## Bell's Theorem

189101112Next
• 12.8k
We have to acknowledge that MU is narrowly correct..

What does this mean, "narrowly correct"?

But he would deny space per se. If what separates my desk and bed is four feet of air, and there is no space, then removing the air is removing the medium in/of which the measurement is made, and thus my bed and desk then touching, Yes?

How would you remove the air between them, if not by either pushing them together, or displacing it with something else? Anyway, I don't see how this is relevant, because as I explained already, there is necessarily a medium even between air molecules. So even if you could remove all the air molecules this would still leave a medium.
• 9k
I forget, please remind me. The distance from my bureau to my desk is four feet. What is between them?

As to "narrowly correct," I mean that if your claim is that there are calculations that need not explicitly take space into account, then I do not disagree.

And it is possible we simply understand two - at least two - different things in our respective usages of "space." Perhaps you could offer your definition or if you claim there's no such thing, then so state. Mine is too simple: it is that which remains when every thing is removed: the space, e.g., between my bureau and my desk. And when things are present, what they occupy.
• 12.8k
I forget, please remind me. The distance from my bureau to my desk is four feet. What is between them?

Air. How could you forget, you just asked about the possibility of removing the air?

And it is possible we simply understand two - at least two - different things in our respective usages of "space." Perhaps you could offer your definition or if you claim there's no such thing, then so state.

It appears you are having difficulty remembering simple things tim. You already asked me for a definition of "space".

So, from my OED, the first definition of "space" reads like this: "a continuous unlimited area or expanse which may or may not contain objects etc."

Then I went on to say that this supposed "continuous unlimited area or expanse" is just an ideal, there is no such thing independent of the human minds which employ this ideal in there activities..

What I've been telling you, is that this does not refer to anything real, independent, in the world. It is an ideal which facilitates all sorts of human activities of conceptualizing, measuring, etc.. Take your example of movement now.

Mine is too simple: it is that which remains when every thing is removed: the space, e.g., between my bureau and my desk. And when things are present, what they occupy.

This provides another example of why I say "space" is just an ideal which does not refer to anything real. It is impossible to remove everything from any area. We are always left with something in that area, gravity, whatever is represented by various fields, etc.. It seems like all normal usage of "space" renders it as something ideal which cannot actually be obtained in the real physical world.
189101112Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal