A Universe from Nothing?

[Darkstorn]

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.

It can be a bunch of things. But we weren't arguing about that at all.

But it most certainly cannot be depth. It shouldn't be this hard to understand. You cannot have depth if you have no object to move towards to. "10 metres ahead" doesn't give you this object. There COULD be an object, but again, that is not what we're arguing at all.

Ahead, as a term, only refers to moving forward from your current position and facing. And it is entirely relative.

According to yours and ChristineM's logic, dimension is an inherent part of space; therefore, there cannot be a condition of 'no dimension'.

True, but again, we were arguing the terms.

You literally said: "but the moment you say '10 metres ahead' you have already mentioned dimension, haven't you?"

As you see, i was merely responding to that. EVERYTHING else here is additional data not present in either mine or Christine's post. It's you making assumptions without data. You aren't arguing what we're saying. You're arguing what you WISH we were saying.

Pay attention: she said: '10 metres ahead'; 10 metres is one of the dimensions of height, width, or depth.

Yes, but your only condition was for her to say something without using certain terms. She fulfilled your condition.

"Show me where they exist, without first referring to constructs called 'height, width, and depth'."

Your own statement PROVES my statement to be true. She did not refer to any of those things. THAT is the entirety of my argument.

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.

Oh i am paying attention. You are using circular reasoning.

Plus again, we weren't talking about which dimensions you were using while traveling, merely the terms used, as per your OWN CONDITIONS AND TERMS.

Anyway, for depth you must know your target beforehand. Dimensions are all relative. Depth is relative. You must have two objects to compare each other to, to even be able to talk about depth. This is required.

C'mon, now. Use your head:

Are you always this arrogant? It's very out of place considering the reality of the situation.

'10 metres ahead' already establishes the target, which is the point at which one ends the travel to 10 metres, Point B.

No, it doesn't establish the target. You actually moving 10 meters and stopping would establish your point B. But saying "10 metres ahead" definitely doesn't establish it in any logical way. Except assuming additional data when there is none.

'10 metres ahead' refers to the direction from which one is looking, or a bodily reference, such as one's chest.

Which one of those? Where one is looking or bodily reference? This should already show you how relative space and time really are.

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.

No, that's mental gymnastics.

"10 metres ahead" refers ONLY to moving forward relative to your current position and facing. You getting additional data is you making assumptions. Again, it is not supporting your logic.

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"

That does not imply that she's wrong in the slightest. You are being way too optimistic.

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.

I didn't say "space is dimensionless." You are just wishing i did.

My, my...you're still not paying attention.

I could refer you to my previous paragraph.

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.

You asked her to show "where those dimensions exist without referring to height, width or depth."

Height, width and depth ARE dimensions. Time is another one. There could even be more. This is something you are not understanding.

Then you have the nerve to actually make another condition: Now she has to show you dimensions without using height, width, depth OR any measuring standards.

How exactly are people supposed to argue something so ridiculous? You ruined your own argument by imposing such stupid conditions.

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.

Space itself is a concept. It's not something inherent. It's an idea that attempts to describe reality.

So yes, they are concepts.

Somehow your idea of space is not a concept at all. How exactly are you going to explain this?

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.

What exists as "inherent dimensions of space" then? How do you even know space or dimensions exist inherently? I say they are both concepts to begin with. Not inherent reality. Because they are relative, and observer dependent. Entirely.

Considering nothing exists inherently. Everything is subject to causality and preceding phenomena and events.

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.

This again sounds awful lot like mental gymnastics and assumption.

I say they don't refer to the measuring device.

Yes,because you are making a mistake in logic, which is to mistake the description of reality for reality itself.

I actually think you are making that mistake. For one; you still seem to think that dimensions and space are something more than descriptions of reality. The thing is: I don't. I believe both space and dimensions are MERELY descriptions of reality. Not reality itself.

I only make the claim: Neither you or i are in the position to actually make the call on what is reality itself. Because our experiences are subjective. Our understanding of it is not identical. ALL this could just be my imagination too.

 

[gnostic]

That depends on the context. "Infinity" directly relates to the word "unending", which could relate to time, distance, etc.

The problem with infinity it is tricky term, because it does not always have a single meaning.

Infinity can mean having no beginning and no ending, but as it can be found in some mathematical equations or formulas, they have - a beginning but no ending.

So infinity can go both ways, or just in one direction.

 

[metis]

The problem with infinity it is tricky term, because it does not always have a single meaning.

Infinity can mean having no beginning and no ending, but as it can be found in some mathematical equations or formulas, they have - a beginning but no ending.

So infinity can go both ways, or just in one direction.

Correct, and that's what I was trying to convey in my last post, namely that context is important.

 

[gnostic]

It can be a bunch of things. But we weren't arguing about that at all.

But it most certainly cannot be depth. It shouldn't be this hard to understand. You cannot have depth if you have no object to move towards to. "10 metres ahead" doesn't give you this object. There COULD be an object, but again, that is not what we're arguing at all.

Ahead, as a term, only refers to moving forward from your current position and facing. And it is entirely relative.



True, but again, we were arguing the terms.

You literally said: "but the moment you say '10 metres ahead' you have already mentioned dimension, haven't you?"

As you see, i was merely responding to that. EVERYTHING else here is additional data not present in either mine or Christine's post. It's you making assumptions without data. You aren't arguing what we're saying. You're arguing what you WISH we were saying.



Yes, but your only condition was for her to say something without using certain terms. She fulfilled your condition.

"Show me where they exist, without first referring to constructs called 'height, width, and depth'."

Your own statement PROVES my statement to be true. She did not refer to any of those things. THAT is the entirety of my argument.



Oh i am paying attention. You are using circular reasoning.

