more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
If there are such things as points in space, independently of any other object, then these points are by definition stationary (since to be stationary is to stay in the same place, and a point is a place).
Gist of Idea
If spatial points exist, then they must be stationary, by definition
Source
Robin Le Poidevin (Travels in Four Dimensions [2003], 03 'Search')
Book Ref
Le Poidevin,Robin: 'Travels in Four Dimensions' [OUP 2003], p.45
A Reaction
So what happens if the whole universe moves ten metres to the left? Is the universe defined by the objects in it (which vary), or by the space that contains them? Why can't a location move, even if that is by definition undetectable?
| 10863 | Cantor proved that three dimensions have the same number of points as one dimension [Cantor, by Clegg] |
| 16962 | Whitehead replaced points with extended regions [Whitehead, by Quine] |
| 14160 | Space is the extension of 'point', and aggregates of points seem necessary for geometry [Russell] |
| 18970 | The concept of a 'point' makes no sense without the idea of absolute position [Quine] |
| 17811 | The natural conception of points ducks the problem of naming or constructing each point [Kreisel] |
| 17707 | We should regard space as made up of many tiny pieces [Feynman, by Mares] |
| 18257 | Why should the limit of measurement be points, not intervals? [Dummett] |
| 3334 | Rationalists see points as fundamental, but empiricists prefer regions [Benardete,JA] |
| 22922 | We can identify unoccupied points in space, so they must exist [Le Poidevin] |
| 22924 | If spatial points exist, then they must be stationary, by definition [Le Poidevin] |
| 8269 | Points are limits of parts of space, so parts of space cannot be aggregates of them [Lowe] |
| 4227 | Surfaces, lines and points are not, strictly speaking, parts of space, but 'limits', which are abstract [Lowe] |
| 17708 | Maybe space has points, but processes always need regions with a size [Mares] |