>>11210268>That argument falls flat when you realize that space is not "nothing".That argument fails when you realize that you're still giving meaning to that which is not empirical or testable in an experiment. Space is a privation, it doesn't actually exist. The "not nothing" obviously is "something" and so far all you observe is "less matter". Saying "less matter" is something completely different than more of the same matter is basically "not even wrong", but like...it's still just matter. Just less of it.
>There are things moving through it >through itSo it's a medium then? Filled, not a vacuum?
>Also, there is no such thing as some space that's completely without some kind of matter other than as a mathematical object.You see, you can only actually speak of this privation you call "space" when of course referring to something else, "matter" in this case.
>because space defines spatial relationships between things and if you're at the very edge there is no "distance" to anything further out you can reasonably define or interact with.But it doesn't though. What the object does is what defines the spacial relationship and "distance". Stop spinning the sun and planets for instance and you get "no distance" because they aren't DOING ANYTHING. There won't be anything "definable" because there is not the motive or capacity to define to begin with. You have matter doing nothing and that's all it's going to do until you animate it with something else that has different properties than it.
Why do you think that the absence of something causes anything? It is absent. Your logic is basically "space defines itself", you basically say it almost verbatum this post.
