the universe and space....?

This is an interesting point. I guess it depends on what you put as the moon's reference. If we think of the side of the moon that is always facing us as it's face, it is easy to envision how the moon rotates in its orbit so that it's always facing us. This gives the impression that the moon doesn't rotate. But if you were looking at the moon from the sun you would see it rotating.

Good points about the rotation of the moon as it relates to the sun.

i guess no one can provide an answer for this one...its juss infinite i guess...or illusion?..i guess no one can say why the heck the universe has to exists...?.still a mystery and i guess it will remain one...

I like Cryacuz's distinction between "real change" like aging and our conventions of time measurement. They're not isomorphic.

I like Cryacuz's distinction between "real change" like aging and our conventions of time measurement. They're not isomorphic.

It doesn't have to exist, but nature made it possible.

I might add that we would not be aware of "time" without perception of change any more than we would be aware of "space" without perception of movement and position of items relative (e.g. distance) to one another.

I have no idea, but this question got me thinking into the psychology of questions people ask about such things and we always assume that something has to come from somewhere. It's like a little kid asking "But why?" to every answer you throw at them. I think the brain has a tedency to seek justifications (can't remember where I saw that peice of info... something with dopamine or something or other) and I guess that is fine for those who seek it. But I doubt the answer lies in any human mind in existance and I doubt the certainty of facts about answers to this question if they do come around in my lifetime. I'm not even sure if there was a beginning to all of this.

I believe such questions are the trigger for religions.

C.I., I suspect that such questions are not the original triggers for religion (at least the Abrahamic religions), but they may be stimuli for its persistence. In other words, religion persists in more sophisticated--indeed, more mystical and less fantastic--forms because they respond to more sophisticated "questions" or impulses. But I must stress that this modern kind of religion bears very little resemblance to those of earlier, more naive, times. Those were formed for and by peasant farmers and fishermen and have persisted, to the extent they have, among our more fundamentalist and literal populations.

That's called the "evolution in religions." Not surprising.

I'm afraid my last post reveals a misunderstanding of C.I.'s comment. Sorry.

Many "metaphysical" questions seem to reflect the limitations of our language. Pyko's question regarding the origin of space suggests that it is some kind of "thing" that comes from "somewhere". Procrustes' reference to the child's universal query, "But why", as an expression of the "psychology of questions", the "causes" of questions reflecting assumptions about the ontology of "things", how every "something" must come from "somewhere" is more about linguistics than Science.
Fundamentally, I think we should bracket or ignore all terms like origin, absolute, causation, things, beings, and space, time and Truth, etc. etc. when we try to relate in some immediate way to the Totality of Reality. Our posture must be one of Reverential Ignorance (or agnosticism). A Korean zen master advises his students to meditate with the notion of "Don't know" on each out-breath. I prefer that to filling my head with all the artificial constructs of our cultural-metaphysical presumptions--the ingredients of "confusing webs" more than liberating information.

I resonate with what your saying JL. I just find it amazing we don't examine the psychological aspects of justifaction seeking more often. Some are happy to be fed reasons, some are not. But even if we delved into finding what is True about anything, I think not knowing what is True is closer to the Truth than saying you have the Truth. This threads question is case in point. No matter what justifications one may conceptualize about the origins of space, one may be closer to an ontological view with claims of "it is not this" rather than "it is this".

I think that was a beautiful post.



Is this what is sometimes referred to as "perfect action"? By that I mean action focused perfectly on it's intent, with no attention given to any details about how to perform the action.

Thanks. Remember the mystic's answer, "Neti, neti," to virtually all questions. Not this, not that, etc. It is closer to the truth, I agree, than some claim to knowing. But I can't resist positing "truths." One day I'll learn--maybe on my deathbed.

Is that like being in a sort of "zone" when performing some actions?

Since somebody mentioned God in this thread, let me toss a few interesting bible quotes into the playpen-

Jesus said- "I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going...I am not of this world" (John 8:14/ 8:23)
"..praise to the Lord, to him who rides the ancient skies above, whose power is in the skies." (Psalm 68:33-34)
"Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars!" (Job 22:12)
"God sits on the circle of the earth" (Isa 40:22)
"God rides upon a swift cloud" (Isa 19:1)
"God goes by me but I see him not" (Job 9:10)
"With God a thousand years are as one day" (2 Pet 3:8 )
"God hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7)