The Impossibility of Relations Between Non-Collocated Spatial Objects And Non-Identical Topological Spaces

Abstract

I argue that relations between non-collocated spatial entities, between non-identical topological spaces, and between non-identical basic building blocks of space, do not exist. If any spatially located entities are not at the same spatial location, or if any topological spaces or basic building blocks of space are nonidentical, I will argue that there are no relations between or among them. The arguments I present are arguments that I have not seen in the literature.Axiomathes (2005) 15: 85-141 Ó Springer 2005

Mereological nihilism: quantum atomism and the impossibility of material constitution

“…17 As I discuss elsewhere in this article, it is not entirely clear why a particle arrangement is not able to give rise to a composite entity: why isn't a topological network a mereological whole? Only if it can be shown, as I did elsewhere (Grupp 2005b(Grupp , 2006a, that reality cannot involve any relations of arrangement is there no possibility of a composite entity, thus vindicating mereological nihilism as the correct theory. 123 example, even though quantum philosophical atoms can only be indistinguishable in quantum mereological nihilism, in this article I however can do little more than discuss indistinguishable atoms as if they are distinct, such as when I write, for example, ''atom A 1 and atom A 2 do not coincide.''…”

“…What I do have in mind, rather, is that atoms are locationless because space does not exist, and it doesn't because it is an item that (allegedly) has parts. In Grupp (2005b) I showed that space does not exist. I come to the same conclusion in this article but with very different arguments.…”

“…), and he argues all theories ''are unacceptable'' so as to try to make way for his new theory he presents in . 79 See Grupp (2005bGrupp ( , 91-93, 2005bGrupp ( , d, 2006b) for attacks on mereotopological theories. restrictive.…”

“…In fact, a primary thesis of physicists is that all quantum abstract atoms may involve non-locality, and that there may not be any non-locally unseparated particles. 158 Some of my previous publications (such as Grupp (2003Grupp ( , 2004aGrupp ( , 2005b attack the philosophy of property possession by pointing out that there are problems with the linking up of a property to a particular. Some have suggested to me that my arguments only work if locality is assumed, and a non-local property possession could involve a particular possesses a property not by directly connecting to the property, but by being involved in AD with it.…”