The definition of space

[Karl]

How to define concepts. I will post the rules for definitions here when I get time, but this is just to prevent Junko's thread on the Origin of Mankind spreading to a million pages on definitions of space.

 

So, what is the definition of space. Genus and differentia

 

remember that it isn't a description, it isn't the original origin of the word and it shouldn't be defined by other concrete examples (such as space is like a block of wood, bubble of air etc).

[Marblehead]

The distance between two or more separate objects.

[thelerner]

The final frontier,

where I put my stuff.

 

 

addon

If I wanted to be serious, I'd say space is.. no.. space can be described by a 3 dimensional matrix.   It can be accurately, mathematically measured, at least statically.   Math gets a little fuzzier as gravity, time, speed and perspective warp its foundation at the extremes.. 

 

In truth the math, its measurements and formulas don't explain what space is.  Stringy, quarky.. not that it matters at our size and state of awareness.  Mostly we use space to walk around in, and keep our stuff. 

 

Times job is to to keep everything from happening at once.  Perhaps Space happens to keep everything separate.   Perhaps ".. from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.”

Edited May 28, 2016 by thelerner

[ralis]

The distance between two or more separate objects.

 

What if there are no objects? After all, nothing exists anyway.

Edited May 28, 2016 by ralis

[Stosh]

Everything exists, but since there is nothing which doesnt,, its a false distinction.

[ralis]

Everything exists, but since there is nothing which doesnt,, its a false distinction.

 

It is a long standing joke around here.

[Karl]

Can we get back to 'the definition' of space ? So far we have had one attempt. I'm not judging by the way, just wondering what people come up with.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Karl

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Something that spaces out threads and the people who post in them?

[BlackTigerWhiteDragon]

the medium in which you and I find ourselves in

[BlackTigerWhiteDragon]

Distance does not equal space IMO

[silent thunder]

space seems a product of perception

[Michael Sternbach]

There is in fact the idea that if there were no objects, there would be no space.

[Karl]

Don't you all use the term 'space' quite often without ever pointing at the stars, or thinking in terms of some kind of material.

 

Take for instance 'a space to park the car' or sufficient 'space' in the boot/trunk to put luggage. When you get on a aircraft do you ever wish there was more 'space' to stretch out ?

 

In none of those cases are you using the word incorrectly, so how are you using the concept ?

 

There is a tendency towards silo mentality-that one must define the space in terms of its composition- but that's not what we mean by 'space' in every day conversation. We aren't thinking of how space bends, propagates light etc.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

space seems a product of perception

 

Everything is a product of perception so that's a truism.

[Karl]

the medium in which you and I find ourselves in

 

Define 'medium'. Do you mean that which we occupy directly, or what surrounds us ?

[Karl]

Distance between two points is not space. It is, however, something discernible within space.

 

As a matter of practice and immediacy, space is something which is non-empirical. Yet it is a sort of structure wherein empirical things are made sense of or, a subsistent sub-structure wherefrom empirical things are related. I wouldn't say specifically that it is situated in human sensibility or intuition---when we experience it, it is always-already linked with some type of directly empirical (e.g. the stuff of direct experience) or simplified-empirical  structure (like geometric shapes); to this end, it is something that simply is present without an obvious sense of origin.

 

This concept of non-origin and absolute unity is something that I have been considering relative to all of the features explored in Kant's architectonic and a number of issues that appear in philosophy of language. In a somewhat incomplete nutshell, all of the things that we render in concept--such as space, and time--or other more general features of linguistics (like sense and reference) only turn into problems when the complete complementarity of a situation, wherein terms are formed or a distinction discerned, are incompletely re-created in a person's awareness (yet there is some aspect of the situation which is complete and fleshed out but nonetheless outside of a person's awareness). This, however, would be a voluminous and not yet fully explored subject to delve into.

 

That violates the rule of obscurity-which Kant did as a matter of evasion IMO. If you use the word 'space' then presumably you have a purpose in using that word. You surely wouldn't substitute that entire paragraph in place of the word space ? I know you are thinking it through when you are writing it, but you aren't focusing. If you have a concept that is undefined then shouldn't you question its use in your communications ?

[Karl]

Something that spaces out threads and the people who post in them?

 

Broken rule of circularity. No using the word directly or indirectly to define the subject.

[Karl]

The final frontier,

where I put my stuff.

 

 

addon

If I wanted to be serious, I'd say space is.. no.. space can be described by a 3 dimensional matrix.   It can be accurately, mathematically measured, at least statically.   Math gets a little fuzzier as gravity, time, speed and perspective warp its foundation at the extremes.. 

 

In truth the math, its measurements and formulas don't explain what space is.  Stringy, quarky.. not that it matters at our size and state of awareness.  Mostly we use space to walk around in, and keep our stuff. 

 

Times job is to to keep everything from happening at once.  Perhaps Space happens to keep everything separate.   Perhaps ".. from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.”

 

That's trying to describe space. Try and define it. You use the word Often enough and have no issues grasping the concept. When you try to define it you will discover your mind goes walkies and tries to escape. The mind seems to have a real issue staying on track and it's noticeable when trying an exercise like this. Most minds want to goof around and make a joke of it.

[Marblehead]

What if there are no objects? After all, nothing exists anyway.

I could use that in the "Origin of Mankind" thread against Karl.

[Marblehead]

It is a long standing joke around here.

But we all know that my chair exists.

[Marblehead]

There is in fact the idea that if there were no objects, there would be no space.

If there are no objects there is only Absolute Nothingness.  No space.

[Marblehead]

Everything is a product of perception so that's a truism.

That is a strange statement coming from an Objectivist.

[Karl]

That is a strange statement coming from an Objectivist.

 

Depends how you understand it. I'm meaning here that every conception (of which space is one) is directly related to something perceived in reality.

[Stosh]

Depends how you understand it. I'm meaning here that every conception (of which space is one) is directly related to something perceived in reality.

So,,,,, you think space is fake?

[C T]

Perceptions via the sense doors will never provide any accurate understanding of space. 

 

Trying to define it thus is a futile exercise. 

 

At best one might get to accumulate new layers of information which likelier than not will be mere superimpositions on redundant data that swishes around 'in there somewhere' in an assumed mind which has no form, no location and empty of anything save that which it forms ideas and stories about. 

Edited May 28, 2016 by C T