The definition of space

[Karl]

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

 

In a sense, yes, space is the human concept of the relation between things. That doesn't mean that sans humanity that relationships don't exist between things, but space is our word for how we relate to these things.

 

It's the same for time and distance. A length of wood is just that, it has no measurable relationship with gas or water. We gather things in categories which we compare against each other and ourselves.

 

You are thinking of space as an object, some kind of material, but this is an error, it is purely the relational concept and all concepts are human.

 

 

[Stosh]

liklier than not, doesnt indicate certainty that there is no benefit to the additional information. This requires a subjective statistical assessment which one doest actually have the data to quantify.

[Karl]

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. 

 

They will provide an accurate perception of reality-as things as they are. Space is a human concept and is totally understood even if people struggle to define it. The problem is that they don't define it and then they get to using it to mean all sorts of other things which ends up confusing their conceptual integrations and thus corrupts knowledge.

 

 

[C T]

You are thinking of space as an object, some kind of material, but this is an error, it is purely the relational concept and all concepts are human.

Precisely. 

 

Space is indefinable & unquantifiable and therefore can never be expressed within the limitations of the sense doors. 

 

This does not mean it cannot be felt though. Here again there is the potential for error since the urge to put names to feelings is often over-poweringly strong. 

[C T]

They will provide an accurate perception of reality-as things as they are. Space is a human concept and is totally understood even if people struggle to define it. The problem is that they don't define it and then they get to using it to mean all sorts of other things which ends up confusing their conceptual integrations and thus corrupts knowledge.

'They' as in the sense doors? None of the senses can be used as a dependable instrument, or collectively as instruments, of gauging what reality is. If they were, it'd be the end of delusion, confusion and neurosis. 

Edited May 28, 2016 by C T

[Stosh]

In a sense, yes, space is the human concept of the relation between things. That doesn't mean that sans humanity that relationships don't exist between things, but space is our word for how we relate to these things.

 

It's the same for time and distance. A length of wood is just that, it has no measurable relationship with gas or water. We gather things in categories which we compare against each other and ourselves.

 

You are thinking of space as an object, some kind of material, but this is an error, it is purely the relational concept and all concepts are human.

Ah, I see your orientation. But to me it seems a straw man argument.The various responses indicate that though some consider it in relational terms between objects, like Mh did, but that doesnt mean others , or Mh, couldnt also describe it intrinsically as well.

PS, yes it is a material.

[Stosh]

They will provide an accurate perception of reality-as things as they are. Space is a human concept and is totally understood even if people struggle to define it. The problem is that they don't define it and then they get to using it to mean all sorts of other things which ends up confusing their conceptual integrations and thus corrupts knowledge.

I havent yet seen anyone struggling.

[Karl]

liklier than not, doesnt indicate certainty that there is no benefit to the additional information. This requires a subjective statistical assessment which one doest actually have the data to quantify.

 

Define 'space' as you use the word in all the ways you use the word. You can then divvy up the other things you know about what constitutes about objects.

 

I'm not a scientist, I've long given in trying to understand complex scientific theories and proofs, but what I do understand as clearly as newly washed glass is conceptual relationships and man.

 

You are saying a rope is a snake, not because your perception is erroneous, but because you have failed to define rope and snake. Sure you can make an error and percieve the snake as rope, but that isn't the error you are making here. Your error is conceptual only, so you don't have to keep wondering what space is because you, Stosh can define it for all time for the Stosh cognitive mechanism. You are deliberately using a word that you don't have a clear understanding for. You are groping for a definition by chucking everything plus the kitchen sink at it. That's just bloody lazy thinking. It's fine if you are ignorant of your ignorance, but when it's spotlighted and you still insist on kicking up a pile of dust, then that's down right evasion. It means you don't want to dispel your ignorance because it suits you not to.

 

Remember I'm not defining it, that's your task entirely for you, I'm not marking your work I'm only pointing out that you are generally not doing any work. When you define it, then you will define it for you, it will be a beautifully polished thing, a work that you will feel immensely proud of achieving. Once you do it once then you will want to do it over and over to all the other concepts that are half formed.

 

You aren't alone, I did the same for 54 years ! When I cracked my first definition it took me over 2 days of grinding thought. I looked on the work and said 'that's good' .

 

 

 

[Karl]

Precisely. 

 

Space is indefinable & unquantifiable and therefore can never be expressed within the limitations of the sense doors. 

 

This does not mean it cannot be felt though. Here again there is the potential for error since the urge to put names to feelings is often over-poweringly strong. 

 

It's totally definable, just define it, we made it, we should make it properly and know how to use it like any good workman looks after his tools.

 

It is also quantifiable we can measure it. We can produce equations to measure it. All these things are of course human concepts, but that still means they relate directly to the real world that we perceive. We can test that relevance and see that it does infact stand up.

[Stosh]

Yes I am happy with my polished definition. But I am not making any mistakes, other than to provide my definition to people who have their own nice shiny and well worn definitions. PS I was addressing the cold shower CT was introducing.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Ah, I see your orientation. But to me it seems a straw man argument.The various responses indicate that though some consider it in relational terms between objects, like Mh did, but that doesnt mean others , or Mh, couldnt also describe it intrinsically as well.

PS, yes it is a material.

 

Do you use it materially ? When you say is there a space for me in the car then what precisely do you mean. Are you asking if there is some material in the car for you ? Should I take it that when you say space, that you envisage some material like treacle or iron ?

