>>13283209>Yes, Parmenides is a good example of how metaphysical thinking can go terribly wrong.How so? It is "the universe". As if it would change into anything else for no reason or spontaneously exist for no reason. You have broken down your reasoning
>>13283174 to the point where you essentially claim there is no essence..no soul to the phenomena you observe. While you may not be able to tell me what it is specifically, it isn't just "nothing". From nothing comes nothing. Why else would you argue with me about IT(the subject we're discussing). If it has none of the qualities you list then you speak of "nothing". Boring. No use can be derived from an argument over nothing.
So please if you would, tell me what "Space" actually is, if anything at all.
>>13283898It has attributes, it is measure. But it has no properties. Much how the logo of a car dealership doesn't add properties nor has anything to do with how a car functions (don't take the analogy too far, of course one could say the logo has visual properties it adds to the car).
>>13284372>Okay, so provide a measurement of nothing for me please.*measures a shadow
See? Measurements don't actually prove something exists in the first place, it's the psychosis that believing they do which is what causes the false reification of space.
>>13284373>no it doesn't have toSo you can't quantify "space".
>>13283633>but they have properties relative to each otherThat being "none". Measurements and standards of measure have no properties in the first place. It's what you use to gauge whether the phenomena being investigated has a property.
