6
   

Is is true that we cann't image a world without space?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:49 pm
Keep in mind the OP question: Is it true that we can't imagine a world without space? This refers to US and our inability not the WORLD and its metaphysical properties. Could it be that there is no space but that we simply cannot function without the notion (perception) that it--and time--does exist?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2012 10:59 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Keep in mind the OP question: Is it true that we can't imagine a world without space? This refers to US and our inability not the WORLD and its metaphysical properties. Could it be that there is no space but that we simply cannot function without the notion (perception) that it--and time--does exist?


Oh, I suppose it could be. Literally anything is possible. But I, for one, cannot imagine that as even a remotely likely possibility. Oh, well. Maybe I just lack that kind of fertile imagination.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:10 am
@lqiangecnu,
lqiangecnu wrote:

Kant said we can easily imagine an empty space without things, but we cann't imagine a world(i don't know what the word means) without space. Then Kant concluded that Space is a prior. How about we discuss about the topic? By closing my eyes and imagining, it seems to be true. But this is only a feeling of mine. Can this proof anything in logic? How do you guys feel while imagining?


I think it is rather silly for Kant to explore this idea. It is no different than asking, could we have another way of seeing that did not include eyes yet we still get the same amount of detail and information from it?

The way I like to look at it. If a god is behind the creation and humans/earth is the only thing that is important in the universe, why not make a round sphere room that included only the earth? There would be no need for the rest of the universe if earth and humans are the only thing that is important. Seems like a huge waste to make this massive thing and earth is just a tiny spec inside of it.

So in a super natural sense, (what ever that is) I could see the earth designed in such a way that would not require space at all. However; I can not imagine a way the earth could be without a supernatural cause. Space is necessary, but not because it is the only way, but because I can't using the concepts of physics and chemistry see any other way it could happen.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 10:25 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
Nothing can exist without space because there would be nowhere for it to exist.
Lust that seems to make perfect sense but intuitively it seems to imply that there are two kinds of space, one capable of being distorted and twisted and the other consisting of a volume delineated only by its dimensions

Thus if matter pushes aside the former, it leaves only the latter to occupy

Semantic again I think
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 10:27 am
@JLNobody,
Quote:
Is it true that we can't imagine a world without space?
JL we can postulate it but not envision it
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 10:29 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
There would be no need for the rest of the universe if earth and humans are the only thing that is important.
, a very conservative estimate places three sextillion of us

The idea we’re alone is intuitively absurd

Quote:
However; I can not imagine a way the earth could be without a supernatural cause.
Oh I can, easily, as an apodictical existential pantheist it’s obvious that She is a perfectly natural phenom. She can’t do the supernatural because the latter is impossible and the impossible can’t be done. It She could, she might for instance make herself both exist and not exist
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 12:36 pm
@Lustig Andrei,

dalehileman wrote:
….though I do have that old feeling that somehow we’re engaged in something purely semantic


Quote:
Very likely so. That's why I asked for a definition.


space is a qualitiy , room

Quote:
For me, space is that which contains evrything else. Nothing can exist without space because there would be nowhere for it to exist. And this is true of energy as well as matter (extension).


absolutely
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:32 pm
@north,
But what if it turns out North that matter pushes space aside. You would then maintain that there’s space within the matter but would that space be different from the space outside
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:59 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

But what if it turns out North that matter pushes space aside.


not possible

Quote:
You would then maintain that there’s space within the matter but would that space be different from the space outside


same
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 02:09 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

But what if it turns out North that matter pushes space aside. You would then maintain that there’s space within the matter but would that space be different from the space outside


Do you have any evidence that this is so? Or even, as a thought experiment, that it is likely to be so? Why postulate something that seems absurd on the face of it?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 06:42 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
Do you have any evidence that this is so?
Sheer specdulation, Intuition

Quote:
Or even, as a thought experiment, that it is likely to be so?
Sort of: Gravity could be a distortion of the space around the object pushed aside by its matter

Quote:
Why postulate something that seems absurd on the face of it?
Everyone has a different idea what constitutes absurdity
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 06:48 pm
@dalehileman,
Krumple wrote:
There would be no need for the rest of the universe if earth and humans are the only thing that is important.
, a very conservative estimate places three sextillion of us[/quote]

dalehileman wrote:

The idea we’re alone is intuitively absurd


I agree. I honestly don't believe that the universe is so that humans can exist. I think the universe is neutral towards life and in a sense I bet the universe is teeming with life. I can't prove it but if I'm wrong it sure is a huge waste of space (pun intended).


