6
   

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

 
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:00 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
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.
Very interesting Krum you should so remark and in fact to skirt that sort of paradox I assert that She exists forever

That doesn’t mean however that She drops out of existence between productions and that’s why I also maintain that instant to be of zero duration

However it’s very difficult to entertain the idea of time in a state of nothingness and so I lean to the others’ view that it has a very real “independent” reality

Whatever that means
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:23 pm
@Krumple,
When I say time is an emergent feature I mean ontologically speaking and not as a phenomena...Time may or may not well be a constant of physical Universe but is irrelevant in terms of determining the overall potential of action in the Universe...Time doesn't determine anything although time accounts for everything but itself...time is not the cause of itself so time must be an illusion, or better said, as a process an illusory real process...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:24 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
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.
Very interesting Krum you should so remark and in fact to skirt that sort of paradox I assert that She exists forever

That doesn’t mean however that She drops out of existence between productions and that’s why I also maintain that instant to be of zero duration

However it’s very difficult to entertain the idea of time in a state of nothingness and so I lean to the others’ view that it has a very real “independent” reality

Whatever that means


Maybe but I don't see the relevance. I have a hard time grasping why a "being", "entity", "god" would do anything, consciously or unconsciously. Here is an aspect that just about no theists ever consider.

I'll grant the notion that a god exists for this argument.

What if a god exists but is not the cause behind the universe? What if it believes that it created the universe but in all actuality it did not? Is this not a possibility?

If you say it would have to know because it has the characteristic of all knowing. It would be aware that it did not create the universe.

Okay let's say he knows it is not the cause. Could the universe still not have been created by this "god"? Even knowing that it is not the cause? Or is this unbelievable?

The simple plausability for this to occur renders the whole thing meaningless. If a god exists yet is not the cause behind the universe then what good is this god? Because it might play some role? Well if it plays some role then it should be clearly defined? There are many theists who claim they have their gods clearly defined plan all worked out but odd how none of them seem to agree on it.

I say if a god is so abstract to be everything without remainder then what good is it? It is irrelevant and impractical. Why would it care? If it even did care? I don't even see how such an abstract concept could even care. Wouldn't it have to be both? Care and not care equally? This abstract concept creates more problems than it solves. Which is why I think most theists abandon it in favor a "god" which clearly defined characteristics.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

When I say time is an emergent feature I mean ontologically speaking and not as a phenomena...Time may or may not well be a constant of physical Universe but is irrelevant in terms of determining the overall potential of action in the Universe...Time doesn't determine anything although time accounts for everything but itself...time is not the cause of itself so time must be an illusion, or better said, as a process an illusory real process...


Yes but there is a consequence in saying this, that I feel you are skipping over or ignoring. Or perhaps don't see? Not sure yet.

If time is not the cause of itself it would have to mean that something else is the cause. Illusion or not, it still has a place or else referring to it, or using it would have no meaning. You couldn't in fact say that objects had position or even motion without it. Sure it could be an abstract concept but it would still have to have a place in reality regardless. Therefore if time is not arrise of itself then what is the cause?

How would this thing cause time to begin without time already of began? If a "god" were to create the start of time, it too would require or need time to cause time to start. It can't be an exception to the rule. It too would be subject to time. To act, is a product of time. So this god would need to be able to act without time and that is a paradox or even impossibility. Even though we can state it as a logical statement, it is false.

Therefore time has to be self caused.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:40 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
I say if a god is so abstract to be everything without remainder then what good is it? It is irrelevant and impractical. Why would it care? If it even did care? I don't even see how such an abstract concept could even care. Wouldn't it have to be both? Care and not care equally? This abstract concept creates more problems than it solves. Which is why I think most theists abandon it in favor a "god" which clearly defined characteristics.


It is not irrelevant to know there is a Truth and that reason emerges from it rather then giving rise to it...

...when we say that "god"or reality is the cause of this and that we say it phenomenally speaking, or at least that's how we should say it or see it..."god " is not the cause of the Universe because god is not the cause of itself...being causal is placing things through time although like in a film the order of photograms and the ratios they establish is just there, the algorithm is complete...that is to say in terms of action "god" is powerless as "god" is complete and action is done...

..."god" if everything, (with all circular time in it) does not grow, does not act does not evolve does not wish think or feel..."god" is the place holder of all this things and none of it alone or differentiated...to put in very simple-minded terms is the set of all sets...nothing else.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:42 pm
@Krumple,
...Time does not begin more then a film begins processes and ends...the fact is the film is ALL there...Reality as pure potential is all here and its eternal and indestructible.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Actually I rather take a Big Bouncing reality then a single big.-bang out of nothingness.
There is no nothingness...yet another illusory misconception.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:53 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
..."god" if everything, (with all circular time in it) does not grow, does not act does not evolve does not wish think or feel..."god" is the place holder of all this things and none of it alone or differentiated...to put in very simple-minded terms is the set of all sets...nothing else.


