Reflections
on the Concept of Space
Part II
Five Epistemological Problems concerning the Philosophical Conception of Space.
By Jutta Schmitt 4th February, 2000
Introduction
In the first part of our exposition “Reflections on the Concept of Space”, we gave a short introduction into the context of our own philosophy and some of it's methodological parameters, undertook an approximation towards a “general definition” of the concept of Space, took a glance at the Greek, mythological-philosophical origins of the concept and showed a surprising analogy between ancient Greek, mythological-philosophic notions of Space and the concept of Space as conceived in Don Albert’s modern, unconventional Science and Philosophy of the Third Millennium. In this second part of our exposition, and before going into the specific philosophical definitions of Space as exposed by distinguished representatives of the materialistic and idealistic schools of thought in Ancient Greece, we will have to get acquainted with five epistemological problems concerning the philosophical conception of Space.
II. Specific Definitions
1. The Philosophical Concept of Space
1.1. Five epistemological problems with regard to the philosophical
conception of
Space.
Let us briefly indicate the basic epistemological, methodological and logical problems concerning the philosophical notion of Space, which, within the Western-European philosophical tradition, has been close to the physical-mathematical notion of Space. In the further course of our elaborations, we will take reference to these problems and to how they have been solved, respectively.
1. The first problem concerns the objectivity / the subjectivity of Space: Is space an objectively existent reality, independent from human recognition, as exposed by the respective materialist cosmovisions in philosophy? Or does Space exist as a subjective concept of the human intellect, a product of the human mind, as exposed by the idealist cosmovisions in philosophy? Can we go further than the traditional philosophical conceptions, and understand Space as both, an objectively existent reality and a subjective concept of the human intellect? If so, how do objectivity and subjectivity relate to each other? Can we even go beyond this, and conceive Space as “transcensive”, that is, neither objective nor subjective? If so, how does “transcendence” relate to objectivity and subjectivity?
Problem number one expresses the ultimate, fundamental question of philosophy, if and how subjective thought is related to objective reality. The different philosophical answers that have been given to this question determine the respectively different philosophical schools, ranging from materialism to idealism to agnosticism. Yet, the validity of this question is not at all limited to philosophy in the narrow sense of the term, but directly touches the whole realm of physics and the way how to deal with physical reality in all it's aspects, as for example can be seen in quantum physics, where the Copenhagen School of quantum physics gave an agnosticistic interpretation of the wave-particle duality, which definitely is not the only valid interpretation of sub-atomic reality (see my article on quantum physics posted on this Forum in 4 parts – J.S.).
2. The second problem concerns the rest / the motion of Space: Is Space “Space-at-Rest”? What do we understand by Space-at-Rest? Or is Space “Space-in-Motion”? What do we understand by Space-in-Motion? Is Space both, at-rest and in-motion? If so, how are “at-rest” and “in-motion” related? Is Space “relational”, that is, neither at-rest nor in-motion? If so, how does “relation” relate to rest and motion?
3. The third problem concerns the vacuum / the plenum of Space: Is Space a vacuum? What do we understand by “empty” Space? Or is Space a plenum? What do we understand by “filled” Space? Is Space both, a vacuum and a plenum? If so, how do vacuum and plenum relate to each other? Is Space an “oscillatum”, that is, neither vacuum nor plenum? If so, how does “oscillatum” relate to vacuum and plenum?
We have already seen within the context of the mythological-philosophical origins of the concept of Space, specifically with regard to the terms “tó kenón” and “oudén”, that there are two philosophical streams of Greek thought concerning problems 2 and 3: One of them, the Atomists (Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus), associated Space with vacuum and motion. They considered vacuum the conditio sine qua non for the smallest particles of matter, the atoms, to be able to move; whereas the other school of thought, the Eleatics (Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zenon), associated Space with plenum and rest, and denied any possible motion.
