, who considered the spatial mode as its proper modality of positive sciences with which time is objectified, projecting the continuous flow of pure life in space.
Once Einstein said that the problem of the Now worried him seriously He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future,but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed tohim a matter of painful but inevitable resignation.
Some metaphysicians speculate that the tension between presentism and special
relativity might be resolved by masking up an ontological difference by epistemological
inaccessibility, Markosian (2010):
Perhaps it can be plausibly argued that while relativity entails that it is physically impossible to observe whether two events are absolutely simultaneous, the theory nevertheless has no bearing on whether there is such a phenomenon as absolute simultaneity.
Dear Gianrocco, to solve the problem of the nature of space, it is necessary to assume an ontology (a theory about the nature of nature).
In my theory - called Triple Aspect Monism (TAM) - reality is composed of three aspects, defined in relation to scientific and philosophical disciplines and practices (for this reason, TAM is conceived as an Interdisciplinary/Pragmatic Ontology):
1) Matter/Energy in Space/Time. This aspect is studied by the physical, chemical and biological sciences;
2) Form/Information. This spect is studied by mathematics, logics, information theory, computational theories, semeiotics, cognitive sciences;
3) Feeling/Consciousness. This aspect is studied by means of qualitative approaches (subjective reports, systematic introspective methods, meditation, artistic and religious practices).
The three aspects progressively develop from Nature´s potentialities. I use the State Space tool to represent all these potentialities (see link below). The physical aspect is the first to be actualized, and includes matter/energy objects/processes and space/time. Therefore, the distinction of absolute and relative space vanishes, because the structure of space and the structure of material objects/processes belong to the same phase of the evolution of reality.
The Kantian approach is wrong because it confuses the first and the second aspects. Knowledge of space, or apriori conditions for knowledge/experience of space, belong to the second aspect, while space itself belongs to the first aspect. Kant did not provide a connection between the structure of space itself and our species-specific apriori concept of space. This connection can be found in Piaget. It can be described as a continuity between space itself, biological (possibly Lamarckian) adaptation to space, and cognitive schemes that allow us to move in space coherently.
Research Towards a Model-Based Philosophy of Nature
The space in which we live and interact with the objective world is the one we recognize and observe. The things we recognize and observe are very small compared to the things we do not recognize but exist which influence things we do, which influence things in the universe with out being invisible. What we call nature is much bigger than what we see and observe as the fraction of what we know of the universe is much much smaller than the actual universe.
The research center at the Hague CERN testifies that there are things which do exist in nature but we do not know them yet. We therefore call something is this when we know all its components and all its properties, but without which we can say the image of the thing in our understanding.
Philosophies aside, space-time in physics has two distinct aspects. Firstly, it is an argument on which dynamical quantities depend. Secondly, it is something we can measure, using rulers and clocks. Not that I know what to make out of this distinction, by, perhaps, there is someone cleverer than I somewhere out there. ;-)
Another thought in the same vein. For a human being, the "measurable" space-time equals, to a large extent, the EM interaction. This is strangely reminiscent of the point of general relativity, where space is defined by light propagation.
@Baumgarten
"How do you interpret the quantum wave function in momentum space?"
What's wrong with the usual interpretation: probability amplitude for a particle to have a given momentum?
"Spacetime is not a thing that we can measure."
To say this is to say that ST is not a physical concept. My point was that, for a physicist, ST _is_ intervals and distances.
An hypothesis states that the Universe consists of three fundamental entities — space-time, matter and consciousness,each with their own degrees of freedom. we must pay particular attention to three areas that impact on this theory:
(1) the demonstration by neuroscience and psychophysics that we do not perceive the world as it actually is but as the brain computes it most probably to be the need to delineate between phenomenal space-time and physical space-time. Recent theories in physics that suggest that the Universe has more than three spatial dimensions
are relevant .
(2) the role of consciousness in the block Universe described by Special Relativity. The integration of these topics suggests a new physical theory of the nature of consciousnes.
@C Baumgarten
> I did not say ...
Looks as I did not understand your initial question. Would you please elaborate?
> No, I said ...
Surely, but not all concepts are physical. The latter are only those for which a measurement procedure is defined.
The notions “Space” and “Time” are Meta-mainstream philosophical and so cannot by properly defined/ understood in the framework of this science. Including any citing of any – possibly in other philosophical problems very clever – philosopher doesn’t change something in this fact.
In the reality there exist nothing besides elements (fixed and dynamical informational patterns/ systems of the patterns) of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. The Space and Time are some universal “grammar” Rules/ possibilities of the set of Rules/possibilities (“Logos”), which [Logos] “tramsforms” something uncertain in some information. Space and Time act on whole Set, and, of course on the [different] sub-Sets “Matter” and “Consciousness”. In these [concrete] sub-Sets these Rules/possibilities are “adpated”, for example in Matter two “times” act – the “true time” and the “coordinate time”; the last with 3D spatial “possibility” constitute 4D Matter’s spacetime.
