anything which occupies time and space

can anything which occupies time and space exist without there being time and space for it to occupy?

i don't see how.

what CAN exist without occupying time and space, is that which is nontangable.

=^^=
.../\...

 

If an object had space/time infinitely twisted around it and not through it, it would not occupy space or time.

 

really?

it would not occupy THAT time and space it had twisted arround itself, yes. but if it occupied the time and space within that micro bubble, however totaly isolated that might be from any or every OTHER time and space, it would still occupy THAT time and space if it did.

only the completely nontangable avoids this paradox entirely.

(and who's to say the completely nontangable, or something of the nature of being completely nontangable, cannot be big, self awaire, and friendly)

=^^=
.../\...

 

seems to me that space and time are a part of our attempt at describing our experiences, but they are only concepts. if you truly run it through your "logical apparatus", you may find there is really only here, and now. tangible or intangible, what is, is. there is no true seperation in all of "existing matter," so what occupies the smallest conceivable space also occupies all of existance. where is this space, other then in our own minds-in our own attempt at seperating ourselves?

 

What exists is existence itself. Within space-time and outside it.

 

Thamnax,


I would recommend that you read the "Transcendental Aesthetic" in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Kant asserts exactly what you do, that there are no empirically real objects that can be given in representation outside of space and time. The "Transcendental Aesthetic" itself is very short, but thousands of pages have been written about it, in commentary. One of my professors wrote a book on it that is about 800 pages long.

Now, I think you have answered the question correctly. But the next question that inevitably faces you is, "Exactly what are space and time?" Surely they are not empirically real objects, because then they would have to be located within space and time; empirical objects are finite; empirical objects are coloured, etc. If you read Kant, the answer is quite surprising.

 

(sorry for the time lapse, fell aspleep)

it is an effect of the speed at which an object travels in space

Ah yes, nonexistance is a most efficient way to avoid paradox

Well I am, for if something does not exist, it can not be any thing. But, if you think about it that sentence makes no sense, since "it" refers to nothing.:hysterica,,,

Okay so seriously though, in thinking about this response one of the first things I considered was Heidegger's statement of "The Fundamental Question:" i.e. "Why are there things that are, rather than no things?" and then I considered the meaning of "physics"(oh my, in looking for the origins of this word on the net, I don't find the one I originally learned, hmmm odd, have to look into this... anyway) originally phsyics meant "what is", it had been, my opinion that by definition then "metaphysics" would be a study into "what isn't"(sorry more twisted humor).
Nevertheless, as one whose FIR, (Fundamental Interpretation of Reality) is Natural Science, the existance of nonphysical phenomenon, is nonsequetor, and Ohcams Razor slices the concept to shreds. A concept I hold at nearly the level of full conviction is that, if it cannot be measured with some degree of validity and reliability, . it does not exist. A prime example of this is the mythical "common sense."
So do do the completely unnatural, for this system, i.e. to state something succinctly. "No, if something does not occupy a place in spacetime, it does not exist.
sine cera

 

vcr, nontangible does not mean nonexistent. It simply means something that is not available to sensory perception.

 

Some definitions of "tangible" the first of which if taken literally would nullify the question, when the prefix "non" is added.
adjective: capable of being perceived by the senses or the mind; especially capable of being handled or touched or felt
adjective: possible to be treated as fact (Example: "Tangible evidence")
adjective: having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses (Example: "Surrounded by tangible objects")
It seems to me there would be no question if there was nothing to percieve.
Do you put the number of senses at five or is there perception of that which is percieved?

 

Sorry Common Sense, nothing personal I assure you.
sine cera

 

Wheter the number osenses be taken as 5 or six, there can easily be something beyond them.

Some animals only have 2 or 3 senses. To them, the visible dimension or the audible dimension is completely unknown and impossible to be known. Would their statement be valid then that sound does not exist?
So how unbelievably arrogant is it to think that in the entire universe it is impossible that there is something other than what we percieve through our senses?

Further, what I am talking about is indeed intangible as being beyond the senses, our 6 and whatever many other senses sentients may have elsewhere in the universe. This is because what I speak of what illumines the senses, and therefore cannot be percieved by them. Just as the eye cannot see itself.

It can be known however through the experience of being. Happiness cannot be seen, heard, smelt, touched. It is not admissible as evidence in a court of law to say I was happy or I was sad. Yet, it is true that it exists.

And what we are talking about is existence itself as the ultimate reality. It cannot be nonexistence, because then we would arrive at the idiotic paradox of saying there is non-existence - non existence exists. Instead we come to the conclusion there is a positive existence and that existence alone exists in all forms.

Again I say, there is nothing to percieve, it is to be, and in that being, in that silence, all paradoxes, all questions meet their death. So yes, there is no question, there is simply being, absolute and total peace.

 

"if it cannot be measured with some degree of validity and reliability, . it does not exist."

many things can be measured and explained, but the observer has never been found, and cannot be measured. do you exist?

 

Pardon me, I've never heard this propisition before, if however it is the basis for your question, I don't see how, after Descarte it continued to be a problem. Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am! Personal existance is the one irrefutable, undoubtable knowledge anyone should possess, after that, in my opinion, people should have some sort of "authority of information" scale, ranging from "belief" to 'conviction". There are, I think the same number of things at both ends of my scale, very few. I derived a question that is, I feel essential that everyone ask themselves, i.e. "How do I know, that I know, what I know, and how did I come to know it?" This is basically the question a young Rene Descarte asked himself when he discovered that the handful of universities existant at his time, all taught different answers to the same questions. The story of his solution to this dilemna is in his "Discourse on Method". That piece of writing is what brings me to refer to him as the father of modern science, I highly recommend it to anyone who would assume to know anything at all.

