The definition of space

[Karl]

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.

 

How do you relate that to parking space, space between letters, open space of a prairie ?

[Stosh]

So then begin with the genus 'material'

 

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

See this is where your errors are being made, If a thing is unique, then it doesnt fit a category, it is the category. And then youre asking for differential or comparative specifications which your rules do not permit. ex, youd call foul if I said dark was not light. But dark and light are comparative terms. and if I said diamonds are the stones of greatest hardness thats also comparative. If I say diamonds propagate light, and are made of carbon then youre saying its not unique enough. If I describe a shape , it isnt universally true of diamonds that they are all baguette cut.

Get it? Theres no definitions, for space that satisfy your rules, so you struggled over it. No surprise.

Diamonds exist though, provided that you remain in the realm of usefulness to humans, going beyond that scope , theres no differentiation, the universe is tautologically proven. EX the universe is what it is. Going back up the scale, the wife wants a real diamond, not a lump of coal on her ring.

[Stosh]

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' ?

Oh, you want methane ice in your tea?

Again, theres the vernacular and esoteric, admit you know the difference or just gracefully follow along with the usage thats clearly meant rather than try to invent fault to just move along with the context.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Stosh

[RigdzinTrinley]

in Buddhist Philosophy space is talked about from different angles so there is uncomposed space

 

it's definition is: "an absence of obstructive contact"

 

space is all pervading because there is an absence of obstructive contact everywhere, even where solid objects exist, for if there would be no absence of obstructive contact then solid obstructive objects could not exist (they would have no space to be there)

 

here one can not really speak of north east south west up down

 

and there is composed space:

 

when one would move a solid object in order to make space to continue walking on a path f.e.

 

here it makes sense to speak about up and down etc.

Edited May 28, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[Karl]

See this is where your errors are being made, If a thing is unique, then it doesnt fit a category, it is the category. And then youre asking for differential or comparative specifications which your rules do not permit. ex, youd call foul if I said dark was not light. But dark and light are comparative terms. and if I said diamonds are the stones of greatest hardness thats also comparative. If I say diamonds propagate light, and are made of carbon then youre saying its not unique enough. If I describe a shape , it isnt universally true of diamonds that they are all baguette cut.

Get it? Theres no definitions, for space that satisfy your rules, so you struggled over it. No surprise.

Diamonds exist though, provided that you remain in the realm of usefulness to humans, going beyond that scope , theres no differentiation, the universe is tautologically proven. EX the universe is what it is. Going back up the scale, the wife wants a real diamond, not a lump of coal on her ring.

 

Even if it's unique it still has a category Stosh my man. It will fit into the category objects or entities.

 

They aren't my rules, they are our rules, but you don't like rules, you are an anarchistic chaotic. :-) I didn't say you couldn't use comparatives, only that you couldn't just give examples. Hardness is fine if it is enough to determine its uniqueness. I'm not going to be picky about the definition you pick as I previously said. As long as you define it by the rules. I'm just the referee I'm not going to comment on the play.

[Stosh]

Good point Michael, '..'........... drat I was saving that ace.

[Stosh]

Even if it's unique it still has a category Stosh my man. It will fit into the category objects or entities.

 

They aren't my rules, they are our rules, but you don't like rules, you are an anarchistic chaotic. :-) I didn't say you couldn't use comparatives, only that you couldn't just give examples. Hardness is fine if it is enough to determine its uniqueness. I'm not going to be picky about the definition you pick as I previously said. As long as you define it by the rules. I'm just the referee I'm not going to comment on the play.

Oh, come on! Youre playing the prosecuting attourney , which is fine, but if youre the neutral judge,, this is clearly a mistrial.

[Karl]

Oh, you want methane ice in your tea?

Again, theres the vernacular and esoteric, admit you know the difference or just gracefully follow along with the usage thats clearly meant rather than try to invent fault to just move along with the context.

 

LOL that would make an interesting definition. Water is the liquid by which we make a brew. It's definition would be rather narrow though as we use it for a lot more than making tea. It would be guilty of breaking the rule of equivalence by being too narrow.

