[sdiy] Is everything digital?

[Bob Weigel]

Richard...you missed my intent there.  I'm meaning the word 'space' 
technically means that..and many people STILL perceive it as such.  You 
and I know that there must be something there.  That's what I was 
saying. -Bob

Richard Wentk wrote:

> At 21:59 14/05/2005, Bob Weigel wrote:
>
>> Hehe.  I make a formal faith based statement below.  It *is* far more 
>> complex than you or I or anyone realizes. :-)  The more we look to 
>> understand the depths of things the more questions arise.  We still 
>> don't have any kind of real concept of what energy is though we 
>> describe it's interactions mathmatically.   We dont' have a clue 
>> about how radiation travels.  I mean...we are talking about waves 
>> propogating through NOTHING. We are...aware of absolutely nothing 
>> there hence the reference "space".  :-)  Yet..waves don't travel 
>> through nothing.  EM energy has no mass.  All we know is..there is 
>> something about 'space' (ahem..that makes no sense..but that is the 
>> way we talk because we STILL don't know WHAT we are talking about ! 
>> :-)  Space is..by definition..nothing. Space.  Think about the 
>> grammar.  Void.
>
>
> No, space is only empty of physical stuff you can bump into. It's not 
> empty of vacuum energy, and it's not empty of the mechanisms that 
> allow for energy propagation. (Whatever those are.)
>
> Just because we can't see the detail doesn't mean it's there or not 
> important. The vacuum only *looks* empty from the level we're used to 
> looking at it, because the background processes it's running don't 
> leave direct physical footprints in the way that foreground 
> energy/matter do.
>
> A true void would absent of all geometry, and (probably) of time too.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>