What? Show you that height, width and depth exist without referring to height, width and depth. Wow
Ok. Walk 10 metres ahead, turn right and walk 10 metres. Clime a ladder to 10 metres off the floor. You have just moved in a space 1000 cubic metres.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Universe from Nothing?
- Thread starter Tomorrows_Child
- Start date
What? Show you that height, width and depth exist without referring to height, width and depth. Wow
Ok. Walk 10 metres ahead, turn right and walk 10 metres. Clime a ladder to 10 metres off the floor. You have just moved in a space 1000 cubic metres.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Excuse me. You said 'space is those dimensions'. If that is the case, then show me where 'those dimensions' exist in space. Show me the location without referring to a construct of any kind that is a signpost for the 'location'.
'10 metres ahead' is a reference not to any dimension that already exists in space, but to a marker that is a mental construct.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
True, but we understand that distance and time always extend on beyond our finite measurements. It is only later we begin to deal with just how far beyond our longest measurements does distance and time extend that we come to deal with the concept of infinity and eternity. My dictionary describes 'abstraction' in one of its meanings..."The act of withdrawing or removing something"...which in that sense is an extraction.
I discovered the concept of eternity (infinity is just a number, eternity is the all) through pantheistic realization, so I didn't have to go very far.
(Re abstractions, I tend to put them on a pedestal. Don't mind me.)
Just told you, if you refuse to accept basic fact, that's not my problem. 10 metres ahead is a movement in that direction and you did say, not to mention dimensions, i didn't. Pity you get so upset when your finely crafted plans are shown for what they are.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I discovered the concept of eternity (infinity is just a number, eternity is the all) through pantheistic realization, so I didn't have to go very far.
Infinity is not a number per se even though it is sometimes used in mathematical equations, and "infinity" is pretty much the same as "eternity" if one projects if forward in time. If I say that "A multiverse may well go on into infinity", then I am also saying that it may go on into "eternity".
godnotgod
Thou art That
I am not upset in the least; I just don't accept what you're saying because you are making a mistake. I am not the one crafting plans; to superimpose the values of length, width, and height onto lengthless, widthless, and heightless space is to craft a plan, no?
Actually, '10 metres ahead' is not a 'movement in that direction'; it is a measurement of the distance of the movement, but the moment you say '10 metres ahead' you have already mentioned dimension, haven't you? Because in order for someone else to know what you are referring to, he must then superimpose some sort of measuring device somewhere in space in order to get some bearings. But the reference for '10 metres ahead' is the measuring device along with some already existing point, not something that already exists inherently within space itself, as you had said, ie: 'space is those dimensions'. Where do those dimensions inherently exist as ('in'?) space without applying a measuring device born of mental construct?
Do you see the simple error in logic you are making yet? Willamena is making the same error.
Put simply, and as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi used to say:
"The description is not the described"
...or is he mistaken, and the description is, in fact, the described? Or, if you don't get that, then:
'First, there is a mountain;
then, there is no mountain;
then, there is.'
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Wouldn't 'infinity' be an indication of immeasurable distance (distancelessness?), while 'eternity' an indication of timelessness?
Is the answer no?
I'm going to say no.
Which dimension does "10 metres ahead" refer to?
I actually think the error in logic was by yours truly, not the person you are quoting.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I discovered the concept of eternity (infinity is just a number, eternity is the all) through pantheistic realization, so I didn't have to go very far.
(Re abstractions, I tend to put them on a pedestal. Don't mind me.)
Eternity can be a concept if you hold it as a thought; an idea, of something that may exist in Reality. But when you actually experience eternity first-hand, in this eternal Present Moment, the concept pales in comparison.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
True from the perspective of the discriminating mind, but the qualities of eternalness and infinity refer to a oneness. The 'immeasurable distance' you refer is forever so, eternal. Infinity can't be circumscribed by any limitations of space or time.
godnotgod
Thou art That
OK. Let's take a look, shall we?
If you are an astronaut, floating in space, with nothing in sight as reference, and you say: 'I have travelled 10 metres ahead', that can be up, down, or forward horizontally, correct? Now if you did have some other point of reference, say the spaceship right next to you, and it's nose is pointing in the same direction as your head, then you might be able to say that '10 metres ahead' is the dimension of depth, height being the vertical dimension with reference to the spaceship and your head, and width being the horizontal dimension left to right. But if you have no reference, only your body, then '10 metres ahead' could be height, width, or depth, but most likely would be depth, which would be looking straight ahead. But 'straight ahead' can be up, down, or forward.
