the universe and space....?

Are we sure that a rock will always remain a rock?

truth
C.I., I can think of at least two ways a rock may cease to be a rock: (1) when it is crushed into powder, and (2) when humans cease to organize the collection of atoms, molecules, or whatever into the idea of "rocks."

How about it when water runs 'through' it? c.i.

Hey guy, keep in mind that the only thing we should ever know and hold onto is the wisdom we need in this life. Don't try to call upon the wisdom of the heavens. But if you insist in knowing, do me a favor and please do write back to me...take a normal bucket and possibly a shovel. Then walk out to the beach and think of a way on how you can fit the entire ocean into that bucket. Tell me about! I want to know if you really can do it and if so...how? I have faith in you!

C.I., Jln;
the "rockness" indeed depends on perception, and 2 a degree on perceptiveness of the observer; if 1 defines rock as an aglomerate of cristaline matter, 1 would have 2 include, 4 instance a beach of sand, with each grain being basically a rock differing only in scale.

As 4 mech's suggestion that we approach defining
"time" "space" "distance" or "life"

Time: the relationships of matter in the universe based on spacial dispersion in relation 2 an event. The 4th dimension; the "when" of location.

Space: the matrix upon which all matter and events in the universe are dispersed; 2 b considered as as large as needed 2 accommodate "everything".

Distance: a nontemporal system of relationship between objects describing the physical location based on 3 comparative co-ordinates using arbitrarily agreed upon units. The other 3 dimensions; the "where" of location.

and

Life; the property of some objects rendering them "animated" as opposed 2 fixed, and unresponsive 2 their environment, enabling these objects 2 "interact" with time and space in order 2 maintain its continuity. Life is something of a relay phenominon, being passed from 1 being 2 its decendent in a continuous chain (sometimes broken) of existence.

And Red; about that bucket;
if you were 2 raise the temperature of the planet until the oceans boiled away in2 the atmosphere, and simply scoop up the last "bucket" full..... but then you wouldn't be around 2 do that, you would have been cremated along the way.
As with any paradoxical situation, there is a need 2 define all the parameters.

Redhorn, Welcome to A2K. Look forward to your contributions AND questions. c.i.

CI,
No a rock will not always be a rock. My little ditty on page 12 works either way. E=Mc squared can be solved for any one of its components.
I have seen it solved those ways but I couldn't do it now. But it works like this.
If you know the Mass you can multiply it by the speed of light squared and end up with the energies. A little mass makes quite a pop when you tear apart the bonds that hold it together. Conversly it takes quite a bit of force in order to jam (poetically) particles of energy together to form matter. This force so far is only theorized and may be found in black holes, or more massive objects. (Big Bangs,or Singularities for instance)
The monomolecular line so beloved of science fiction writers is a logical off shoot of these facts. I regard E=Mc squared as an observed fact.

BoGoWo,
A rock exists whether or not we do. It has a existence which does not depend on our perception. It's existence depends on quite a few other things but IMO it is extremely unlikly that a rock depends upon humans for its existence.
But the converse is extremely liklely.

BUT; Does Time, or Space, or Size exist independently of humans?
Ie. Would the Milky Way rotate quicker if we weren't here to watch it?

Okay, Mech, I think you've the beginning of a good place to start this discussion only if you can posit a statement that gets the ball rolling.

Mech;

your "A rock exists whether or not we do. It has a(n) existence which does not depend on our perception.......... But the converse is extremely liklely."

i'm afraid i can only see the universe as 'being' and our participation as 'observing'; i don't see any 'affecting interelation'.
(we r, of course, as real as 'rocks', from an 'object' point of view.)

"Does Time, or Space, or Size exist independently of humans?
Ie. Would the Milky Way rotate quicker if we weren't here to watch it?"

of course, and of course not; all we do is describe, not effect.

the only affect on the universe from an individual human would b gravitational, and that just 'might' b hard 2 measure!

Anybody ready to provide an opening statement? c.i.

truth
C.I., Ive gotten lost here. What do you want an opening to? What is the topic? So far I've found it very interesting preparing for learning. By that I mean trying to understand what are the possibilities for cosmic knowledge. How do we know we can know certain things? What are our limitations in the sense that how much of our claim to objectivity is really an exercise in conventionally agreed upon subjectivities? Are "rocks" objectively rocks, or are they conventional understandings about entities which are really our creations. I don't mean to imply that the "substance" (and THAT'S a conventional meaning too) of what makes up things does not exist, only that it can only be understood in terms of human constructs. I was hoping we could make some progress on this issue. But my understanding was that the philosophy of knowledge was relevant. I see now that it is not. And that is fine. I have no objectiion to an epistemological naive realism as an agreed upon basis for talking about the observable universe. But, I repeat, C.I., what is the topic you are hoping we can get into?

i'm in the same quandry - not sure what is wanted here;

can i suggest that we use this thread 2 come up with a topic, clearly defining the subject, and then some1, either c.i. or mech, post a new thread with a good lead in and we proceed from there?

ci, JL

Not sure of what topic exactly, ci has in mind, but considering the general topic of this thread, I think I can make a reasonable opening statement anyway.


OPENING STATEMENT:

Damn near everything that we think we know about the reality of our situation -- what this "existence" is and how it came to be -- is conjecture and guesswork on a cosmic scale. (Pun intended.)

Anything we can do to induce humans -- especially intelligent, open-minded humans to investigate, investigate, investigate -- we should. It would be interesting to find out as much as we possibly can.

In the meantime, a bit of humility in these areas can be very, very valuable -- and no one ever got seriously hurt by acknowledging: I do not know -- and I don't see enough evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess.



End of opening statement.

well now that statement seemed 2 me 2b awfully 'frank'.

BGW, Poetry also welcomed! I think Frank gave it a good shot at what we can agree on some level of agreement on what our perceptions of existence. There are some things we can agree upon that are universal to homo sapiens; we are one of the animal species on this planet we call earth - in English. Most animal species are perpetuated through a function we describe as sex. Most of us understand the concepts of chemistry and biology. For the living things on earth, we measure time by the rotation of the earth we describe as being 24 hours. These are some of the fundamentals from which further discussion can proceed. c.i.

I thought I'd leave you guys with a Darwin Award joke before I leave tomorrow for a 15 tour of Canada. Just want to keep this discussion on the 'light' side. c.i.
**********************************
1990 Darwin Award Nominee
Confirmed True by Darwin
3 February 1990, Washington

A man tried to commit a robbery in Renton, WA. This was probably his first attempt, as suggested by the fact that he had no previous record of violent crime, and by his terminally stupid choices as listed below:

1. The target was H&J Leather & Firearms, a gun shop.

2. The shop was full of customers, in a state where a substantial portion of the adult population is licensed to carry concealed handguns in public places.

3. To enter the shop, he had to step around a marked Police patrol car parked at the front door.

4. An officer in uniform was standing next to the counter, having coffee before reporting to duty.

Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a holdup and fired a few wild shots. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, removing him from the gene pool. Several other customers also drew their guns, but didn't fire. No one else was hurt

truth
C.I., good joke about natural selection. Here is another joke which is not so funny perhaps but reminiscent of our discussion so far, especially our concern to establish agreed upon definitions: A man enters a bank with the intention of robbing it. He unfortunately chose a cashier who was also intellectually inclined. When he whispered his hold-up message to her, she told him to define his terms. He panicked and fled the bank.

truth
By the way, C.I., BON VOYAGE!!!
I'll be away all next week, but not on a fun trip.

Perception is everything. c.i.