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

@Thomas,

Quote:

So you're right in part: The experiment you describe could, in principle, demonstrate light is not a superposition of waves.

Aha Tom now I think I understand

…a little

Light waves overlap! and I suppose that’s why you can’t call Photonica discrete

….or have I totally missed the point in which case apology

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Light waves overlap! and I suppose that’s why you can’t call Photonica discrete

I don't know what you mean by "Photonica". If you mean photons, photons are discrete. But you wouldn't see it in the videos Krumple, because each "bullet" of the laser pulse would consist of incredibly many photons.

0 Replies

I would rephrase the OP's questions:
Is it true that we can't manage the world without the image of space?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I would rephrase the OP's questions:
Is it true that we can't manage the world without the image of space?

image of space ? what the heck does that mean ?

1 Reply

@north,

Sorry! I meant the idea or perception of space.
(I was thinking of "image" as a mental notion of something)

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Sorry! I meant the idea or perception of space.
(I was thinking of "image" as a mental notion of something)

appology accepted

now where are we going from here on this thread ?

1 Reply

@north,

I’m not quite sure either

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

look space gives everything the possibility to manifest

if you were to imagine the world without space , then that imagination has to include the self

since the self is of space

2 Replies

@north,

One cannot imagine the world without space. That doesn't imply something necessary about the ontology of the universe only about our epistemological makeup--which is, of course, part of the world.
I wasn't going anywhere: just an isolated thought..

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

if you were to imagine the world without space , then that imagination has to include the self

Forgive the old Average Clod North but that doesn’t make sense (at least to me). I can easily posit nothingness and of course it doesn’t include me

But if by “imagine” you mean “see in the mind’s eye,” then of course I can't

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
if you were to imagine the world without space , then that imagination has to include the self
Forgive the old Average Clod North but that doesn’t make sense (at least to me). I can easily posit nothingness and of course it doesn’t include me

but it should include me or you , thats the paradox that this thread brings up

because in the end when you imagine a world without space , you also have to include your own existence

Quote:

But if by “imagine” you mean “see in the mind’s eye,” then of course I can't

what meant is this ;

even the self needs space inorder to exist

without space everything disappears , completely and absolutely

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

because in the end when you imagine a world without space , you also have to include your own existence

Perhaps North you do, but I don’t. Of course here we could be engaged in a semantic conflation of some kind. Again, if you mean by “imagine, “ visualizing, then of course we can’t. However I can easily conceive nothingness and of course it “contains” no me

Quote:

even the self needs space inorder to exist…….without space everything disappears , completely and absolutely

Forgive me North but still my reaction is so what

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

While it is certainly true you can conceive of temporary absences regarding all the stuff you came to know along your life, that in turn says nothing of conceiving Nothingness, a total absence, as such conception would necessarily require that you would not conceive anything, nor yourself, nor concepts, not even memory's, which obviously are things...conceiving the negation of things is still a thing, and that is what you should keep in mind before going so easy on the subject ! Tricky indeed...
...Nothingness, full length, full meaning, as I see it, is not to conceive nor is to be...just a perfect example of a self defeating concept greatly exaggerating its original intended direction...
(...notice that the concept requires the absence of concepts or the absence of absence which is logically unsound...it destroys and cannibalizes itself...)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

such conception would necessarily require that you would not conceive anything

I think Fil by “conceive” you mean “imagine” I can certainly posit a state of nothingness even though I can’t “see” it in mind’s eye. All semantics

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

I suppose you want me to take your word for it...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I suppose you want me to take your word for it...

No not at all

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Krumple wrote:

evidence that light does have a fixed position in time and not super position

dalehileman wrote:

Krum you might have to elaborate on this just a bit as the typical dumbhead (me) doesn’t immediately comprehend how overlapping applies

Well I am working off the premise posed to me that an "object" traveling at or near the speed of light would not have a fixed position because it would be in all places equally.

I didn't even bring up the one thing that would prove the idea wrong. If it were true then you wouldn't be able to calcuate the speed of light at all. Unless for some reason photons are an exception to this theory. I doubt that photons would be an exception since pretty much all "particles" that travel at or near the speed of light are just different forms of "light" essentially.

So I am refrencing the cocept by talking about "super position" since you wouldn't "according to the theory" be able to distinguish the position of a particle if it were traveling at or near the speed of light. I'm just bending the definition slightly here but the concept is still the same.

dalehileman wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_position

Also the phrase, "fixed position in time” leaves your Commonplace Addlebrain (me again) kinda forsaken

Well it comes back to my perspective on time. That it is a sequence of moments that follow one after the next. Sure they don't happen at the seconds or mili-second level that we commonly like to think of as time splitting. It would be more on the atomic or quantum level.

For every quantum moment everything, all atoms, electrons, ect have a fixed position for that specific quantum moment. Meaning if you were to actually take that moment you would be able to distinguish where everything was. The only problem with this, which is not much of a problem is the actual velocity and position at the same time. We can know the position or the velocity but not both.

dalehileman wrote:

If you judge however its resolution is beyond the 81-year-old with incipient Alz’s please forgive and don’t feel obligated to respond, while it’s been a pleasure chatting

The only reason I bring it up is because I think it gets glossed over so easily. So many people think that time is not needed for things to happen. Which if that is true, I don't see how you could accurately calculate velocity then. It would mean something could be moving and then time could pause yet the object still continue, which would give an inaccurate reading. I have never observed something do this.

dalehileman wrote:

Incidentally modern software also leaves me panting. What possible connection could there be ‘tween an Alz’s victim chatting with a physicist about the speed of light in question with with the fixed position of Photonia, and the U.S. unemployment situation

Isn't everything interconnected?

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Well I am working off the premise posed to me that an "object" traveling at or near the speed of light would not have a fixed position because it would be in all places equally.

Not my idea. The birth, life, and death of the Universe would supposedly happen instantaneously

Quote:

I didn't even bring up the one thing that would prove the idea wrong. If it were true then you wouldn't be able to calcuate the speed of light at all.

Of course you couldn't if you were the traveler, that is Photonica

Quote:

Well it comes back to my perspective on time.It …….would be more on the atomic or quantum level.

Yes it’s been suggested that time proceeds in small jumps

Quote:

then time could pause yet the object still continue, which would give an inaccurate reading. I have never observed something do this.

Nor anybody else. Such a discrepancy might be too small to measure

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

But our physiology is part of "reality". It is as spatial as any other physical object. No, space does not tell us more about our physiological nature than about any other physical object. As an a priori intuition, space has nothing to do with our physiology, because it is just a phenomenon

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

... that an "object" traveling at or near the speed of light would not have a fixed position because it would be in all places equally.

Had to reconsider my response Krump. Yes if you're traveling at c you'd see everything at once

...that is, if your vision accepts a wider range of frequencies

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know