does everything have to have atoms or physical energy/force to exist and effect our universe?



peace.

I can't think of any examples of anything without energy that affects anything else, but that doesn't mean that such a thing can't exist.

What do you have in mind?

In my opinion existence simply implies an energy differential. If energy was uniform throughout the universe, nothing would exist (except perhaps the universe itself). One cannot define existence without boundaries.

No. Numbers don't exist as energy/matter but as ideas however they greatly influence the universe. Utility determined the existence of something; function preceeds form. Sometimes you see you use a torch light as a hammer to hit a nail in the wall, just as long as you get the job done; hence function having higher dominion. We are not here because we are free, we are here because we are not free.

Numbers don't exist except as abstract idealizations of entities - and are themselves bound. Without energy differentials, numbers wouldn't represent anything.

the first thing that comes to my mind is time

time is a reality but yet it is not composed of matter nor it doesn't, to my knowledge, possess energy

Time only exists as a way to track change. If energy was uniform, nothing would change and time wouldn't exist.

yes but time itself is not composed of energy or matter, to my knowledge

Agreed, but you can replace the word boundaries with utility. Like said function preceeds all, even boundaries. Hell! its because of function we are here today debating this.

"I have never seen the government; George Bush and co.; but I know we need some sort of higher organization so I acknowledge we have a government somewhere regardless of my social class or boundary"

Something can exist with no function. One particle alone in an otherwise empty universe would have no function, but it would certainly exist. Function requires interaction between two energy differential boundaries. All that is requisite for existence, imo is one.

Certainly something can exist with no function, the magnitude of its existence is however determined by utility. Does God exist? How will you answer that question without considering reasons for him to exist...People live and die everyday but numbers never seem to go away. You see existence,at least according to us, is a fucntion of function. As I am typing here there is a rock far away in a village in Santiago, Chile. As long as I can imagine it, it exists. The rock has to reason in my life here in the library so to me it may be as good as dead.

empty space,
abstracts,
time,
dimensions.

also,

if you throw a ball through the "air" are you just throwing it through gases oxygen etc and dust particals/atoms etc, or are you throwing it through a non physical structure/form/dimension, (empty space)


peace.

I was thinking about hope and love. Do those things exist?

Our science works (traditionally) with things that can be measured or calculated. Science, as we know it, is based on materialism. And it makes sense; measuring the flow of a stream is the best determinant of how much water is passing. Checking red shift is surer than consulting a religious writing for measuring the expansion of the Universe.

The trouble arises when one goes past this 'working rule' and concludes only that which can be measured or calculated does exist or can exist. The fact is, there are many things we can calculate, discuss, and reason to exist we cannot measure; some we can't even find. (The Higgs Boson, f'instance.)

How much 'love' is required to pay your kid's college tuition? How does one measure 'determination'? How does one measure the function of understanding?

So who's to say there aren't other immaterial things? We can't measure them, and we can't dissect them; does that mean they don't exist?

Intangibles do exist. Ideas and abstract thoughts obviously can have very powerful effects on people. Likewise, with electronic funds transfer, the difference between $0.00 and $1,000,000.00 in your bank account may be "just a number," but it will make a *very* real difference in your life!

So, "yes".

Time is one such abstract idea, and has no tangible existance. We don't actually measure "time," we measure the passage of events. Time cannot exist where there are no events to mark its passage. The tick of a pendulum clock is an event, as is the pulsation of a pizo-electric crystal in a digital watch.

EFOC, you keep asking questions that are philosophical in nature. Science deals with measurable phenomena and reproducible effects. Your questions therefore would be better addressed in a philosophy forum.

Actually the above does have a scientific answer: Even in a perfect vacuum energy is present, as "virtual particles" and "vacuum energy" demonstrate. Therefore, there's no place in our universe where literally "nothing" exists. But I don't think that's the point of your question. I think the question underlying your question is: Does anything exist outside of the observable universe? Well, we just don't know. Maybe other universes. Maybe nothing. Maybe something we could never possibly imagine. One or more variations on string theory do postulate an extremely large number of universes. But unless someone can design an experiment to prove or disprove such an idea, it will remain philosophy and not science.

Lensman,

I would assume from your statement that you don't believe in Special Relativity.

You assume incorrectly. I know quite well that atomic clocks have shown time dilation consistant with general relativity. But it's the effect of Einsteinian time dilation on the *clock* that we're measuring. Time cannot be seen, or pointed to, or weighed, or even detected; it exerts no force on anything. Like mathematics, it is a concept useful for analyzing the universe, but like math it's just an abstract concept.

It is useful to speak of measuring time as it is useful to speak of measuring length, width, and height. But all those things are abstract concepts, and have no existance independent of the object being measured or the object doing the measuring.

so how does empty space exist if it is not physical? the fabric of space?

peace,

Isn't "the passage of events" exactly what we mean by "time"?

It has been my personal conclusion FOR SOME TIME NOW that a passage of events IS THE MEANING OF TIME.

EFC and anyone else has to reach their own personal conclusion on the basises(?) of language, semantics, philosophy, scientific provability, etc., whether the complete absence of anything ( empty space, vacuum ) is a candidate for being called "something".

I am having no problem considering absolutely nothing to be something, but of course there are critics who say that if I claim a dropped bowling ball falls DOWN then I must be wrong.

pea soup.

everything that exists is physical except for interactions and abstracts.