Krumple wrote:
However; I can not imagine a way the earth could be without a supernatural cause.


When I wrote this, it wasn't written very good. It is suppose to be written like this.

"I can't imagine an earth forming without space in a natural way using the laws of physics and chemistry.

dalehileman wrote:

Oh I can, easily, as an apodictical existential pantheist it’s obvious that She is a perfectly natural phenom. She can’t do the supernatural because the latter is impossible and the impossible can’t be done. It She could, she might for instance make herself both exist and not exist


I don't believe in anything supernatural. In a way im saying I think the universe would be different if a supernatural intelligence were behind it. It makes sense to me that there was no intelligence behind the formation of the universe and this is what I would expect to see.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 07:26 pm
@lqiangecnu,
...it may be the case that what we imagine of Space as in the sense of background or place holder is itself poorly explained or justified, but none of it of course opposes the assumption presented although it may somehow change or twist the sense in which we think of it...
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 10:17 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
Krumple wrote:
There would be no need for the rest of the universe if earth and humans are the only thing that is important.


Their Logistical Support is pretty important too

dalehileman wrote:
, a very conservative estimate places three sextillion of us[/quote]
The idea we’re alone is intuitively absurd
Hello test

Quote:
I agree. I honestly don't believe that the universe is so that humans can exist.
It’s hard to believe at first, until you learn that some of the physical constants seem to have been “adjusted” within a fraction of one percent to allow evolution of life. Remember tho I’m only serving as Beelzebub’s Exponent

Quote:
I think the universe is neutral towards life and in a sense I bet the universe is teeming with life.
There’s a perfectly serious theory to the effect, if anything that can happen, will, then at some time in a past so distant we don’t have a way of expressing a number that big, that humanoids somehow “adjusted” those very constants in order to propagate their kind throughout. Again I don’t necessarily believe it, but we need the occasional Lucifer’s Apostle

Quote:
I can't prove it but if I'm wrong it sure is a huge waste of space (pun intended).
Good one Krump, we need more of the occasional jest

Quote:
Krumple wrote:
However; I can not imagine a way the earth could be without a supernatural cause.
Here’s where, for what it’s worth, evidently not much around here, that I disagree. Since the supernatural is impossible, it can’t be done, even by Her. If She could, for instance, then She could make Herself both exist and not exist. She Herself is a natural phenom


Quote:
When I wrote this [that?], it wasn't written very good. It is suppose to be written like this.

"I can't imagine an earth forming without space in a natural way using the laws of physics and chemistry.
Oh I can. There’s a perfectly serious theory that the Big Bang arose out of nothingness. To complicate matters I suggest sequential Big-Bang—Big-Crunches forever separated by a moment of nothingness. To avoid certain paradox however, its duration would have to be zero

Quote:
I don't believe in anything supernatural.
Me neither but as you might have noted, in a different way

Quote:
In a way im saying I think the universe would be different if a supernatural intelligence were behind it.
There is in intelligence and it is Hers but again it’s perfectly natural

Quote:
It makes sense to me that there was no intelligence behind the formation of the universe and this is what I would expect to see.
My Intuition, for what it’s worth, which as I said might not amount to much, is that it simply that it’s nonsensical to assert that the Entire Megillah is merely the meaningless random bouncing of particles off one another and that it makes no sense whatever without the humanoid as its witness
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 10:36 am
@dalehileman,
Krumple wrote:

However; I can not imagine a way the earth could be without a supernatural cause.


dalehileman wrote:

Here’s where, for what it’s worth, evidently not much around here, that I disagree. Since the supernatural is impossible, it can’t be done, even by Her. If She could, for instance, then She could make Herself both exist and not exist. She Herself is a natural phenom


If it is a natural phenomina then it would be testable, varifyable, there would be a way to measure or determine it. I see none so far, so I am skeptical that "she" actually exists as you claim.


Krumple wrote:
When I wrote this [that?], it wasn't written very good. It is suppose to be written like this.

"I can't imagine an earth forming without space in a natural way using the laws of physics and chemistry.


dalehileman wrote:

Oh I can. There’s a perfectly serious theory that the Big Bang arose out of nothingness. To complicate matters I suggest sequential Big-Bang—Big-Crunches forever separated by a moment of nothingness. To avoid certain paradox however, its duration would have to be zero


Sure, but what I was saying is that I don't see how an earth could form without space being there. I don't see an earth minus space forming in a natural way as I understand the laws of physics and chemistry to function. However; I could foresee an earth forming without any space but it would have to be done in a supernatural way. But as I have already mentioned, I don't believe in anything supernatural, therefore I don't think the earth could form in a place where there is no space.

