6
   

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

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:33 am
@Krumple,
Ratio or Reason requires time displacement...the order by which things go phenomenally speaking...take time or the ratio of relation out and you can have everything without any contradictions...contradictions are the bi product of relative comparisons between biased view points.

(Biased here equals non absolute)
By definition view points or ratios can't be absolute !
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:40 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Ratio or Reason requires time displacement...the order by which things go phenomenally speaking...take time or the ratio of relation out and you can have everything without any contradictions...contradictions are the bi product of relative comparisons between biased view points.

(Biased here equals non absolute)
By definition view points or ratios can't be absolute !


Well you just posed the problem. You suggest that time would need to be removed yet wouldn't time also need to be required? If everything makes up what "she" is then by all means you can't start tossing things out. "She" would need to be also time as well. If you say time needs to be tossed out or is not included, this would fall into my special pleading.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:41 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
"God" although it may be, phenomenally speaking, of course, be seen as the source (rather then origin) of ratio, as a Whole in itself, it has no ration...reason emerges from it but is not it !
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:49 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

"God" although it may be, phenomenally speaking, of course, be seen as the source (rather then origin) of ratio, as a Whole in itself, it has no ration...reason emerges from it but is not it !


I don't see how that could even be. It would mean reason does not include "her". Not even sure what that even means. Being a source of reason but not reason itself. Not even sure what reasoning would be then. You would fall into a meaningless loop. Sort of like saying, why does money have value, because it is money. It becomes meaningless.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:51 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
I was sure you were going to go there.
You are obviously a very discerning fella

Quote:
You honestly think that a "god" would be everything?
Sure why not

Quote:
This becomes absolutely meaningless then.
To some, yea many perhaps, yes

Quote:
If there is no clear distinction then nothing can be pointed to.
That itself is a pretty abstract observation

Quote:
You can't even attribute characteristics because it would have to have all characteristics
Right on

Quote:
even ones that contradict each other.
Not so sure about that

Quote:
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?
It’s a semantic problem, your query seems somehow to be chasing its tail, forgive me Krump

A pleasure however chatting with you
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:55 am
@Krumple,
What I tried to explain is that reason ratio is perception or view point or relational understanding...ratios are only valid phenomenologically...Time exists as emergent but not as self justified..."God" (God=Reality=Potential Universe) is not reason but the place holder for reason to emerge or be perceived...
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:57 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
as long as a mind is not required in it……..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
Fil it seems we’re on pretty much the same track though I see things maybe in a more comprehensive light, will and intention being concepts not entirely anything, largely one another, partly something else. You might say the Universe is Her body, all the activity Her mind, we Her brain cells

Or you might not
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:57 am
@dalehileman,
Krumple wrote:
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?


dalehileman wrote:

It’s a semantic problem, your query seems somehow to be chasing its tail, forgive me Krump

A pleasure however chatting with you


If it is a semantic problem, then it is obviously not clear and if it is not clear then it can be said to be non-existent. Otherwise there would be something that would clearly define it. It becomes an abstract meaningless concept then. It could be anything. A pile of cow dung. What good is it if it is so difficult to point out?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:01 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

What I tried to explain is that reason ratio is perception or view point or relational understanding...ratios are only valid phenomenologically...Time exists as emergent but not as self justified...


First of all, how can this be determined?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

"God" (God=Reality=Potential Universe) is not reason but the place holder for reason to emerge or be perceived...


Seems like adding an additional step that nothing requests or suggest need be added. So why is it added as a place holder? Who says a place holder is necessary?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:01 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
if it is not clear then it can be said to be non-existent.
Forgive me Krump but that sounds contradictory or maybe its meaning not evident to the Average Clod (me)

Lots of stuff not entirely clear nonetheless seem to exist

Quote:
A pile of cow dung. What good is it if it is so difficult to point out?
You demand absolutes where Fil and I skirt the intuitive
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:03 pm
@dalehileman,
Our (Humans) will is not free...anything is not free...not even "God" is free...by definition God or Reality are the opposite of free...thus intelligence is meaningless or ultimately illusory...things are the way they are and not the product of will...God did not which himself...God is a mathematical structure is the most abstract form I can think of it...is not a mind most certainly although it is the conditions for minds to be...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:04 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
if it is not clear then it can be said to be non-existent.
Forgive me Krump but that sounds contradictory or maybe its meaning not evident to the Average Clod (me)