 

Another more subtle circular reasoning would be Water is the compound with two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. That being the description of water H2o

[Karl]

Oh, come on! Youre playing the prosecuting attourney , which is fine, but if youre the neutral judge,, this is clearly a mistrial.

 

I do my best, even a judge gets it wrong some of the time.

[Karl]

in Buddhist Philosophy space is talked about from different angles so there is uncomposed space

it's definition is: "an absence of obstructive contact"

space is all pervading because there is an absence of obstructive contact everywhere, even where solid objects exist, for if there would be no absence of obstructive contact then solid obstructive objects could not exist (they would have no space to be there)

here one can not really speak of north east south west up down

and there is composed space:

when one would move a solid object in order to make space to continue walking on a path f.e.

here it makes sense to speak about up and down etc.

 

Strictly speaking "an absence of obstructive contact' breaks the rule of negatives, by defining what space isn't and not what is is.

 

Interesting though, I'd not heard that definition.

[dust]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but in my experience Google does a good job of giving definitions.

 

noun

1. a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied

2. the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move

3. an interval of time

5. the freedom to live, think, and develop in a way that suits one

 

verb

1. position (two or more items) at a distance from one another

2. be or become euphoric or unaware of one's surroundings, especially from taking drugs

 

 

It is clearly related to distance and emptiness/vacancy, and in modern English, "to have space" even extends as far as describing the state of being able to live without interference.

 

"I need some space," said I, "to space my things out in my own little space and space out for a short space of time."

 

Thanks Karl for getting me thinking on that -- it is actually a wonderful word..

[Karl]

DB you have restored my faith in my fellow Dao bum :-)

 

I could argue the definitions aren't great, but they are valid.

 

Interesting that time is mentioned as that is another relative. No ones mentioned 'music' which is wholly human activity which moves conception to a concrete perception. All art does that if it's good. Good music and good art can move you spiritually like very little else.

 

 

 

[C T]

DB you have restored my faith in my fellow Dao bum :-) I could argue the definitions aren't great, but they are valid. Interesting that time is mentioned as that is another relative. No ones mentioned 'music' which is wholly human activity which moves conception to a concrete perception. All art does that if it's good. Good music and good art can move you spiritually like very little else.

Depends what art really. It defies logic to say abstract art can be viewed concretely. 

 

And just because some art and some music does not tickle your spiritual bones does not indicate their lack of goodness, does it? 

[RigdzinTrinley]

Strictly speaking "an absence of obstructive contact' breaks the rule of negatives, by defining what space isn't and not what is is.

 

Interesting though, I'd not heard that definition.

 

the definition of a definition is a bit different in buddhist philosophy (indian philosophy?)

 

I was stealing this from C Ts post about teachings that Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche gave on Madhyamika Philosophy

 

"When we talk of definitions, we have to establish what the definition of a ‘definition’ is. Until we can agree upon this, some loopholes could arise, and we do not want any loopholes when we study. Dharmakirti’s definition of a ‘definition’ is that it is free from the three kinds of fault of being too all encompassing, not all-encompassing enough, and not possible."

 

1) too all encompassing (sometimes also called over - pervasive) would be f.e.: the definition of space is "it is an an object of knowledge" well there are infinite other objects of knowledge out there - so this definition of space would be over-pervasive

 

2) not pervasive enough (or not all-encompassing enough) f.e.: hmm more difficult, the definition of space is "it is uncompounded" well it is also all pervading and a mere mental label and some other things - so that definition is not pervasive enough

 

3) not possible is simple, the definition of space is "a human with twelve legs"

[Marblehead]

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.

Yes, I was limited with what I could say because we all know that space really isn't empty.

[dust]

I will have a go at my own definition.

 

space, noun:

A measure of distance, volume, or time, in or during which there is perceived to exist or occur no object, matter, or event.