Krumple wrote:
I don't believe in anything supernatural.


dalehileman wrote:

Me neither but as you might have noted, in a different way


Any other way would open itself up to being testable, yet still to this day there is not a shred of testable or varifyable evidence that would suggest that such a thing does exist.


[quote="Krumple]It makes sense to me that there was no intelligence behind the formation of the universe and this is what I would expect to see.[/quote]

dalehileman wrote:

My Intuition, for what it’s worth, which as I said might not amount to much, is that it simply that it’s nonsensical to assert that the Entire Megillah is merely the meaningless random bouncing of particles off one another and that it makes no sense whatever without the humanoid as its witness


The universe was around for billions of years prior to the appearance of humans. Seems like such a huge waste of time (see did it again) if it had to wait for so long to achieve it's goal (ie. humans). Especially when 99% of the universe is hostile to human life. It seems rather that if there were something intelligent behind it's formation and that humans were the goal, that it would have done a better job making it more accomodating for them or at least making the process a bit faster? No?

I don't think the universe cares about humans nor life. Life just happens because the laws of physics and chemestry just so happen to work the way they do which has resulted in the formation of stars, galaxies, planets and life. I don't think it was the goal nor an intention. I have absolutely no problem with random bouncing of unintelligent objects, they do it all the time, they are called politicans.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 10:59 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
I see none so far, so I am skeptical that "she" actually exists as you claim.
First of all, according to the principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, there’s no clear distinction between the concrete and the abstract, with a rock at one end of that spectrum and Her at the other. As apodictical existential pantheists my No. 2 Son and I independently came to the same conclusion, tht Her existence is patently obvious

Hello test

Quote:
Sure, but what I was saying is that I don't see how an earth could form without space being there.
One perfectly serious theory is that it all started from nothingness—no space, no time, nuttin’ as a tiny spec. Remember now it didn’t happen in space because there’s nothing “outside” it

Of course then the Big Bang

Quote:
Any other way would open itself up to being testable, yet still to this day there is not a shred of testable or varifyable evidence that would suggest that such a thing does exist.
Krum do you mean the “Supernatural”

In which case I totally agree. She is totally a natural phenom

Quote:
The universe was around for billions of years prior to the appearance of humans. Seems like such a huge waste of time (see did it again) if it had to wait for so long to achieve it's goal (ie. humans).
She is very patient

Quote:
that humans were the goal, that it would have done a better job making it more accomodating for them
She’s limited to whaterer’s possible, leaving some apparent disadvantages such as earthquake, war, disease, the eventual pooping out of the Sun


Quote:
or at least making the process a bit faster? No?
No. She has all the time in the World (forgive another pun)

Quote:
I don't think it was the goal nor an intention. I have absolutely no problem with random bouncing of unintelligent objects,
But doesn’t the whole thing then leave you with a dreary outlook
But I can’t argue from a “logical” point of view only from a meta-intuit one

Quote:
they do it all the time, they are called politicans.
Good one Krump
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:18 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
First of all, according to the principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, there’s no clear distinction between the concrete and the abstract, with a rock at one end of that spectrum and Her at the other. As apodictical existential pantheists my No. 2 Son and I independently came to the same conclusion, tht Her existence is patently obvious


Nope, don't buy it. Sure it might be a commonly held belief, doesn't mean it is reality. Yes I understand the concept but still see no where that such a thing would be present. I find it funny that you on one hand can claim that nothing is concrete and abstract yet say that something is one thing.

