Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Aristotle wrote in his Physics:
The earth is in the water, the water is in the air, the air is in the ether, the ether is in the sky, and the sky is no longer in anything else.
Do you agree with Aristotle's statement that the sky (universe) has no location?
Sky is spacetime. Spacetime extends throughout the universe. So, sky cannot have a location.
Well, it's weird to ask if I agree, since I can agree or disagree for any reason, including no reason at all, and I imagine that's not what you mean to ask.
It's not clear to me whether you are requesting argumentation regarding the extent to which his thesis could have been construed to be true at the time, or at the current moment. I feel that since you're asking whether I agree--as someone living right now, that means that my agreeing or not agreeing has to conform, to some extent, to my other ideas, which are influenced by contemporary knowledge. After all, people do tend to avoid cognitive dissonance (though, as a neuropsychologist, I must add that people are also completely fine with either giving themselves bad excuses or not dealing at all with cognitive dissonance).
But I digress. Regarding your question, I would call attention to one of PBS Space Time's newer videos discussing the ontology of time and space. My answer will largely be based on content from this video.
One thing I'd call to attention is that some historic people, including Newton, famously believed that there was some sort of objective coordinate system through which we can appreciate the position of any given thing. It doesn't seem to me that Aristotle is arguing this position. Instead, he seems to be arguing that our ability to observe the "position" property of objects is dependent on our capacity to position them ourselves in a map inside our minds. In this context, the lack of any meaningful construct that would serve as parameter from which any sort of coordinate system could be established--cognitive pause to process; anyway, the lack of any such construct would make it impossible to localize the sky anywhere, and as such, it could be said that it is not anywhere.
As you say, though, he has to mean 'universe', here, because it's immediately clear that this is not true for the sky. Now... it's not clear to me that this is true for the universe, either. As I said, from Newton's position on this issue we're led to believe that this was a position that at least some people held, and it seems clear to me that Aristotle was not confortable with a completely relative positioning system (e.g., 'the sky is outside the Earth').
So, I hope I don't dissapoint when I say I have no position in this matter whatsoever.
tl;dr: I have no idea.
What I understand from Aristotle’s statement is that the location of an object must by definition be relative to some other object, whether quantitative (10m north of this tree) or qualitative (in the sea). He’s saying that the sky is not contained in anything that he knows about.
We know that there must be a boundary between space and earth because of the cosmic rays that create enough radiation that and is in the universe and it would kill us all. This is known as the atmosphere and there is also more to it then this but without it we would be too hot or cold and we would be exposed to all of the cosmic radiation in the universe.