ChristineM said that 'space is those dimensions', which I assume means height, width, and depth. '10 metres ahead' must refer to one of them, but she did not say which. Doesn't matter, since all are dimensions. All I am asking, then, in reference to her statement, is 'where, then, does '10 metres' exist inherently in space without referring to the device used to determine those values ie; '10 metres'? If I say: 'from here to there is about 10 metres, I am not referring to what exists perse as 'here to there' being '10 metres', but to the device used to determine the value '10 metres'.
If I am incorrect here, kindly point out the error in logic I am making.
Thank you very much.
EDIT: Part of the problem here is the subject/object split, where one has the idea in mind of 'this' over here, (subject 'I') traveling to 'that' (object destination) from Point A to Point B. When the subject/object split is dissolved, 'this' and 'that' merge as one.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
True, if you are living within the experience of eternity, infinity is also part of that experience. One might say: I am experiencing immeasurable eternity. (Sat-Chit-Ananda?)
Actually: Ahead implies it can only be forward in relation to your current facing. I.E you have no dimension. And your direction is relative to your current facing. There is no dimension involved in a statement like that: Which makes it a poor way to navigate.
You asked her not to mention dimensions. She didn't. You are still arguing about this somehow. This is all my post is about.
You most definitely cannot say that "10 metres ahead" is the dimension of depth: For that you must know the target. But "10 metres ahead" does not mention any target: It merely implies going forward from your current position and facing.
Again, a poor way to navigate.
Firstly, depth requires at least two objects in relation to each other. "10 metres ahead" doesn't give you a second object. Therefore, it automatically disqualifies depth. Second, "up, down" and even "forward" are relative. What if you are lying on your belly on the floor, looking down, and were to go "forward?" How would you even decide what's forward in that instance? What of outer space? What is up and down there?
Space / spacetime and dimensions are all concepts of physics. And in that context, she is right.
And you have to understand that space and time themselves are relative. And observer dependent.
Space is dimensions. Including time as the fourth.
It doesn't refer to any of them, but it will result in you moving in some dimensions, relatively speaking, relative to your current facing. But you ONLY asked her to not use the terms.
It matters in the way that it's not actually referring to any dimension, which, again, makes it a poor way to navigate in space.
Are you now forbidding the use of the term "10 metres?"
Not an entirely fair argument if the other side has to honor your increasing conditions.
So, when you say "from here to there is about 10 metres" you are actually meaning "ruler?" You can't entirely blame other people for not understanding what you're trying to say when you're being this cryptic.
You either determine the value "10 metres" by using a ruler, or by making a guess. In which case, again, a poor way to navigate.
Also worth noting: She didn't say "from here to there." She essentially said: "from here..."
No, thank you. This has been too easy.
If you want it simplified: The major problem with your logic is that it assumes a lot of extra data that wasn't inherent in the original claim you are trying to argue. No dimensions were given. No additional objects were given to be used as target. Only this information is known from Chrstine's comment: Going ahead from your current relative position and facing. And you only have yourself as reference point. That's it. Anything else you assume, is extra and shouldn't be part of your logic.
You simply assume a lot. Almost all your points are assumptions that weren't included in the claim you are actually arguing. I suspect it's a distraction attempt, and a form of moving the goal posts. Additional claims, additional conditions and voila, your argument can now resume. But only then.
You expect to win arguments by putting conditions on your opponents. By my count, it means you already lost before you started.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
However, without turning or moving your body, and simply looking sideways or up, and then proceeding to move in the direction you are looking, you are, in fact, moving 'ahead', and in this case, 'ahead' can be height, width, or depth.
According to yours and ChristineM's logic, dimension is an inherent part of space; therefore, there cannot be a condition of 'no dimension'.
Pay attention: she said: '10 metres ahead'; 10 metres is one of the dimensions of height, width, or depth.
You're not paying attention. I said:
"if you did have some other point of reference, say the spaceship right next to you, and it's nose is pointing in the same direction as your head, then you might be able to say that '10 metres ahead' is the dimension of depth...", the target in this case would be the point at which one arrives at after a distance of 10 metres is traveled from where you begin Point A to where you stop Point B.
C'mon, now. Use your head:
'10 metres ahead' already establishes the target, which is the point at which one ends the travel to 10 metres, Point B. '10 metres ahead' refers to the direction from which one is looking, or a bodily reference, such as one's chest. It's a mental formulation of what constitutes 'ahead', but '10 metres' is a reference to the measuring device used to measure the distance from A to B.
If you are referring to being right as regards her statement: 'space is those dimensions', then she is wrong, because, and even you just said it,
"Space / spacetime and dimensions are all concepts of physics"
IOW, they are models of reality, and not the actual reality, as she implies, when she says that 'space is those dimensions'. It's not. Space is dimensionless (you said so yourself), and as such, cannot be pinpointed or contained, just as consciousness cannot be pinpointed or contained. What makes it seem to have dimensions inherently, is the superimposition of concepts such as 'space-time' over reality, which we then mistake for the actual reality.