That would mean that even this concept "god" or what ever you want to refer to it as, would also have to contain this same characteristic, but you refuse to acknowledge that. You give it a pass is if it need not hold such a characterisitc. Well if that is the case then it can be said that there is a clear distinction between that which is concrete and that which is abstract. So which do you want to say it is now? You can't have it both ways unless you want to claim special pleading.

dalehileman wrote:

One perfectly serious theory is that it all started from nothingness—no space, no time, nuttin’ as a tiny spec. Remember now it didn’t happen in space because there’s nothing “outside” it

Of course then the Big Bang


I don't buy this either. Sure it is the commonly held idea, but I don't think there was a nothing, not even a nothingness. I don't buy it. Could I be wrong, sure. What do I know? Nothing... (that's three)

dalehileman wrote:

Krum do you mean the “
Supernatural”

In which case I totally agree. She is totally a natural phenom


If she were a natural "thing" then by that very definition she would HAVE to be testable or varifyable. Since I see nothing so far that supports "her" existence I can state that she does not in fact exist. Perhaps you have evidence I do not have and that is why you can make the claim. I however; do not have such evidence. Point it out to me please.

dalehileman wrote:

She is very patient


Even still, regardless if there would have been patience or not. It is absurd to reason that humans or cognitive intellect was the goal and yet take so long. If it were a "god" why wait? If it were the goal, why not just snap it into existence from the get go? Oh wait this is what a huge majority of theists already claim happened. Funny how the evidence that it took so long is somehow errasing this concept that "she" snapped oh sorry spoke everything into existence and humans popped on the scene just a few minutes later.

It still does not explain why "she" would wait so long. Why be patient? What is the point in waiting if humans/ ie cognitive intellect is the goal? Sounds more like a cop out to me to say patience is the reasoning.

dalehileman wrote:

She’s limited to whaterer’s possible, leaving some apparent disadvantages such as earthquake, war, disease, the eventual pooping out of the Sun


I don't follow. This is evidence for? Really?

dalehileman wrote:

No. She has all the time in the World (forgive another pun)


Sure but here is another thought. If life were not important to the universe, what would you see? Could you imagine a universe where no life exists? Or perhaps given enough time it might just spring up some where? Is that just too outlandish? Just way beyond the scope of possiblity? Just too far fetched to considered? That there must have been, no wait, life requires that there be "her" around or else it never would have occured? Really?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:28 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
I find it funny that you on one hand can claim that nothing is concrete and abstract yet say that something is one thing.
Not one thing, She’s everything, that’s what “pantheism” means

Of course then the Big Bang

Hello test


Quote:
I don't buy this either. Sure it is the commonly held idea, but I don't think there was a nothing, not even a nothingness. I don't buy it. Could I be wrong, sure.
Sure, so coujld I. Remember I’m just Mephistopheles’ Lawyer

Quote:
It is absurd to reason that humans or cognitive intellect was the goal and yet take so long.
Not at all, it’s the only way She could have done it

She’s limited to whaterer’s possible, leaving some apparent disadvantages such as earthquake, war, disease, the eventual pooping out of the Sun


Quote:
I don't follow. This is evidence for?
That She can only do what’s possible

Quote:
Really?
Yes


Quote:
If life were not important to the universe, what would you see?
In mind’s eye only of course, I see everything but the humanoid

Quote:
Could you imagine a universe where no life exists?
Sure why not

Quote:
Or perhaps given enough time it might just spring up some where?
Yes that’s what happened in fact. Probably sprung up all over

Quote:
…….life requires that there be "her" around or else it never would have occured? Really?
No, no, apologize if I wasn’t clear. She is just as much a natural phenom as we are. We are Her, She is us, the Entire Megillah is natural and inevitable

Quote:
Since I see nothing so far that supports "her" existence
Look around
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:30 am
I don't have a problem with the concept of God as long as a mind is not required in it as minds in their search for completeness necessarily require an incomplete frame of understanding...thinking is searching for answers.
Equally I don't have a problem with the concept of Intelligence as long as will or intention is not put into it in other sense then an illusory impression of sufficient causal control...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:31 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
I find it funny that you on one hand can claim that nothing is concrete and abstract yet say that something is one thing.
Not one thing, She’s everything, that’s what “pantheism” means


I was sure you were going to go there. You honestly think that a "god" would be everything? This becomes absolutely meaningless then. If there is no clear distinction then nothing can be pointed to. You can't even attribute characteristics because it would have to have all characteristics even ones that contradict each other. If you start making clear disctinctions of what "she" is or is not then clearly she is not all things or everything. So which is it? A jumpled mess of contradictions or a something-or-other?
 

Related Topics

Does Space Exploration Make Sense? - Question by thegalacticemperor
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
Meteorite Caught On Camera In Canada - Discussion by InfraBlue
Space Spiders - Discussion by edgarblythe
Rovers on Mars - Discussion by edgarblythe
If the Universe has no beginning? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Pluto - Discussion by edgarblythe
My God! It's Full of Stars! - Discussion by RushPoint
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 05:45:46