That doesn't really mean anything. "Nothing" is a philosophical concept, not a physical one.
Not true. In physical reality, we are ignorant of this truth so yes we must consider the options philosophically while scientifically searching for
the truth, but it may be that the energy/matter/somethingness of the universe may exist in an infinite void of absolute nothingness. And so space,
may be that nothingness, the canvas on/in which all something exists. If this is not true, that there is no such thing as an area of nothing, that
all that exists is modes of something, meaning space/vacuum is somethingness, a type of energy or matter, then that would mean the universe is a
singular phenomenon (potentially) and now this is the tricky thing to think about, think of the universe as a sphere or rectangle or however you want,
galaxies, there are a finite amount of them, the universe at any given time must take on some 3d shape if you were to connect the dots. So now
consider what may be beyond, if there is no such thing as an area of nothingness, then ...there is nothing beyond the furthest galaxies? Its beyond
nothingness, its not nothing or something, it just doesnt exist... there is no space there? there can be no things there? So is there a barrier which
separates the galaxies, and space, from this infinite non something non nothingness?
So basically what that has to do with is, if there is nothingness, does that nothingness exist within our universe, is that nothingness in every
proton, and atom, and inbetween air molecules and galaxies? Is it that absolute nothingness that exists where no energy or matter exists? Like
original ideas of the vacuum perhaps. Or is what exists there space, which is not nothing, but an energetic relative of all energy and matter, which
shared the same birth?
Being finite or "exact" doesn't have anything to do with being quantized. The number 1 is finite, but it's infinitely divisible into smaller
So what then physically and realistically has to do with existing as a quantized phenomenon? The nature and abstract rules of numbers in and of
themselves have no bearing on physical reality. I would claim the only true numbers are -1... 0... +1 the entire theory of numbers are built from
that. You can scale in and out infintely with that simple concept. 1 may be 100 or 1000. and in between 0 and 1 are infinite numbers. It is a
measurement system, this consistent system of course can be placed over reality, but just because the number 1 can be abstractly divided infinity,
doesnt mean 1 area of space can be infinitely divided.
Not really, it can be expanding in a perfectly continuous way.
If something occurs continuously does that automatically remove it from being considered a quantized activity?
That doesn't have anything to do with it. Being quantized is what would imply that it could be not broken down any further at some point (although in
principle there's no problem with something being like that, it's just that space isn't).
So your criticism of my responses have been due to your belief that space is infinitely divisible? Meaning that if you touched your two fingers
together there exists an infinite amount of space between them? The same infinite amount as if you held them two inches apart? and as infinite as the
distance between two galaxies? Or do you mean that the distances are measurable beyond precision there fore they are infinite? If we had a video
camera that could visualize everything that existed in reality exactly as it existed and could zoom in or out to any possible and desirable scale, you
are claiming that in the area of one inch, if we were to pause the movement of the universe, we could zoom in on that area for ever? And do the same
for every inch surrounding, and so on? And if we did this experiment while the universe was unpaused and moving, is this the main reason for your
belief, that as we are zooming in on one area, because the universe is moving, that we are always witnessing a new area of space, and so the quantity
of space we would be witnessing would be infinite?