Thought Experiment – The Receding Universe

The medium into which space expanded can be described as an external ontological condition that supposedly made this process possible in the first place. In your answer, you are essentially saying that this medium has no ontological status. If this is the case, you are essentially claiming that there is no meaning in even attempting to attribute to it “existence.”
True?

Or in other words:
Your claim is that claims about such a “intermediary” are not claims of fact that carry truth value.
Did I describe your position correctly?

I don't understand all these words. What I wrote is simply that there is no such thing. What is not clear here?

What is the logical status of your claim:

“There is no such thing”

Is it a factual claim?
Is it an a priori claim? Empirical?

This is of course a factual claim. If you ask how I know it, it's simply from the Big Bang Theory. That's what it says.

Your answer suggests that this is an a priori fact claim. It is not that we observed what was “beyond” the universe and discovered there the same “reality” that you described as ”there is no such thing”.
The question arises: How can this a priori fact claim exceed the boundaries of the universe and describe the reality that supposedly exists beyond it?

You may say that this fact claim does not speak at all about what is “outside” the universe, but then you would have to withdraw your claim that ”there is no such thing”. After all, the *positive* fact claim about the universe is not the same as your *negative* fact claim about what is beyond its boundaries.

I asked then:
Is your fact claim negative (such as the claim “There is nothing in the glass”) or positive (such as the claim “There is water in the glass”)?

I think there is no point in this rant. The law of gravity is also not empirical in your sense. It is a theory created by generalizing facts. The Big Bang is also such a theory, and the question was about it. We have no indication of the existence of anything outside of space, and the expansion or contraction of our space does not add anything in this direction. Therefore, there is no point in discussing the undefined question about the status of the same thing that there is no indication that it exists.
By the way, the claim that there are no demons or fairies is also not empirical. It is probably a hyperbolic negative ontological condition, anti-social and post-structuralist. 🙂

1. My question was not about the Big Bang. It was about the logical (and perhaps ontological) status of the “middle” into which the universe expanded.
2. Your answer seems methodologically problematic to me, since it attempts to subordinate a priori philosophical (actually metaphysical) thinking to a scientific theory.
Let me explain:
We know, of course, that every scientific theory necessarily relies on a priori “meta-scientific” concepts (such as causality). But there is no problem here, because here the philosophical layer comes first and enables scientific thinking. On the other hand, in your answer to me, you suggested reversing the order – you derive from science a priori (metaphysical) factual claims about what exists – or “does not exist” – Outside the universe and outside the laws of physics.

I am not judging. The question at the beginning of the thread dealt with the Big Bang and I answered that in the Big Bang theory there is no medium within which the universe is located. Whether or not there is such a medium is a different question and physics does not know what to say about it. When there is no other indication of this, I see no reason to say that there is.

What our rabbi wrote, “I do not judge,” requires further study, because what is meant by “a righteous man judges”?!

A righteous person makes a decision and God makes an integration.

Again: the question *wasn't* about the big bang (although it was mentioned) but about the *medium* into which the universe expanded *after* the big bang. It's true that certain facts about nature can be generalized to the physical universe as a whole. But you insisted that you were generalizing to what *is* beyond* the boundaries of that universe. Something doesn't add up for me.