The definition of space

[Marblehead]

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

 

Yes, that would be a problem in certain conditions.

[RigdzinTrinley]

space is that which allows obstructive contact to take place

[Karl]

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? 

 

It is viewed concretely, how else could you view it. We can't view it as the pure abstraction. Some music does and some doesn't. I was talking of my personal experience with music I like and not a blanket 'good/bad'

[Karl]

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

 

Not gas 'in' the car :-) substituting gas for space.

[Karl]

space is that which allows obstructive contact to take place

 

Thats true, but is it a good definition ? It is certainly a definition.

[RigdzinTrinley]

Thats true, but is it a good definition ? It is certainly a definition.

 

I don't bloody know

[Marblehead]

Not gas 'in' the car :-) substituting gas for space.

Actually the batteries take up more space than the gas would but that's beside the point.

[Karl]

The rule of obscurity isn't an actual rule outside of Rand's lexicon. In practicality, it would be better to say that the problem is that in common parlance, "space" is understood in the sense of between-ness rather than in the sense of containment. Likewise, containment itself is a distortion of what Kant meant so that it could be more easily related to.

 

The Kantian re-adjustment was simply an attempt to conceive of space in a self-consistent way; approaching it, at first, as a singular object but reasoning through its natural properties until it was apparent that it could only work consistently as a principle (or "transcendental" feature of our sensibility).

 

Space, in general, functions in a way similar to the term "substance" and, both being oft considered in exclusively metaphysical terms, a run-down of attributes of this object is given before its analysis in language. However, since I am somewhat Wittgensteinian, we can see that the terms (in use) have a number of meanings. Therefore, it makes sense to say that these terms (as objects) have turned into objects as an artifact of discourse.

 

Substance, in this case, tends to be any unseen thing which somehow relates to a given direct object that we are dealing with (or an indirect object that we have somehow called to mind). Space, in a way similar to substance, is an unseen thing which relates to the extensive/immediately-physical aspect of what we are dealing with.

 

I am still not entirely sure that "obscurity" can be used for Kant's discussion. For the most part, he gives a linguistic/conceptual analysis and then moves to say that (since it is a non-physical thing that we use to relate physical things), it is likely only present in our sensibility. That it is a feature of human sensibility is a prima facie truth.

 

The thing is, it is difficult to actually speak about Kant's conception of space to a non-kantian because there is a tendency to treat space as an actual object because, in language, it is a noun. The non-physicality of the noun, though, is where Kant proceeds in a highly specific manner. So, to deviate from his terms would probably mis-represent what he meant. But, if you are interested, the transcendental exposition of the concept of space (from the transcendental doctrine of elements, in the critique of pure reason on page 63 of my edition) explains it at length.

 

Addition:

The main difference between Kant and Rand is that Kant paid close attention to the direct experience of mind and itemized the different things that could be experienced in the mind. Rand, more or less, tended to fall back to the semi-scholastic tendency to describe things from the outside in and her descriptions were more behaviorist-ic in how they work.

 

In this way, they can work together but are at odds if one approach is exclusively advocated. Kant focused on the stable things that are present no matter what we do even if we ceased to have any obviously human features. Rand made a philosophy that approached a human from the outside-in and described its survival (qua a dramaturgical mode of self-presentation) as a core value. To this end, Kant had a philosophy that explored (in detail) the canvas  of knowledge and experience; Rand spent more time in a small set of relevant illustrations that can appear on the canvas.

 

I have difficulty understanding your argument. You are actually quite obscure in the Kantian tradition.

 

Kant threw out reason.Then he went round and round the houses trying to avoid saying that this was the intention. He did not 'critique' reason. Instead he attempted to invalidate it through obscurity-bullshit baffles brains. I'm not unfamiliar with that technique as its used a lot in hypnotic script. However, as Kant had to base his theory on reason in order to provide proof, then I can simply take his work and burn it. His entire philosophy collapses because he is forced to use reason to validate what he is saying and then he uses obscurity to hide the blatent falsity of relying on something which he was attempting to deny.

 

As soon as we say 'proof' we have to have concrete reality. If we can't know reality we cannot provide proof.

 

[Karl]

I don't bloody know

 

That's a fair comment.

 

I was thinking that your definition said 'space is the thing that allows things to move around and bump into each other'

 

I'm quite liking it.

[C T]

As soon as we say 'proof' we have to have concrete reality. If we can't know reality we cannot provide proof.