[Karl]

'They' as in the sense doors? None of the senses can be used as a dependable instrument, or collectively as instruments, of gauging what reality is. If they were, it'd be the end of delusion, confusion and neurosis. 

 

And hence you rule yourself out of any further discussion. What you are saying is reality can't be known, but as you are basing your argument on solid reality you have trodden on your own carefully placed land mine and blown yourself up. You are using a stolen concept. The concept on which you are relying to 'prove' your argument is the one you are seeking to destroy.

[Karl]

I havent yet seen anyone struggling.

 

Oh I have a ring side seat.

[Stosh]

Do you use it materially ? When you say is there a space for me in the car then what precisely do you mean. Are you asking if there is some material in the car for you ? Should I take it that when you say space, that you envisage some material like treacle or iron ?

I already described what I thought was self evident, that I or you can choose between vernacular usages and more esoteric. Vernacularly , space is a region where things are not at.

[Stosh]

Oh I have a ring side seat.

You are imagining this struggle. Doesnt each reply seem certain and comfortably secure? Youre asking for a directed verdict, but the jurors have each rendered verdict.

[Karl]

Yes I am happy with my polished definition. But I am not making any mistakes, other than to provide my definition to people who have their own nice shiny and well worn definitions. PS I was addressing the cold shower CT was introducing.

 

You haven't got one. When we have our definitions then we communicate. It's no good if you realise that the definition you are using is not a clear one. As long as it's clear then you can write it hear as a definition in accordance with rules for definitions-which of course you deny are required on no basis what so ever and then you end up in CTs camp of denying reality.

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

I already described what I thought was self evident, that I or you can choose between vernacular usages and more esoteric. Vernacularly , space is a region where things are not at.

 

Stated positively and without breaking the rule of circularity

 

Where things aren't IS space isn't it ? You said at first that it was a material, now you are saying its minus any material.

 

You are saying that space is a region ?

[Stosh]

You haven't got one. When we have our definitions then we communicate. It's no good if you realise that the definition you are using is not a clear one. As long as it's clear then you can write it hear as a definition in accordance with rules for definitions-which of course you deny are required on no basis what so ever and then you end up in CTs camp of denying reality.

CT understands well enough that you mean by space, otherwise he couldnt have any opinions about its definition... or lack of clarity . Who handed these troublesome rules to you? They are making you see confusion when there is none.

[Stosh]

Stated positively and without breaking the rule of circularity

 

Where things aren't IS space isn't it ? You said at first that it was a material, now you are saying its minus any material.

 

You are saying that space is a region ?

No, its still a material, I was demonstrating that I am capable of vernacular use of the term.

[Karl]

You are imagining this struggle. Doesnt each reply seem certain and comfortably secure? Youre asking for a directed verdict, but the jurors have each rendered verdict.

 

It looks to me like you don't want to do it. I don't know why you are wasting your time trying. I'm not judging your definition, I'm judging the following of logical rules to form that definition and that's all. I'm completely objective in that regard. Did you or did you not follow the rules, if you did then it's a valid definition.

 

[Karl]

CT understands well enough that you mean by space, otherwise he couldnt have any opinions about its definition... or lack of clarity . Who handed these troublesome rules to you? They are making you see confusion when there is none.

 

Stosh dude, dont you have internal rules that you follow ? Like not getting on a train before it stops, or drinking bleach ? Where did these rules originate ? How do you know these things ?

 

In maths aren't there specific rules for solving equations and performing sequential functions ? Do you just ignore them ?

 

The rules are specifically defined by logic in order that the definition is sound. It's not as easy as mathematical operations, but it works in a similar way.

[Karl]

No, its still a material, I was demonstrating that I am capable of vernacular use of the term.

 

So then begin with the genus 'material'

 

Space is the material..........

 

 

[Stosh]

The way you are applying these rules is bogus. Many terms are defined relatively. In out hot cold up down rightly . If you asked me the definition of diamonds, the answer could be chemical, or comparative. I said space is a material. then I added the comparative , for clarity, that irregularities are stuff that gets called things , stuff , material. Just as I might say ice , is water ,cold enough not to be liquid.

[Michael Sternbach]

On the one hand, space is a perception. Our most direct experience of space concerns the space taken up by our own body. Interestingly, in German there is a word for the body as a subjective perception ("Leib") as opposed to the body as an object ("Körper").

 

"Objective space" is the subject (pun not entirely unintended) of physics. Traditonally, it was filled with an intangible substance called aether. Nowadays, the aether is actually still in vogue, the scientists just renamed it and call it vacuum energy now.

 

What if the aether (quantum vacuum, what have you) is not in space, but identically is space? Ponder on the difference. Could space be something like an all-pervasive gas?

 

And just to blow your mind a little more yet, it could be that there is space within space, or, in other words, that space has multiple layers.

[Karl]

The way you are applying these rules is bogus. Many terms are defined relatively. In out hot cold up down rightly . If you asked me the definition of diamonds, the answer could be chemical, or comparative. I said space is a material. then I added the comparative , for clarity, that irregularities are stuff that gets called things , stuff , material. Just as I might say ice , is water ,cold enough not to be liquid.

Define diamond then, at least we can get started. Define it in truck driver terms so a thickly like me can understand what exactly a diamond is. Just pretend I don't know what one is. I saw one and it looked to me like a piece of glass, or quartzite. Then you say it's a diamond and ask you to define what it is and how it differs from glass or Quartz, or ruby, or Zirconium. What defines it in the neatest terms.

 

Is all ice, water ? Don't other ices exist like carbon dioxide 'dry ice' ?

Edited May 28, 2016 by Karl