|How can a void have a structure? Maybe it isn't empty...|
How can space be totally empty?
Such contradictions occur regularly in Science, and, indeed, necessarily so in a sincere quest to understand Reality. And, they occur crucially, and most obviously, for the reasons that Hegel revealed some 200 years ago. Such Dichotomous Pairs of Contradictory Ideas occur because our initial definitions are always unavoidably inadequate in some way - the most likely being due to the omission of some essential premise, or alternatively some error in an included premise. [And, for this reason, the usual general assumptions of Plurality have been jettisoned here in favour of the more accurate stance of Holism]
But also, it is becoming clear, that the assumption of an Empty Universe greatly simplified our conceptions of what could possibly happen there.
For, as soon as there is NO Empty Space, disruptions or replacements locally of that now essential underlying Substrate, can, and apparently will, disrupt, deflect or even prohibit "straight-line" propagations.
And yet, all such contradictions are explained by Hegel's discrediting of Formal Reasoning, due to its pluralist stance, which explains everything in terms of fixed properties and Laws - so the possibility of something possessing alternative and even contradictory modes is totally prohibited by that stance.
But, as we have seen in the Theory of the Universal Substrate, subsets of its producing Units can exist in various alternative arrangements with very different properties: our flawed, initial conceptions may contain sufficient Objective Content to be eminently useful in given circumstances, but will always, in the end, prove to be insufficient!
The initial problem is therefore,
"How can conceived-to-be straight-line propagation occur, with something in the way?"
Now, answering this problem in terms of point sources and a necessary straight line route to a point recipient is impossible! But, that is a formally simplified version of a real occurrence.
The likelihood is that a host of propagations will be initiated from many different positions, so some will avoid the obstructions and the effect upon the odd diversions, by the rest, will not be considered to affect it thereafter.
But, remember, these Substrate Pavings can be temporarily dissociated into showers of individuals units, which form, temporarily-at-least, directed flows, which, as soon as they can, will be absorbed back into paving-based propagations thereafter.
|Perhaps this is similar to turbulence in a gas? https://gdtl.osu.edu|
It would seem necessary to have a propagated signal briefly transforming itself into a mode which collectively maintains a direction through such disturbances. You can see why Photons are possible, BUT are only one of several modes!
ASIDE: Watching a lecture by Erik Verlinde, the complexities of his purely Formal means of dealing with all the phenomena at the Sub Atomic Level was evidently unavoidable due to the pluralist and idealist stance involved.
Every mode change in my way of dealing with things, unavoidably involved yet another formal method, in his way of thinking. But, what he was doing was NOT Physics, it was Mathematics, and they are NOT the same thing at all!
To promote purely formal descriptions into causes is Idealism: it makes simplified abstractions, fitted-up-to by purely formal relations, as the causes of Reality. Such theorists are seduced by the almost limitless extent of Pure Forms in Ideality, so they easily forget that Forms are never causes, always consequences.
And, of course, the original power of such forms, enabling the construction of a consistent and developable discipline, Mathematics, only works within Stabilities: any situation involving developmental changes cannot be encapsulated by such methods.
Indeed, rather than a pluralist conception, which can only ever deliver complication, there is the holist alternative, which can, and indeed must, deliver the intrinsic developments that quite evidently have led time-after-time to the entirely new emerging! Can Lego-like plurality deliver Life and Human Consciousness? Of course it can't!
Out of Hegel's insistence that true qualitative change simply must be included in all reasoning, arose the possibility of it also including the natural development of Reality. And, with the wholesale transfer of his Dialectics to a materialist basis by Marx, the possibility of Science extending its reach beyond the sole study of Stabilities, finally became possible. Indeed, Darwin's revolutionary revelation of Evolution in Living Things naturally meant that there must have been major developments in what had given rise to Life - the material World itself evolves. Can Mathematics deal with that?