Lots of stuff not entirely clear nonetheless seem to exist


I am saying, it might as well just be your imagination since there is no way to varify it. If it could be varified then we wouldn't need the run around to find it. Semantics wouldn't get in the way of solving the problem. Since it can't be pointed to it might as well not even exist. Unless you want to claim again that by pointing to anything, it includes "her" at the same time. If this is the case then it still is meaningless.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:08 pm
@Krumple,
Unless you can provide an ultimate justification in favour of causality things timelessly speaking are or become just the way they are...think in terms of potential....no degree of freedom exists without potential first...Information as a whole contains the chain by which order exists....or better said Information as a whole contains the information by which the rules of order emerge or operate phenomenally speaking...the order of Ratio or Causality emerges from the whole when its timely divided in bits...
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:14 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
I am saying, it might as well just be your imagination
….Intuition

Quote:
since there is no way to verify it.
Not now anyhow. But Einstein’s relativity started out as Intuition
Hello test

Quote:
If it could be verified then we wouldn't need the run around to find it.
Nothing is entirely verified

Quote:
Semantics wouldn't get in the way of solving the problem.
It gets in the way however when it’s doggedly pursued

Quote:
Since it can't be pointed to it might as well not even exist.
Fil perhaps you could respond better than I

Quote:
Unless you want to claim again that by pointing to anything, it includes "her" at the same time.
Bingo

Quote:
If this is the case then it still is meaningless.
To some yes, to others not
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:20 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
God is a mathematical structure is the most abstract form I can think of it
Interesting Fil you should so assert. Over that range—somewhere above—I had placed a rock at one end and Her at the other

Quote:
...is not a mind most certainly although it is the conditions for minds to be...
It’s a Mind, you just have to unchain reason in favor of Intuition so as to broaden our horizons
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:24 pm
@dalehileman,
man...its not a mind u bet u ass is not ! Minds require incompleteness...Thinking is looking for answers, looking for the source, looking for Truth...That which is Truth does not need to look for anything IT IS everything...no mind is required in it as a Whole...it is the condition for reason but itself not reason...equally Truth (reality in atemporal form) is the condition of reason and not the other way around reason it is not the condition of Truth...that's what Fresco and all its pack believe...they are totally wrong and mislead.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
man...its not a mind
Forgive me Al if I wasn’t =entirely clear. I don’t maintain that Man is a mind though he is certainly part of Hers

Quote:
That which is Truth does not need to look for anything IT IS everything...no mind is required in it as a Whole
Fil you’re a bit beyond the comprehension of an Archetypical dumbbell (me)
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:44 pm
@dalehileman,
"man" was addressed to you informally...you as most tend to believe something as a "God" is a mind because such feeling feels close convenient and warm...an abstract God feels distant cold and dead...by nature we abhor death...but the truth is the God you are seeking or imagine does not exist, although there is something that exists with everything in it which could remotely be said or compared with a non trivial idea of God...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:49 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Unless you can provide an ultimate justification in favour of causality things timelessly speaking are or become just the way they are...think in terms of potential....no degree of freedom exists without potential first...Information as a whole contains the chain by which order exists....or better said Information as a whole contains the information by which the rules of order emerge or operate phenomenally speaking...the order of Ratio or Causality emerges from the whole when its timely divided in bits...


Well the original problem is that I don't see time or view time as an emerging property. This is where all the disconnect is happening. I think it is a skewed perspective to suggest that time is an emerging property.

I think time is a constant. However matter can distort space which gives the appearance that time is also being effected however it's not. Since space is bent in the presense of matter time continues but there is an illusion that time as also effected. It was not. So observing an object in motion in a field where matter has bent space would give the appearance that time was changed or time is not constant.

It is a mistake because the space itself being bent accounts for the time discrepency. Time is not an emerging property. I know I go against a huge number of people who say that this is wrong, including einstein. It doesn't matter because the bending of space coinsides with the time descrepency so nothing is actually lost unless you compare non bent space with bent space. We know this happens and account for it but we assume that it is the time that is different not the space.

This is why I have a problem with the concept that the big bang started time. I don't even see how the first moment could even occur with out first having time. Just like if you have a camera that is shooting video. You first have to push record but the act of pushing record requires time. Therefore you never can push record without time first existing. The bang can not occur without time first existing. You can't even have time begin to exist at the moment the big bang triggers. The trigger itself would require time.

This is why I say time is not an emerging property. It is a constant. But in the presense of matter, space is warped which gives the impression that time is being also bent. Only the path is bent which causes all things to take longer to move through the space.

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:54 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...but the truth is the God you are seeking or imagine does not exist,
Forgive me Al if I wasn’t entirely clear but that’s a difficult accomplishment in this medium. I am not seeking the sort of God you suppose

Quote:
although there is something that exists with everything in it which could remotely be said or compared with a non trivial idea of God...
Bingo
0 Replies
 
 

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 03:58:59