 

I think 'perceived' is key, along with inclusion of at least these 3 measurements (distance, volume, time). We cannot say that space is something that is nothing, but we can say that it is what we perceive as no-thing. We refer to a perceived absence (though of course in the 'space' between 2 cars there is a lot of 'stuff', the 'space' in which I live is filled with things, and in the 'space' between meals I do a lot of things).

[C T]

Yes, I was limited with what I could say because we all know that space really isn't empty.

But if its not really empty as you say, it cannot rightly be called space because one of the chief attributes of space is its empty-like nature. 

 

Im not implying its wrong to make that assumption based on your reasoning though, just to be clear. However, once it becomes known what it is not empty of, wouldn't it then require a new definition or at the very least the inclusion of some sort of caveat? 

[Marblehead]

But if its not really empty as you say, it cannot rightly be called space because one of the chief attributes of space is its empty-like nature. 

 

Im not implying its wrong to make that assumption based on your reasoning though, just to be clear. However, once it becomes known what it is not empty of, wouldn't it then require a new definition or at the very least the inclusion of some sort of caveat? 

Yeah, I have the same problem when I get into discussions of spirituality.

 

Space and emptiness.  From Earth everything beyond its atmosphere is "out in space".  But we know there are things out there.  Our Moon and Sun are important.

 

I can say "My coffee cup is empty." and if it has nothing observable in it most everyone would agree that it is empty.  However, there is air (gases) in there.  There are even little microbial creatures flying and crawling around in there.

 

This recalls the concept of relativity.  From the unaided visual perspective it is for all intent and purposes empty.  I can put more coffee in it.  But when I do that I am forcing other things out of it because the gravity of the coffee is stronger than all that other stuff that was in the cup before I started pouring coffee into it.

 

True "empty" would require an absolute vacuum or an area we could define as being Absolute Nothingness.

[Michael Sternbach]

How do you relate that to parking space, space between letters, open space of a prairie ?

 

Oh, it's all just gas.

[Marblehead]

**Density is greater for coffee than the air that was previously occupying the space (fluid displacement, y'know)

You go ahead and use the word "density".  I like gravity.  It keep me from flying off into empty space.

[Karl]

I will have a go at my own definition.

 

space, noun:

A measure of distance, volume, or time, in or during which there is perceived to exist or occur no object, matter, or event.

 

I think 'perceived' is key, along with inclusion of at least these 3 measurements (distance, volume, time). We cannot say that space is something that is nothing, but we can say that it is what we perceive as no-thing. We refer to a perceived absence (though of course in the 'space' between 2 cars there is a lot of 'stuff', the 'space' in which I live is filled with things, and in the 'space' between meals I do a lot of things).

 

'Perceived' doesn't need to appear as it is presumed that perception must have occured. Is space a 'measure' of distance ? Or of time or volume ? Aren't these all relational conceptions with their own distinct conceptual measurements based on ratio ? Objects and matter do occur, but because they necessarily define that relationship, so here you have broken the law of circularity-not always an easy one to spot, but you have defined space as itself.

 

Big pat on the back for even attempting it because it really is hard effort. All my springs fell out the first time I tried to unsuccessfully define a sandwich. Took me 4 bloody hours. Shouting at the page 'it's two lumps of bread and a filling, how hard can it be'. Then someone helped 'it's a food' that the genus. Thumps head 'I knew that, I did, I knew that, but why the hell couldn't I think it'.

[Marblehead]

Oh, it's all just gas.

 

Fortunately we can smell most of them (the gases).

[Karl]

Oh, it's all just gas.

 

Then there isn't any space if it's all gas. What you needed was some gas in which to park your car and a drive in the completely space less gas of the prairie. :-)

[Karl]

Fortunately we can smell most of them (the gases).

 

I can't. No sense of smell, nada, nothing which doesn't help if there is a gas/petrol leak or a fire.

[Marblehead]

Then there isn't any space if it's all gas. What you needed was some gas in which to park your car and a drive in the completely space less gas of the prairie. :-)

Ha!  I've got you on that one.  My car is total electric (with solar assist).