Table -"mostly empty space"?

Question

I'm studying theory of knowledge and our ToK-teacher told us that "science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. However, our senses tell us it is a solid object." What do you think is true and why?

Answer 1

Frankly, I feel that philosophy is mostly empty space.

Answer 2

Are the two things incompatible?.

The idea of it being "mostly empty space" derives from the structure of the atoms making up the table (or any object). The atoms have a nucleus and electrons orbiting it (sort of). Now the nucleus is VERY small compared to the overall size of the atom and the electrons are VERY far away from it. So most of the atom is in fact space between the central nucleus and the atom - it isn't "stuff" all the way through.

Now our senses tell us that a table is a solid object.

Do they? If you mean by "solid" that we can't put our hands or other objects through it then our senses are right. Whether or not the table is stuff-right-the-way-through we can't pass our hands through it and so its solid.

If you mean by "solid" that the table is stuff-right-the-way through then it clearly isn't "solid". However I would dispute that our senses tell us that it IS stuff-all-the-way-through. The table feels hard (we can't put our hands through it), cold, hot, smoothe, rough etc. looks brown, white or whatever. "Solid", in the sense of "stuff-all-the-way-through" is not something we perceive with any of our five senses - "solid" in this sense is a theory. "I can't put my hand through this table", we sense and call it "solid" (in the first sense) and then THINK "this must be because its got stuff all the way through".

Have a look at the link below which is an article by William James on Pragmatism. An inspiring essay (ok inspiring if you're a philosophy geek like me).

Answer 3

A table is mostly empty space. Any visible object, even a cannon ball, is mostly empty space, according to physics. This does not contradict what our senses tell us (that it is a "solid object"), but rather QUALIFIES it.

Imagine that a table is made up of small round "particles". In other words, instead of discussing the complexities of physics (subatomic particles, quarks, or tiny vibrating superstrings), we'll simply imagine that "atoms" are tiny round marbles. Now imagine that these particles are all being held together by a "force". This is, in a very simplified way, exactly what is happening with a real table.

"Atoms" are very very tiny. So tiny in fact, that the "force" holding them together is traveling through a space that is much much "larger" than the particles themselves. Therefore, in terms of volume, there is more space than there is "matter".

Nevertheless, your hand cannot pass through the table, because the tiny particles are being held together by this force.

Imagine two small buoys floating on a lake, with a rope stretched between them. If you attempt to swim past this border, you most likely will not be stopped by the actual buoys, but by the rope instead. The "particles" (or atoms) that make up a table are like the buoys, and the forces holding them together are like the rope. In other words, even though the boundary protected by the buoys is "mostly empty water", you still can't pass through it freely because of the "ropes". The ropes are like the forces that bind atoms together.

That's one way of imagining it.

The other thing to consider is that even though "atoms" are very tiny, they are still very close together. It does not matter how small they are, because there still is not enough space in between any two atoms for your large hand to pass through. Therefore it feels "solid".

On the other hand, if your hand was the size of an atom, you could imagine it passing through the table without "running into the atoms".

Thus, another reason the table appears "solid" to a large object or person such as yourself is that compared to the size of atoms, you are much too large to "pass through" the network of atoms.

Compare this to a gas, such as the air we breath, which although it is also "made out of" atoms, we do not regard as "solid". This is because the atoms are far apart from each other, and are not "bound together" strongly (if they are like buoys, then the ropes are broken). We can therefore easily "pass through" them.

In terms of a philosophical theory of knowledge, the key point is that what we "know" about atoms (and the comparatively larger amount of space that makes up "solid objects") does not contradict what we know about tables. It only contradicts "common sense" which is derived from the fact that we can't "see" all of this empty space in everyday experience.

Answer 4

It is mostly empty space because if you look at a table it has a top and four legs but it take up more room than a solid object like a cedar chest because the chest can have items in it and on top of it a table can only hold things on top of it. yes you can store your chairs around it but then it is a table and chairs unlike the chest it is always a chest no matter if it is empty or full.

Answer 5

the table can hold all the different things of the world, but they first must be put on the table, all knowledge is available, but most people are to rigid to allow any new contents to be placed on there table, they just say, no your wrong, they do not care to work with what you try to put on there table, therefore having a mostly empty table......as for being solid, if you allow all in the world to come to your table, does the table not become as liquid and change form......

Answer 6

well obviously to survive one has to reliy on thie senses however, science is a proven study....the make up of atoms is mostly empty space....since the table is made of atoms...then it follows that the table is mainly space....(i thought i have always have is that if we were to find a way to slow down the electrons movement then we would be able to pass through solid objects)....just a thought

Answer 7

Our senses don't lie. "solid" is a relative term. All our senses tell us is that a table is place where concentration of matter is little bit more dense, which is true, even though it is still technically mostly empty, it i just a little bit LESS empty.