Interestingly, tó kenón, “Space without matter”, that is, the Greek-Atomistic conception of Space as a vacuum, has found a theoretical enhancement in the discussion of modern physics, specifically in the field of electromagnetics, as proposed by Col. T.E. Bearden (http://www.cseti.org/bearden/newteslaem/22discrepancies.htm). In his 1984 paper on Electromagnetic Theory, with regard to the clear distinction between charged mass and charge itself, Bearden points out, that what is presently referred to as “vacuum” in physics, is precisely the “absence of mass” (translated into Greek terms: tó kenón, space without matter), or “massless charge”, also “anenergy” (we would say: the complementary counterpart of energy). Moreover he states, that “vacuum has no mass, but it has great massless charge and virtual particle charge flux”, which implies, that “a charged vacuum is the seat of something in motion”. Thus and according to the new electromagnetic theory as exposed by Bearden in his 1984 paper, Space, vacuum and motion are interrelated moments of the same “thing” (that is, anenergy), just like has been anticipated in a stunning way by the early Greek Atomist philosophers in 500 B.C.
Of course, we still will have to investigate though, in how far also the Eleatics’ association of Space with plenum and rest, have found a theoretical enhancement in the discussion of modern physics.
4. The fourth problem concerns the finiteness / the infinity of Space: Is Space limited? What do we understand by “limited”? Or is Space unlimited? What do we understand by “unlimited”? Is Space both, limited and unlimited? If so, how do finiteness and infinity relate to each other? Is Space “transfinite”, that is, neither finite nor infinite? If so, how does “transfinity” relate to finity and infinity? (– Related problems in the realm of physics are the discretion / the continuum of Space.)
Problem number four will have a heavy weight in all three, the philosophical, physical and mathematical notions of Space. The problem arises philosophically in the form of Anaximander’s “apeiron” (the greek term “peras” denotes limit), that, what has no limit (a-peiron), also that, what has no shape. We also will see, that, interestingly, Pythagoras implicitly operates with the same conception of Anaximander’s apeiron, so as to underline his concept of number, of “arithmos”, which denotes that, what limits, what gives shape. In a way, Pythagoras’ “arithmos” can be conceived as a discrete, discontinuous quantity, which limits the continuous unlimited. Here, we will see an early relation of “the unlimited”, also “the continuous”, towards the limited, the discrete; being the unlimited the basic condition for that, what limits, what gives shape, for “the discrete”.
5. The fifth problem concerns the unity / the diversity of Space: is Space unified (“universe”)? What do we understand by “unified” (universe)? Or is Space diverse? What do we understand by “diverse”? Is Space both, unified (universe) and diverse? If so, what is the relation between unified (universe) and diverse? Is Space “triverse”, that is, neither unified (universe) nor diverse? If so, how does triversity relate to unity (“university”) and diversity? (- Related problems in the realm of physics are the indivisibility / divisibility of Space.)
Once again, we will have to take a look at the Greek Atomists as well as the Eleatics as far as problem number five is concerned. Space as associated by the Atomists not only with vacuum and motion, but with divisibility and diversity, contrasts the Eleatics’ association of Space with plenum, rest, indivisibility and unity. -
In the following part of our Reflections on the Concept of Space, we will deal in detail with the distinguished representatives of the afore-mentioned, ancient Greek philosophic tendencies, the Atomists and the Eleatics.
SCOTT'S CORRESPONDENCE WITH JUTTA:
Subject:
FROM SCOTT SCHNEIDER=>CREATIVE
RESPONSE Fw: Reflections on the
Concept of Space, Part II
Date:
Thu, 3 Feb 2000 23:46:04 -0500
From:
"Scott" <scott@imatech.com>
To:
<juschmi@listbot.com>
Natural Science and Philosophy -
http://www.homestead.com/pandemonium2/
> Hi Jutta,
>
> Some of your Concept of Space must confront the
Positivistic challenges of
> General Relativity. How do you deal with the modern
Mathematical
Description
> of Space, dominated by Symbolic constructs and
enormously successful for
> predicting matter/energy/gravity phenomena?
>
> You can't ignore it.....in fact, if the Ancient Greeks
were confronted
with
> this new method of conceptualizing Space/Time and its
empirical
> verifiability, I doubt they would reiterate their
opinions in these
classic
> arguments. They would have to revise them somehow.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Scott
>
> Scott Schneider, President
> Imaginative Technology, Inc. ("Imatech")
> 813.926.4447
> http://www.imatech.com