7
   

Space Time Continuum

 
 
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 05:19 pm
As we come to this discussion trying to figure out the necessary components which take their place in this conundrum let us first analyze which comes first. Does Space precede Time or does Time precede that of space. The Empirical mode of analysis is not enough to give us the date to posit either one existing or coming first other then the fact that it gathers its information in a certain Space in a specific time frame repeating itself in the variations of objects which it calculates. The Mode of the abstraction measure of Space which limits and regulates to the very mode that exist within Space upon that of the object. The object becoming a contingent force in Space and that which is space in its essence is composed of. First the critique should be understood from a purely empirical model investigating the very arcana of the object I here come into contact with. Let it first be known that I as a part of Space is that necessary force filling the void in space and as subject I come between that of nature of space and object for the specific space of another object opposite to me belongs to me and corresponds indirectly to my mind and directly to my mind in so far as I the subject is refined to a subjective existence. The subjective existence is the object of projection in space which produces a content of judgment which directly correlates itself to my objective existence as a Human Being. That object which identify to not be me is proportional to the very fact I exist because my existence in so far as it is dependent on the fact that I exist as such it first follow that in order to know this I must know myself as communicating myself to this very content which I place a judgment upon to give my though any practicality its intelligence must take place in the object outside and external to me. So it seems that the object itself fills the void of space in its relation to time and it is the life giving force of space. Is this not a given contradiction because if I as the Space in which the object takes its form is negated completely by the object as such am I not reduced to purely subjective existence and as such is Time not reduced to a simply Spatial being and an object with spatial and thus limited composition. Is everything broken down to a simple subjective reference or to say upon this or that object so as the object fades away back out of our mind it is necessary to say our mind and time itself ceases to exist because it had depended its existence on the very nature of the object as a limited composition in space. Does time become a matter of sensuous perceptibility or does it retain its intuitive process of being? Now is the time for it to be analyzed and broken down down first starting with the object which we can objectify is the very essence of time and space and holds the most divine number 0 to be itself what do we have to differentiate itself from itself if not to throw our minds of its axis of intuition which is submerged in our sense intuition which at the moment they catch a concrete image that is a clear image of the object as object itself in the mind it negates all relations to it and posits this image to belong to itself which it has it no property to exist within at any given time. How do we give this time a successive property if it has no property at all to exist within we are locked with the object itself as some sort of ad infinitum which contradicts itself. As it is necessary for contradiction for the opposition of two forces to be separated and likewise identified in their different modes as an integral mode but a mode all together alien to each other. The opposition grows out of contradiction and likewise this statement is built on opposition and it is necessary for contradiction to reveal the limited knowledge we can come of time other then its most abstract mode to be the very contradicting force of the Phenomenonal world in which it gathers all into itself but gives a a priori synthesis upon which ground our scientific knowledge to be separate from it arcana of beings. Must we conclude the topic all together when we come to knowledge of this dualism. Indeed not we must further explore the and exploit the system for it is no easy task to understand a system which is so self evident upon which to give us the foundations of its very existence without prior knowledge of this foundation. Alas this foundation we call time is wide sweeping and broad allotting to itself the mass and the acceleration of history to itself yet seemingly bringing history to indefinite end. It is both awe inspiring in the very breath and space it takes the great kingdoms of the earth have built within it, great minds contained within it, and all the struggles of humanities joys and pains defined by it. But it still remains a mystical being all together and all so very small and distant from the space that I now subjectively observe the principles of space and time. So sublime in its nature so shifting and all encompassing it is not easy to locate nor is it possible. We must conclude that time itself might be completely absent of being time at all. This is to say as we know in its relation to space which holds the knowledge of Space in its very being. Space itself in its very vastness and almost