>>11274092wow you are actually right, i guess i should stop humoring him.
>>11274151motion can only be defined when there is a medium for any object to move about (space). What is motion? motion does not exist as you cannot give me scientific experiments without using empirical objects that exist. motion is not an object. How could it exist?
To describe motion, you have to relate that ABSTRACT CONCEPT THAT WE INVENTED IN OUR MINDS CALLED MOTION to everyday objects! however, since we cannot do this as you said, (testing for motion by using IT itself, not test for it, test the actual motion), motion does not exist and isnt real!
However we can feel the effects of motion (try walking then running if you dont believe me but woops i cant convince you since im not testing motion itself, but using YOU, an empirical object to test for motion). Motion does not exist physically as an empirical object but it is useful in describing many scenarios.
Likewise the same argument goes for space. Space is just an abstract concept in our minds to model the real world to the best of our abilities. We ultimately cannot test space itself, but can only relate it to other actual physical objects.
So according to your beliefs, all abstract concepts are useless and dont exist (time, space, motion, force, energy, etc which are not useless btw) as they cannot be physically tested themselves, but can only be tested by relations to physical objects.
Now this makes all arguments useless then? since you are demanding concrete empirical evidence of abstract concepts which fundamentally cannot be done, so there is not much point in discussing this.