My, my...you're still not paying attention.
I said, and I refer to my immediate response to her statement that 'space is those dimensions':
"Show me where they [ie 'dimensions'] exist, without first referring to constructs called 'height, width, and depth'."
'10 metres' is a construct that can be height, width or depth. Show me where '10 metres' exists, either as height, width, or depth, within space as an inherent quality. Without the measuring device that determines '10 metres', there are no dimensions. IOW, it's all about the construct turned into a measuring device, and then superimposed over reality.
It does not matter in terms of the claim that 'space is those dimensions', which is just another way of saying that height, width, and depth are an inherent part of space. They aren't. They're just concepts.
OMG! She used '10 metres' as an example of a dimension, whether it be height, width, or depth is unimportant. I don't care what value she is giving it; all I am saying is that '10 metres', or '10 kilometers' do not exist as inherent dimensions of space.
That it is a poor way to navigate is not the point.
To actually measure how far one has traveled after the fact, which turns out to be 10 metres, or whether one makes a guess that one is about to travel '10 metres ahead', both refer to the MEASURING DEVICE one uses to determine those values. The mental guess without the actual measuring device is an approximation based upon one's memory of the device and how it is applied to what is in space, in this case, from A to B, or even a mental idea of what 10 metres constitutes.
Yes,because you are making a mistake in logic, which is to mistake the description of reality for reality itself.
gnostic
The Lost One
In another word, it isn't real.
And the operative word is "may", is indication of uncertainty of what could be probable and what could be improbable.
And that is just pure sophistry, not reality.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
She has already complicated things by making the claim that 'space is those dimensions'. What I am doing is to simplify everything by saying that space is dimensionless*. She is the one adding something to space that is not there. You want to defend her position, which is OK by me, but now that you have done so, I have to ask you the same question:
Show me where these dimensions inherently exist as part of space without referring to the device used to arrive at those values called 'height, width, and depth'.
Height, width, and depth are mental formations called CONCEPTS. SpaceTime is a CONCEPT of the Theory of Relativity as applied to the Big Bang.
I am not trying to win anything. I am simply asking a question about a concept we assume is real, but which I question. But all I am getting are regurgitations of what you and others have been taught as fact.
*In fact, I am ultimately saying that Space, Time, and Causation are illusions.
godnotgod
Thou art That
No, it IS real, but only if you have experienced it first-hand. Until you do, and if you entertain ideas about what it is, it is not reality for you, but is Reality nonetheless. It is your ideas about it that are not real.
Imagine if you will, a bird born in captivity, never having flown. It may even see other birds flying, but until it has the experience of flight, it will never know what the freedom of flight is. Having said that, when we experience eternity, we will remember that we have never not been in it all along. It's just that our ideas about what reality is have gotten in the way, and have actually replaced reality with those ideas. And so many of us live in a fictionalized existence.
When I say that it may exist in reality, what I am doing is to suggest to you that you go see for yourself the Reality of eternity. Drop all your baggage, your knowledge, your concepts about what you think to be reality, and just go see, simply, without a single thought about it in your mind. Don't worry, your baggage will still be right where you left it, but
you may not want it back after you get 'a taste of the Infinite'.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That depends on the context. "Infinity" directly relates to the word "unending", which could relate to time, distance, etc.
gnostic
The Lost One
Excuse me, godnotgod.No, it IS real, but only if you have experienced it first-hand. Until you do, and if you entertain ideas about what it is, it is not reality for you, but is Reality nonetheless. It is your ideas about it that are not real.
Imagine if you will, a bird born in captivity, never having flown. It may even see other birds flying, but until it has the experience of flight, it will never know what the freedom of flight is. Having said that, when we experience eternity, we will remember that we have never not been in it all along. It's just that our ideas about what reality is have gotten in the way, and have actually replaced reality with those ideas. And so many of us live in a fictionalized existence.
When I say that it may exist in reality, what I am doing is to suggest to you that you go see for yourself the Reality of eternity. Drop all your baggage, your knowledge, your concepts about what you think to be reality, and just go see, simply, without a single thought about it in your mind. Don't worry, your baggage will still be right where you left it, buy you may not want it back after you get 'a taste of the Infinite'.
Unless you have actually lived for eternity, which clearly you haven't, then you haven't experienced eternity.
No one has, and no one will.
All I am seeing from your replies are just wishful fantasies, not the capital R Reality.
All I am seeing is just more sophistry from your own personal philosophy. That's all.