anything which occupies time and space

my own thoughts, presented in a (and i really hate to say this) clearer, more intelligent fashion. but i suppose sometimes age can count for something if you use your time wisely. thank you for your post, meagain.

 

Space is infinite, eternal; Matter is finite; time is the consequence of interaction between infinite space and finite matter.

To be eternal, you must relinquish your attachment to matter, but this will happen to all "things" eventually, so you might as well enjoy what you've got while it lasts.

 

i believe that not knowing does not require the making of assumptions nor the acceptance of prevailing ones, and thus i belive that there may not have been a bennining in an absolute sense while at the same time not that there would HAVE to have or not have been one.

but also that existence outside of time and space, thus nontangable, is quite possible and even that awairness(ess) of some sort under such conditions might also be.

NOT that the conventions upon which the neccessity of such existences are predicated are above question, though as appearantly even kant pointed out, we may very well lack the tools with which to rationaly question them.

i'm afraid, to me, he gets a bit circular there.

where i part company with empiricism is it's requirement for requirment to exist for things to do so. seeing no compeling evidence of such an implication.

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

 

Well, that's why it's the critique of pure reason. Kant doesn't say that pure reason is impossible, exactly, just that it can only take you so far. You can't get passed tautologies, such as "All bachelors are unmarried men."

Kant is definitely worth reading. He's probably the most influential philosopher ever to have lived. The only thing is, Kant couldn't have written his way out of a wet paper bag. So, he seems impenetrable at first. But it just takes practice to get over that.

That seems a lot closer to teleology than empiricism, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "need." Anyway, I agree with you.

Indeed, space and time are necessary for all possible experience. You can't even imagine an object, phenomenally, without it being in conceptual space.

The Critique of Pure Reason is a very popular book, at least when it comes to philosophy. So, I wouldn't rule out the public library just yet. In any case, here you go:

http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/k#a1426

The Transcendental Aesthetic, the part on space and time, is near the beginning. You might want to check out the first Antinomy too, in the Transcendental Dialectic.

 

i appreciate themnax's post, but i am still waiting to see what vcr has to say about this. i admit i cannot predict what your thoughts will be, though i have a feeling it is not something that fits into your logic if you take the question far enough. i await your response.

 

You may be entirely correct Yes, I do give my assent to the notion that this universe had a beginning, but then this may not be the only universe that is, or has been. I admit to enjoying the various inconceivables that are regualarly discussed in the study of the nature and origin of the universe, I cannot however adequately defend any of the ideas beyound the level of 20 year old "survey" knowledge of the discipline. Oh by the way it is not something I would "believe" in, but have some level of, knowledge between an opinion and a full conviction. I do believe a few things, like I believe there is at least a 5% chance humankind will actually survive the species wide dieback that is now likely to happen prior to 2525 (actually 2500, but I couldn't resist)
hmmm interesting I was curious at this point what logic I employed the validity of which you feel relies on the "begining" question, I was sidetracked when I realized I'd misread your reply to Meagain and I am spontaneously interupting what i had been saying as a result of becoming aware that his post is a statement of your interpretation of reality as well.
First let me state my position on the nature of knowledge, apart from the one undoubtable and only thing I know of that can be stated as fact, i.e. I think therefore I am, there are no facts, no perfect knowledge, no final answers, and there never will be. I consider myself to be a "natural" scientist, and my definition of science is" the art/discopline of asking questions in a way that they can be progressively, more accurately answered. Further at any given time any scientific knowledge is liable to be discovered is totally erroneous, akin to the fundamental unit of light having to be either a wave or a partical, this by the way is the same problem that existed in the entire mind and brain issue. They cannot be seperated mind is a result of the dynamic energy properties of a functioning brain,(Mountcastle and Edelman, The Mindful Brain). Which by the way is why I find, in me, no acceptance of by my mind, of your interpretation of reality, since it appears to rely on a conscious perciever and it is my assertion that such a perciever is dependant on some sort of brain composed of matter, generating energy.

For me science is practical, for the most part reliable, scientific method yields theoretical knowledge that forms models of phenomenon, these models, to be valid must accurately predict results of experiments based in the model as well as point the way for further investigation into the subject of the model. It works and no fantasy, mythology, or just plain "nice idea" I've ever heard has provided me with more experiences of wonder than it has. I enjoy wonder, immensly, it is one of the few redeeming events that I feel justifies the pain of life. Another is that other "wonderable units" exist and that we can share wonder whether we agree with it's basis or not. For instance when I grasped what Meagain was saying it was an experience of wonder. Well I've sufficiantly distracted myself from the issue and imposed my grammatical constructions on any who have cared to read this far, quite enough for now.
Is there something that can be called an actual begining, I doubt it, but don't ask me what that would have meant anyway.
Oh btw if you have never heard of a book "Flatland" it is an interesting exercise in attempting to grasp what a non 3-d reality would be like, an interesting exploration into a 2 dimensional reality.
Peace, love, and wonder in abundance
sine cera

 

i did read your post, and yes-it does seem you enjoy language-not a bad trait at all. now correct me if i'm wrong, but this is what i got out of it, for the most part:


you don't know if there is a beginning.
good answer, though my point was that taking this question far enough is one of the easiest routes to take to escape one's logical apparatus.

you have some knowledge that leads you to a partial conclusion that you think, therefore you are.
what about the moments between thoughts?

you have some knowledge that leads you to a partial conclusion that the existance of a conscious perceiver is reliant on the brain.
does this mean that you don't have knowledge that would lead to a partial conclusion that (there must be a better alternative to believe and think) a single celled organism is conscious? what about a jellyfish? is there partial conscious existance? where is the line drawn? at what point and how did this consciousness arise? (i only mean for you to answer the first question, and ponder-perhaps even type some speculation on-the questions that follow.)

another thing to ponder might be-what truly seperates living matter from other matter? how did life emerge from non-life? how did non-life emerge from ______? how did ______ emerge from?