seemingly vacuum state still is surrounded and filled in by objects to keep it from emptying itself as thus so the objects may be emptied into it. Time likewise so it may not empty itself and become Time as we objectify it to be must have a space that contains those principles upon which time grounds itself so that Space itself may ground the very subjective existence of objects also. In a Hegelian mode Object would be the thesis Space the Antithesis and Time the Synthesis to give everyone a better idea of their positioning. Its time the simplest and most complex being which laying itself bare transcends into the object the very lowest of beings is given precedence over time itself so Time as Being may become Time itself and not absent of itself. For Time is full of Time in so far as it shifts completely into what is not time that is the object at first and space last of all so it might come to self actualization. Time in the object is void and Time as it comes to self actualization in Space is merely full of itself materially. Thus Time is known to produce paradoxes which keep the very world in order and imposes an ordering of the external senses by maintaining an unobservable principle upon which it grounds its existence one may call the Kantian thing in itself. For would it not be appropriate that thing itself is the very unifying force of Space with Object and this Object within Space as a whole connecting the gaps between space and the Space of the object becoming void of the object itself this is to say the Object itself becomes unobservable. Time is nothing other then that which is absent in object at all and that which is full of Space or full of void. It may be said how can we differentiate Space and Object if Object is absent of itself and Space is full of void is it not just saying that Space is full of nothing cause the object lacks itself or is empty of being at all. This is to say Time is indifferent in itself to very the principles it founds itself at all for their is nothing to observe with in Time itself but that which is not in being with it. But at the same time is Time not the catalyst of that moment of becoming different is a necessity of sorts. For what concept would we have of time if Space and Object were not freed from their blind necessity of just simply existing as nothing at all. Is it better to say Time is all because it is nothing at all or because Space and Object as nothing represent everything that is Time. And Time in its very being is timeless that which is outside of itself. Is it first easy to say that Time is undefined but then again without any method of differentiating this how can this be possible without some concept of Time being transfixed to the Space we exist in and the very object that lies within Space as such a projection of Space. So if Space is necessarily a projection of Time is Time a Projection of nothing at all that which is neither Spatial or that which is an object but that which Simply Is. May the question of Time-Space not go down quietly or be determined so easily before we have asked those questions considering it. Time is the projection of all that lies within and without giving no discrimination to it. It simply exist for itself and for other that is in so far as Object gathers voidness or fecundity to itself and thus frees Object limiting itself to object as such and Space filling itself with this Object to the point it no longer exist as Space at all. Space that link in which Object takes on its Physical form but retains a unobservable form outside itself linking all object within a spatial field with that of Time though not completely as it but so close to coming into being with Time itself that object becomes the form itself in which we give reference to its substance existing as such in the object. It appears that all objects appear to exist within the Subjective I of my observation when instead they belong to Space the Objective I in which the Subjective I comes into being and Space becomes a concrete reality a priori to the object. I would like to include Fichte as reference for understanding this deeper in his Antoss or the resistance of object with its intuitive force that is space once it empties itself or clears itself for becoming object. The very being of time exist in the Subjective I for us to comprehend it at all that is not just the Subject of the individual but the Object comes to realize itself through the subjective form of the individual. As a whole Time is something that is left up to Subjective interpretation but it is simply objective in nature although its limits are defined on the very nature of subjectivity of the object and that of space as it takes it form in a particular object. Time as a whole is an Ontological being which we are still meditating but let the activity of its presence not cease in our thoughts or with thought but become preserved in the very observation of it as such. Time is not all we think it to be not is it existence determined by thought but in its very existence determines all thought in both their objective and subjective forces swinging them proportionately between each other as to generate a motion within itself and give this motion outside of itself a reality. Space^2+ Object^2= Time^2.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 3,034 • Replies: 46
No top replies