In regards to the "observer", I've had some time to think about that, and I would assert that such has been found, and is recognized as a major problem, in fact in physics it is refered to as the "Problem of the observer", and on top of that is the entire problem of subjectivity, very tricky issue that, but one that must be dealt with if any one, is to know anything at all, lest all they do is believe. Good luck my friend life is very long, and all too short.
sine cera

 

The problem with descarte's statement is that he had it backwards. There are many times at which we don't think - in deep sleep, in coma, at times when a person is brain dead. There are no thoughts, does that mean they cease to exist? The true statement ought to be, "I am, therefore I can think." Because if the I is taken away then nothing is possible.

Spirituality in essence deals with that one irrefutable knowledge of I. But who AM I? Am I the body-bound, ego-bound entity as is my current experience, or is the limited vision of my mind and body keeping me from experiencing myself in my own fullness as life itself, the one unnegatable self that is independent of all matter and thought!

 

well i'm not so sure PURE reason is even possible, since we're none of us infallable, and i see no real indication that anything has to be. but there are things, people seem to keep denying, that i can's see where or how it takes rocket science to see them. and to me, this question is one of them.

but at any rate, thanks for the recomendation. i don't think i've ever actualy READ kant in the origeonal, but a lot of what i've heard about him sounds like my kind of guy. believe it or not, my observations tend to come almost entirely from just that, observation, and then trying to avoid the sorts of deceiving myself on all sides of virtualy every question human society, whether in the form of beliefs, idiologies, or anything else, submits us to.

the one contention of empericism i absolutely inhierently distrust is the implied assertion that for anything to exist there has to be some need for it to.

no it's perfectly possible that everything that exists MIGHT need to, but there's no reall way that i can see of veryfying this to be the case. rather, i can observe no natural limitations to the diversity of what is capable of existing, and thus no requirement for anything to have to in order to do so.

time and space, yes these are in one sense deffinicians, perceptions, but they are deffinicians and perceptions of the somethingness that surrounds our tangable lives. and not JUST our own, but virtualy everything we can perceive in them beyond ourselves. yet this does, in no way forbid, the conceptual possibility of a beyondness to everything that we can.

you wouldn't by some chance know of an online source of the reference you mentioned? i kind of seriously doubt i'd find it in what passess for a local public library or any of the rather few bookstores local to where i live.

=^^=
.../\...

something else i've just now noticed and hadn't yet addressed (not addressed to common sense but to those who don't seem to be getting this, whether they have arrived at EITHER a fanatical OR an athiestic perspective as a resault): isn't equating nontangable with nonexistent the metaphysical equivelant of being a flat earther?

which btw, is NOT saying the nontangable has to conform to anyone or any belief's expectations of it either!

=^^=
.../\...

 

Backwards hey, hmm think of the implications for geometry, should Descarte be given to such careless thinking. This is an astounding statement you have made, I wonder are you familiar with how, and more so why, in what context Descarte first stated "cogito ergo sum?" I don't see how you could be as the above conclusion is completely nonsequetor, it is not anywhere in the problem space of the attempt to determine if anything can be known, with any degree of certainty.

Spirituality in essence deals with that one irrefutable knowledge of I. But who AM I? Am I the body-bound, ego-bound entity as is my current experience, or is the limited vision of my mind and body keeping me from experiencing myself in my own fullness as life itself, the one unnegatable self that is independent of all matter and thought![/QUOTE]First I would refer you to a post of mine by the title, "Who am I?" messages 1 and 10 are relevant to this point.
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201839

Now then hopefully you read to understand my position with an open mind, I do not ask that you adopt my position, just that you read it without looking for where you disagree with it but in an honest attempt to understand my position. Now then back to the point.
The mind/body question has been settled, the landmark work that accomplished this is "The Mindful Brain" Mountcastle and Edleman.
The book is actually a paper by each of these gentleman, the first is a detailed description of the fine structure of the neocortex, and it's method of operation, including a description of the "bits, and bytes" of the mind/brain, the second is an explanation of how on the basis of this new understanding of neurocytoarchatecture, that consciousness can be the result of the dynamic operation of it. I wonder if you are familiar with the principle ofOckham's razor? With the understanding that consciousness its' self may be a result of nothing more than natural processes, there is no longer any need for divine imposition of consciousness via the "soul", or the existance of inexplicably existant entities that through trial and error at life, are attempting to satisfy some unknown criteria, to "graduate" to an undefined state, and that for eternity.
Certainly I am not saying that since there is no need for it, it doesn't exist, how absurd that would be, but I have not been everywhere/when, so such things may exist, personally I can only hope not, people need to rethinkl "eternal life", it is a curse not a blessing.
In conclusion, the major points I have made here, are issues I have been investigating for over 30 years, and I continue to do so, what I have stated here, I am nearly fully convinced of, have independent support for, for the physiological aspects there is indeed empirical evidence, for what some continue to think is somehow nonphysical, i.e. mind, there is the work of Mountcastle and Edleman for starters.
Oh one other thing, concerning nontangible, recall the first definition please, it includes percievable by mind, I would not assert that nontangible is definitely nonexistant, but I'd certainly treat it that way, as it could be of no possible difference to me, if I have no way to percieve it.
sine cera

 

Here you go Themnax...
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/cprframe.pl?query=01pref-a.htm,004

 

do you believe there was a beginning?

 

Greetings umm, Youagain,
Man I was compelled to post a reply to this, I have heard a plethora of fundamental interpretations of reality in my life's time, and although I do not agree with this one, it has to be the most elegant I've ever heard, thank you for the presenting the beauty of this concept here. Amazing, truly amazing.:applause:
sine cera