Even the term 'concrete reality' is far from accurate as a definitive term because of the inherent quality and/or potential of flux in all phenomenon. It would be easier to proof that things, both form and formless, are always changing and ex-changing than to proof their fixated values which determine the length of time they remain unchanging. 

Edited May 28, 2016 by C T

[mindtooloud]

                     <--- that is space, i put 21 of them

Edited May 28, 2016 by mindtooloud

[mindtooloud]

no  but really space to me is everything but myself

[dust]

'Perceived' doesn't need to appear as it is presumed that perception must have occured.

 

But without it, my definition would have said "A measure of distance (etc) in which there is no object (etc)." But in our normal use of the term, we cannot claim that there is no thing, only that we do not perceive or think of it...

 

 

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.

 

Ehm.. well... perhaps replace 'measure' with 'perception'?

 

[Karl]

Even the term 'concrete reality' is far from accurate as a definitive term because of the inherent quality and/or potential of flux in all phenomenon. It would be easier to proof that things, both form and formless, are always changing and ex-changing than to proof their fixated values which determine the length of time they remain unchanging. 

 

That's a sophist view. It doesn't matter if it's changing, that's what you see and it's real.

[Karl]

But without it, my definition would have said "A measure of distance (etc) in which there is no object (etc)." But in our normal use of the term, we cannot claim that there is no thing, only that we do not perceive or think of it...

 

 

 

 

Ehm.. well... perhaps replace 'measure' with 'perception'?

 

 

Or 'the measure of distance between objects'

 

Yes, the perception/measure seems valid to query.

 

Anyone think Its becoming clear that 'space' is hard to define because it is really just a specific spacial relationship between specific objects.

 

I do like the Buddhist version and can't argue against it.

[dust]

Anyone think Its becoming clear that 'space' is hard to define because it is really just a specific spacial relationship between specific objects. I do like the Buddhist version and can't argue against it.

 

Are there specific objects..?

 

Or, perhaps I should ask -- to be less controversial -- "What if we talk about space without reference to specific objects?" Can't we do that?

 

Yes, I like the Buddhist definitions too. I only wanted to leave others to speak on that, as I wasn't sure I'd do it justice.

[C T]

That's a sophist view. It doesn't matter if it's changing, that's what you see and it's real.

If you are going to persist with the argument that it does not matter if change is inherent, then your level of objectivity and die-hard notions of concrete reality would be called into question. 

 

What I see is simply the seen, which is neither real nor an illusion. Its like seeing a mirage, or a making up stories as i read a novel. 

 

What determining factor do you use to say that what you see is in fact 'real'? 

[Karl]

Are there specific objects..?

 

Or, perhaps I should ask -- to be less controversial -- "What if we talk about space without reference to specific objects?" Can't we do that?

 

Yes, I like the Buddhist definitions too. I only wanted to leave others to speak on that, as I wasn't sure I'd do it justice.

 

The point is we are the ones choosing them. If you park a car, the space required is for the enclosing envelope of the car and other objects objects which could interfere with parking. If we are looking to measure the space between two molecules then we have chosen a different set of specifics.

 

We point to the sky and say space because of the specific objects of our bodies in relation to a whole range of solid bodies planets, stars, moons. The relationship is defined by our relationship in terms of our own size. If we were buried alive in a coffin things would change- now the space exists but the specific object is the coffin casing.

[Karl]

If you are going to persist with the argument that it does not matter if change is inherent, then your level of objectivity and die-hard notions of concrete reality would be called into question.

 

What I see is simply the seen, which is neither real nor an illusion. Its like seeing a mirage, or a making up stories as i read a novel.

 

What determining factor do you use to say that what you see is in fact 'real'?

I explain that whole thing in O101, that proof Isnt really possible in a single sentence CT, it has to built from the fundamental axioms. That is one of the reasons I've been doing it, as it saves having to repeat an incomplete proof which, will be quite rightly challenged.

 

What you describe is perception. That's an automatic integration. It's easier perhaps to explain why your understanding is flawed if you compare the cognitive function of an animal vs man.

 

An animal has no conceptual facility so it percieves ONLY what it's senses perceive. It reacts in an automatic way. If it sees prey, or a predator its sees only that and recognises it. It can't conceive of classes of predators and predators beyond its immediate world view. Where we differ is that we must conceptualise in order to survive and it isn't an automatic process. This faculty allows you to conceptualise objects and you can conceptualise the object in a state of causal change and as a non solid mass of spinning energies. The problem is that you have to relate the conceptual back to the concrete. It's impossible to put your hand through the space that you conceptualise in the object, and though you may conceptualise the ever changing nature of a nut and bolt, the reality is that if you wish to use them to couple two pieces of metal you must accept the reality which exists as it is perceived.