 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 05:20 pm
a wise man once said

time is an illusion

lunchtime doubly so
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 07:22 pm
@djjd62,
My appetite is no illusion.

Discuss
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 07:44 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
It is quite impossible for 'time' to have preceded 'space.' What we are pleased to call 'time' is simply our measurement of movement in space. Movement can exist only if there is space for movement. Time can only exist if there is measurable movement. QED.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 08:54 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Very correct...but then, movement its only an illusion also...Being does n´t evolve...Law´s of Nature don´t evolve...
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 08:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Movement is only illusionary when objects are illusionary. Don't let that tree in the forest hit you when it falls.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 09:13 pm
@roger,
Something might well it me in the forest all right, I don´t doubt...but will I be able to describe what was ?

...Objects are processed information but are they bound or unbound to others?

If Universe itself its me in the forest, somewhere sometime, then I´m already there...
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 10:55 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
You're not just a teensy-weensy bit solipsistic in your Weltanschauung, are you, Fil?
GoshisDead
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 10:58 pm
ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGG
Attack of the 50 foot
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3DbMG26Vh2PchJ7fmc9iVDp0IwwvOQLd1n2kjodgPu6KYpqg&t=1&usg=__MlbU_bynj7zOz_EoNCKJ3aLC6Ko=
Block !!!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 11:31 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Hi Merry !
...36 and counting so far, yet very teensy at heart, thank you...

...and no, quite the opposite, I just unite what others tend to set apart...so I don´t indulge myself in the idea that the world revolves inside my head but rather that my Head is ONE with the World...why should I believe otherwise ?

Now of course, I am one of those rare breed of "birds" that still looks onto Ontological problems with an epistemic attitude...
I guess I have a Cosmogony alright, what a pretentious mess !

...Monism beyond the appearance of "processed phenomenological duality" its what "moves me on"... but hey, never mind me, I am the "outsider" in Philosophy´s Realm...an Amateur ! (literally) So take it for what is worth, no more no less...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 11:42 pm
@GoshisDead,
just love that...you wako ! Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 11:53 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...and no, quite the opposite, I just unite what others tend to set apart...so I don´t indulge myself in the idea that the world revolves inside my head but rather that my Head is ONE with the World...why should I believe otherwise ?


It is told how Hui-Neng, the Sixth Patriarch, once was visiting a monastery in southern China when he saw two monks in deep discussion under the temple's flag-pole where the banner was flapping in the wind.

One monk said, "The flag is moving." The other replied, "No, the wind is moving."

They argued back and forth and finally decided to ask the revered Patriarch for his judgement.

Hui-Neng said: "It is not the wind that is moving. It is not the flag that is moving. It is your mind that is moving."

The two monks were awe-stricken with enlightenment. Go ye and do likewise.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 11:58 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Interesting as expected from you...but the question is, can you see mind everywhere ?
...or do you see everywhere in the mind ?...
...I take the first.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 12:00 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

can you see mind everywhere ?
...or do you see everywhere in the mind ?...


The two conditions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 12:02 am
@Merry Andrew,
Agreed...but the first choice can be considered more enlightening and less controversial...

...Yes... I do believe in "entanglement" !
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 12:08 am
@Merry Andrew,
"Awe-stricken is another way of saying "dumbfounded", right?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 12:18 am
@Merry Andrew,
How would you react to the odd idea that the part and the Whole are equals in size ? I wonder...to me its just a mater of axis, direction, but there´s no "real" distinction..."Creator" and "Creation" are One, and self circular...

The Father=LAW=Whole=(atemporal)Multiverse=Noumeno
The Son=Part=Man=Object
The Holly Spirit=Devir=Flux=Process=Phenomena
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 12:21 am
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
GermanIdealismGuru7

What you have produced is a (Heideggerian ?)textual reflection of personally generated semantic network in which the words "space", "time", "human" etc etc function as implicit nodes of discourse. By "implicit" I mean "you talking to yourself". But what I understand Wittgenstein to have said is that words such as "space" , "time " etc get their semantic status from explicit usage by communicators in a particular social and functional networks. For example, the question "does space precede time or vice versa ?" is meaningless to a physicist. Similarly the dichotomy "subjective-objective" may fall apart for biologists who use functionality in their explanations.

This is not to say that some of your ideas do not resonate with me when I wear my philosophers hat, but I bear in mind that Feynman called philosophers "bemused tourists scratching their heads at the strange practices of scientists".

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 12:26 am
@fresco,
Feynman again Fresco ?
That forced duality between Science and Philosophy that you are trying to sell so cheap is just not sound.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 12:33 am
@roger,
Watch the tree standing just right behind you Rogy...its a bit silent but is falling...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Space Time Continuum
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 08:05:15