But this renders the concept meaningless. You could say this "god" both favors and does not favor you equally and both would have to be logical. They can't be both logical, or if they are then it becomes meaningless. The problem here is why the need to insist reality to be that of god, the place holder for everything? Why not just call it reality or the universe? I don't see why this loaded baggage need to added to it. It's like overloading the function with some additional information that does nothing to help discribe nor reveal the nature that is there. It makes me skeptical that it is in fact a property or of reality itself.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:54 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...Time does not begin more then a film begins processes and ends...the fact is the film is ALL there...Reality as pure potential is all here and its eternal and indestructible.


Sure but to move from one frame to another requires that time exists. Without time you can not move from one frame to another. It would be like the film had stopped on one frame. How can you get it going or continue the film without time? You can't.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:59 pm
@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.

If Kant truly said that, it's incredibly bad reasoning. What your summary states is a version of the "argument from incredulity", a well-known fallacy. "We cannot imagine X, therefore X is impossible." (In this case, "X" is "a world without space".) The truth, of course, is that our failure to imagine a world without space tells us us nothing about the world or space at all, though it may tell us something about us.

Assuming you are summarizing Kant's position accurately, my most charitable interpretation is that he didn't have access to the physics of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, which describe the world in all kinds of mathematical spaces with any number of dimensions. My least charitable reading is that Kant's reasoning here never was terribly sound to begin with.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:59 pm
@Krumple,
"god" does not favour anything in other sense but the exact way it exists and goes on existing as it is...God is in fact reality.
Also there is no loaded baggage in understanding that God is Truth and that Truth is Love in its most abstract sense...
Love in its most possible loose sense simply means That which is in relation or that which is not transcendent to something else...Final causality is to understand that even those things who do not directly relate to us by relating to something else who relates to something else that relate to us still build who we are our identity or our Truth...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:00 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Actually I rather take a Big Bouncing reality then a single big.-bang out of nothingness.
There is no nothingness...yet another illusory misconception.


Perhaps. I have no way to varify it. How can you come to that conclusion? Or is there a reduction that I am not aware of that you are using here? I can see that nothing has substantual characteristics, which go unchanged. I find nothing that is permenant therefore I can say that all things are illusory by nature. But you wouldn't talk about the emerging or ceasing of events either nor a big bounce or even big bang. If you do that then you are pinning down the nothingness and solidifying it into something which has a characteristic.

I would be skeptical of it then. (skeptical of these characteristics)
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:03 pm
@Krumple,
You have no way of verifying it ?
Exactly ! How are you to verify if nothingness exists ?...
...vacuum is not nothingness not by a million miles...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:07 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

"god" does not favour anything in other sense but the exact way it exists and goes on existing as it is...God is in fact reality.
Also there is no loaded baggage in understanding that God is Truth and that Truth is Love in its most abstract sense...


As soon as you start defining it, you are indirectly stating it is favoring one and not the other. Why you can't see this, I am not sure. When I say favor it would mean that if god is love then it can not be hatred right? It would therefore have to favor love over hatred. This would mean where ever there is hatred, it would not be there. If you start making this distinction then you an not also postulate that god is everything or even reality for that matter. This is what I refer to as special pleading.

You want to claim a thing can have characteristic a but at the same time not have character a. This is why I say it becomes meaningless and that people try to then pin it down to be something other like you just did. You can not say this god would be love, not even in the most abstract of terms and at the same time also be reality. If it is reality how can hate exist? It would mean that hate is other than reality or not a part of reality.

ehBeth wrote:

Love in its most possible loose sense simply means That which is in relation or that which is not transcendent to something else...Final causality is to understand that even those things who do not directly relate to us by relating to something else who relates to something else that relate to us still build who we are our identity or our Truth...


I object. I don't see it, nor my reality support that such a thing is such. Please point it out to me because I do not see how one could be such.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I Don't relate with the past...the past relates with me, with whom I am !
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:09 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You have no way of verifying it ?
Exactly ! How are you to verify if nothingness exists ?...
...vacuum is not nothingness not by a million miles...


To verify it means you can point out it's characteristics. If you say it is reality then you can't further define it or say, well it is X but it is not Y. If Y is an aspect of reality then it can not be said to be all of reality or reality itself. It would only be an aspect of reality. So which is it? Reality itself or does it have characteristics?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:10 pm
@Krumple,
Hate constitutes one necessary condition for love in its abstract sense...
You see Love is not love...Love is relation...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:12 pm
@Krumple,
It does not have characteristics other then being the place holder of all characteristics...That's is why "god" is Love ! The Set that bounds everything together rather the apart...the reason why logic is logical...why things are with things in such a way that we say that cause exists...
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:13 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Hate constitutes one necessary condition for love in its abstract sense...
You see Love is not love...Love is relation...


Then why point it out? Why not say god is both and equally hatred and love equally? Why make the disctinction? If you say that god is not hatred but only love, then you can not say that god is reality. If hatred is an aspect or characteristic of reality then how can you account for this paradox? Hatred is love? Then why the distinction? So to hate is to love? See how this becomes meaningless?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:17 pm
@Krumple,
...well you can deal with the old childish concepts if you prefer...I rather take Love for what really means...RELATION !

Imagine what value love in the trivial sense would have if all we could do is love and never hate or be indifferent...exactly no value whatsoever !
Hate is a "distant" condition for love just as much as robbers the condition why police exists...
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 05:36:33