 

All proofs are therefore directly related to the concrete reality as it is perceived. Just by asking me to provide proof you have to engage with existent reality. We can't prove anything beyond what we can see, it must relate directly to reality.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Karl

[BlackTigerWhiteDragon]

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

YES

[Marblehead]

YES

Great answer.

[silent thunder]

so I posed the question to my son...

 

his answer.

"I don't know it well enough to give a reasonable explanation"

[Bud Jetsun]

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.

 

Reality to the limit of a humans ability to 'know' it remains some collection of inherently subjective interpretations of sensory phenomena.

 

CTs camp is not denying reality, but rather the human constructed delusions of knowing it to instead embrace what IS.

 

Entanglement has been demonstrated now with particles as large diamond chips, C60-C70 molecules and more. It's been proven over intergalactic 'distances' with light. The implications would mean no relativism in space-time or no space-time ('space' in physics can't occur with its 4th dimensional and gravitational components to define it).

 

If one wishes to be a concrete evidence based materialist, then either space-time construct conclude along with the products defined by it like rates and all relativistic properties, or one accepts the perception of observational evidence to be a property of a Oneness appearing to be multiple things due to the limitations of the sensory perception.

 

If one examines the 'concrete' closely enough, one finds its 99.999999% empty space between atomic particles that have an exclusively indeterminate location and momentum only given deterministic arising through the choice of the perceivers method of observing and hence breaking the indeterminate probabilistic state. When one looks beyond these probabilistic atomic particles to sub-atomic particles the fraction of particles to emptyness is once again a tremendous percent emptyness, not as well defined due to measurement limitations but on a similar order of 99.999999% vacancy.

 

This same trend of 99.9999999% vacancy is seen again moving upwards in observation from atoms to planets in the solar system, from solar systems being 99.999999% empty, and composing galaxies from star clusters which are 99.9999999% emptyness and super clusters of galaxies that again share another ratio of emptyness in the 99.9999999% range.

 

The limits of current human perception looking smaller or larger both arrive at some energy gradient which vanishes to approaching the perception limited threshold of measurable emptyness in either direction. The aspects of which we call not-emptyness are artifacts of perception. Through quantum entanglement the space-time illusion collapses into non-relativistic Oneness.

 

That's not some metaphysical dogma, that's if you want to claim to be a concrete empirical evidence based objective realist examining the physics of nature.

 

It's easy to say your chair holds up your ass, but the reality is humans lack even a mechanism to know if they are only dreaming, or dreaming of dreaming etc. When the physics is examined there is an empty Oneness and what humans may choose to believe beyond this is some optional self-constructed delusion set.

 

Space (or space-time as they are inseparable) is a human construct for some state of subjective perception limition induced confusion.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Karl]

It isn't 'subjective interpretations'. Once you have admitted that's what you believe, then you have revoked your right to continue the argument. In fact you have made it plain there is no proof, because reality is subjective and if that is true, then you should question why you need to continue trying to make an argument in the light of you believing everything to be subjective.

 

You are using reason and reality in order to prove there is no reason and reality.

 

The 3 questions all men must ask is: where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ?

 

All you are doing is to evade those questions Bud. Yet the fact that you continue to try and argue proves that you don't really believe what you are saying, you just prefer it to be true. You wish it to be true, because it frees you from facing the truth. You can live in your fuzzy little world of make believe, you can squeeze your eyes shut and block you ears, but the tiger is still going to eat you.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Karl

[Bud Jetsun]

The 3 questions all men must ask is: where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ?

 

1.  Oneness precludes 'where' constructs.  All is inseparable from All or it wouldn't be All. 

 

2.  The moment an aspect of 'knowing' becomes expressible it's no longer the known thing and instead replaced by some human constructed confusion that inherently can not mean the same thing to another being. 

 

If a human-constructed-logic-game proof of Oneness is desired, tell me an aspect of reality you know which exists beyond the scope of awareness in your reality.  Inherent Oneness from the confines the individuals perceived awareness.  

 

3. Forgive self completely to sever from all self-imposed burdens. Love self. Forgive all beings unconditionally for all things that may have arisen or be yet to arise. Love all others.  Align one's behavior with ones words with ones thoughts and enjoy this one fleeting moment unbreakably. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Edited May 30, 2016 by Bud Jetsun