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

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?

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?

Nothing can exist without space because there would be nowhere for it to exist.

Is it true that we can't imagine a world without space?

There would be no need for the rest of the universe if earth and humans are the only thing that is important.

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

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

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

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).

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

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?

There would be no need for the rest of the universe if earth and humans are the only thing that is important.

The idea we’re alone is intuitively absurd

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

Krumple wrote:
There would be no need for the rest of the universe if earth and humans are the only thing that is important.

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 [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.

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.

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

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

I don't believe in anything supernatural.

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

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

I see none so far, so I am skeptical that "she" actually exists as you claim.

Sure, but what I was saying is that I don't see how an earth could form without space being there.

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.

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).

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 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.

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

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

Krum do you mean the “
Supernatural”

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

She is very patient

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

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

I find it funny that you on one hand can claim that nothing is concrete and abstract yet say that something is one thing.

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.

It is absurd to reason that humans or cognitive intellect was the goal and yet take so long.

I don't follow. This is evidence for?

Really?

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?

…….life requires that there be "her" around or else it never would have occured? Really?

Since I see nothing so far that supports "her" existence

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