Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  Depending upon its definition, it can be said to be undetectible. If defined as absolutely full, then there is no differentiation possible to perceive things.
I guess an infinite number of layers of refinement are necessary for reality to be perceived, and those layers would lie between the abstract perspectives of 1 (fullness) and 0 (emptiness). |
Nobody, you keep using background-dependent analyses of your models. As Lee Smolin has correctly pointed out, "The geometry of space/void is not part of the laws of nature." This is in accordance with the deep foundations of Einstein's thinking, also. When anyone tries to use any type of background-dependence idea, they are bound to fail. The geometry of any and all space/void is isomorphic to time/distance motion___Change... All laws are removed from absolute motion's background, because nature must also be free to create finiteness, in her own way, though I do think the void is FS in random linear motion, before it quantumizes itself, into uniform motions... This idea leaves the void of FS motion nature free to act accordingly, i.e., random linear motion, out toward infinity, and in toward finiteness...
A full void can still isomorphically move within itself, just as quantum mechanics knows photons move through themselves, independently, through background-independence, when ideas are removed from the restrictions of background-dependence. This is where we have to search for quantum gravity. Just as Einstein said, "Field is everywhere." But, what type of background-independent fields exist, before first star/stars/etc...? We already know all about background-dependent fields, of the three major physics models, being based in a ridiculous infinite mass/infinitesimal point. The three models referred to are standard quantum, standard particle, and standard cosmological. Einstein stayed outside these ridiculous models with both his SR and GR theories. And, even though he didn't achieve his goals, that's no reason to abandon the search...
It's time for a change of backgrounds...
Regards,
Lloyd
p.s.
I think void is the most mis-interpreted word in the english language, mainly because it truly doesn't exist, except as a larger definition of space, outside what we know as finite space. That greater space is, in my a-priori logic and math opinions, still
FS in motion...