Etc.
more see http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173 or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute
About the applications of the Space and Time Rules/possibilities in Matter see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
Cheers
Article the Information as Absolute
Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics
@Christian Baumgarten
Sorry took me a while to get back to you.
quote
"How do you interpret the quantum wave function in momentum space? It is usually said that it gives an equivalent description of the physical situation."
unquote
Yes, mathematically equivalent, but not physically. They deliver different information, and are subject to different measurement procedures. Actually, both concepts are idealizations, because they imply infinite measurement accuracy.
quote
You wrote: "Surely, but not all concepts are physical. The latter are only those for which a measurement procedure is defined."
I completely agree. And spacetime without a measurement rod in it cannot be measured. => Space can not be defined without matter.
Therefore spacetime without objects is not a meaningful concept. However we can think of and describe things that are not "intrinsically" related to spacetime. An harmonic oscillator can be thought of as a mechanical device in spacetime. But from it's conception - it can also be thought of as an abstract LC-circuit without any reference to where it is "placed". The concept harmonic oscillator does not require spacetime to exist. However the concept spacetime requires "things" in to exist.
unquote
IMHO, you raise here a very important question as to how actually formal our knowledge may be made. Philosophers did a lot of thinking on this topic. My understanding of it is mostly due to dinner-time conversations, though. For myself, I believe that our knowledge is mostly informal. The ultimate restriction here is language, which is a self-referencing system. That is, you have no other way to describe language but the language itself. The corollary to this seemingly innocuous statement is that our thinking is a maze of vicious circles. Informal knowledge is the way of breaking them. It cannot be formalized. So, when talking about 'an abstract LC-circuit without any reference to where it is "placed"', you obviously disregard the fact that it is made of a coil and a capacitor, which are devices sitting "somewhere". To use it as a time reference, we have to know its speed for relativistic corrections, etc., etc., etc.
“…spacetime without objects is not a meaningful concept…” , etc.
- that isn’t so.
The “Space” an “Time” are utmost universal Rules/possibilities that act in whole Set and some experiments are need only to specify their application in the concrete informational system “Matter”. And Matter’s set of these Rules/possibilities, i.e, “4D Euclidian [“virtual and empty 4D container”] spacetime +'the true time”", is absolute and to be meaningful for them there is no necessity in any objects inside.
Besides, since there exist nothing else then some informational systems there is no principal problem in “…ultimate restriction here is language…”. Indeed, everything, including, for example objects and processes in Matter, are some informational statements that are written on some unknown language, but here is no principal limitations for humans to decode some informational connections between the objects and to translate them into some humans’ language. Just that is the subject of the physics.
More – see above the SS post and the RG links in the post, besides to understand the papers in the links would be useful to read the short discussion in the https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_information_definable_as_a_scientifically_valid_and_unified_term
Cheers
Christian,
it seems you didn’t read the RG links in the SS posts above. The fact that there is nothing besides informational patterns/systems, which are some elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set is rigorously proven; that’s all. Including the tribal Matter is a huge number of some automata that are united in a system by universal logical bond “the gravity”.
From what follows a number physical consequences, including the fact that the notions “Space” and “Time” are universal Rules /possibilities that are necessary “to write” any/every information (in other words to exist some information as the information at all). These R/P in concrete systems are concretely realized, for example in Matter the R/P “Space” is realized as the possibility as 3D “paper sheet”. The Matter’s R/P “Time” is, in certain sense, two-dimensional – here two times act: the “true time” and the “coordinate time”, at that the 4D space and 1D coordinate time constitute the first of all “possibility” – the 4D spacetime, which is Euclidian and moreover – “Cartesian”, since all coordinates are orthogonal to each other. The true time isn’t the coordinate of the Matter’s spacetime, though can be a coordinate in some 5D spacetime where all Matter moves along the true time coordinate with the speed of light.
Again – the Space/Time realizations /actions in concrete systems are specific in details, for Matter some examples: the orthogonality of all 4D coordinates is a consequence of that primary fundamental logical elements have at least 4 independent degrees of freedom to change their state; the principal logical self-inconsistence of the notion “a change” – and the necessary for any change of anything corresponding self-inconsistence of the notion “Time” are realized in that any limited in the Set dynamical system (all objects in the limited system Matter un-interruptedly change their states) any change must be uncertain on some level [what was clear seems 2500 years ago] and so that all changes must be quantized on some level; etc. – more see the links.
Returning to your post a couple other comments: the notion “energy” doesn’t relate to the notion “everything”, that is only a parameter that characterizes how fast some processes (states’ changings) go in the concrete [absolutely] infinitesimal system “Matter”; and “…the explanatory power sits in the distinction…” – just the distinction is the essence of the information, which is based first of all on the simplest relation “A is not identical to B”. And the Rule/possibility “Space” is immediately necessary for this statement to exist; the Rule/possibility “Time” becomes be necessary to realize the statement “the [next] state of A isn’t identical to the [former] state of A”.
Etc.; more see the links.
Cheers
Dear Danny,
thank you for your comment and for the suggested reading.
Have a nice day, Gianrocco
- Badges
- Science topic