Plus again, we weren't talking about which dimensions you were using while traveling, merely the terms used, as per your OWN CONDITIONS AND TERMS.

Anyway, for depth you must know your target beforehand. Dimensions are all relative. Depth is relative. You must have two objects to compare each other to, to even be able to talk about depth. This is required.



Are you always this arrogant? It's very out of place considering the reality of the situation.



No, it doesn't establish the target. You actually moving 10 meters and stopping would establish your point B. But saying "10 metres ahead" definitely doesn't establish it in any logical way. Except assuming additional data when there is none.



Which one of those? Where one is looking or bodily reference? This should already show you how relative space and time really are.



No, that's mental gymnastics.

"10 metres ahead" refers ONLY to moving forward relative to your current position and facing. You getting additional data is you making assumptions. Again, it is not supporting your logic.



That does not imply that she's wrong in the slightest. You are being way too optimistic.



I didn't say "space is dimensionless." You are just wishing i did.



I could refer you to my previous paragraph.


You asked her to show "where those dimensions exist without referring to height, width or depth."

Height, width and depth ARE dimensions. Time is another one. There could even be more. This is something you are not understanding.

Then you have the nerve to actually make another condition: Now she has to show you dimensions without using height, width, depth OR any measuring standards.

How exactly are people supposed to argue something so ridiculous? You ruined your own argument by imposing such stupid conditions.



Space itself is a concept. It's not something inherent. It's an idea that attempts to describe reality.

So yes, they are concepts.

Somehow your idea of space is not a concept at all. How exactly are you going to explain this?



What exists as "inherent dimensions of space" then? How do you even know space or dimensions exist inherently? I say they are both concepts to begin with. Not inherent reality. Because they are relative, and observer dependent. Entirely.

Considering nothing exists inherently. Everything is subject to causality and preceding phenomena and events.



This again sounds awful lot like mental gymnastics and assumption.

I say they don't refer to the measuring device.



I actually think you are making that mistake. For one; you still seem to think that dimensions and space are something more than descriptions of reality. The thing is: I don't. I believe both space and dimensions are MERELY descriptions of reality. Not reality itself.

I only make the claim: Neither you or i are in the position to actually make the call on what is reality itself. Because our experiences are subjective. Our understanding of it is not identical. ALL this could just be my imagination too.

That's the problem with godnotgod.

First he make a claim, and demand example, proof or evidence to counter his premise, Christine responded with an example. But godnotgod will immediately dismiss it and demands more, without giving any example of his own, thereby moving the goalpost each time Christine or anyone else responded.

It is a series of demand, dismiss or ignore, demand something else, dismiss or ignore, over and over again, with each time, he would changed the parameters of the argument or demand. It is a cycle that no one can win because he always changing the game, and bloody cheating, because he will never respond to your own demand of proof or evidence from him.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

You're misunderstanding my meaning. If you intellectualize about something actually real, but that you have not yet experienced, you don't really understand it. I use the term 'may exist' meaning 'does exist', but not yet realized. The concepts of Time, Space, and Causation must first be stripped away before realization of eternity occurs.

And that is just pure sophistry, not reality.

What the other prisoners in Plato's Cave said to the one who escaped and returned with news of a glorious Sun outside the cave.

 

[godnotgod]

That's the problem with godnotgod.

First he make a claim, and demand example, proof or evidence to counter his premise, Christine responded with an example. But godnotgod will immediately dismiss it and demands more, without giving any example of his own, thereby moving the goalpost each time Christine or anyone else responded.

It is a series of demand, dismiss or ignore, demand something else, dismiss or ignore, over and over again, with each time, he would changed the parameters of the argument or demand. It is a cycle that no one can win because he always changing the game, and bloody cheating, because he will never respond to your own demand of proof or evidence from him.

All I have done here is to ask where the dimensions of height, width, and depth are located in space, in response to the assertion that "space is those dimensions". Just show me where they are, and we will be done with this issue. But to date, no one can provide a reasonable answer. I am not the one making the claim, so it is not incumbent upon me to respond to any demand for evidence. On the contrary, show me the evidence that 'space is those dimensions'. That's all. No need to get apoplectic about it.

 

[godnotgod]

That depends on the context. "Infinity" directly relates to the word "unending", which could relate to time, distance, etc.

I see eternity as 'beginingless/endless', and infinity as 'limitless/boundless'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're misunderstanding my meaning. If you intellectualize about something actually real, but that you have not yet experienced, you don't really understand it. I use the term 'may exist' meaning 'does exist', but not yet realized. The concepts of Time, Space, and Causation must first be stripped away before realization of eternity occurs.

What the other prisoners in Plato's Cave said to the one who escaped and returned with news of a glorious Sun outside the cave.

Gnostic does not understand the English language very well, it is not his native language so he mostly doesn't 'get' the finer nuances.

 

[godnotgod]

Gnostic does not understand the English language very well, it is not his native language so he mostly doesn't 'get' the finer nuances.

Thanks, Ben

 

[godnotgod]

Excuse me, godnotgod.

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.

This present moment has no beginning and no end. It is eternal. If you are living in the present moment, fully awake to what is, then you are living in eternity. By 'present moment', I do not mean the fleeting tick of the clock; I am referring to what is the case when we put the tick of the clock aside. When I refer to living in the present moment, I am not talking about existence in terms of years, nor birth, nor death; I am talking about Being, which is Unborn, Uncaused, and Unconditioned, and therefore deathless. This Being, and not your fictional existence in Time and Space, is who you really are. When Being awakens, you will find yourself living in the Eternity that has always existed as this Present Moment. That you have a body that is born and dies is inconsequential. Your awakened consciousness is unborn and never dies, because it does not exist in Time or Space, and has no history nor memory. Then you will be Deathless, and experience real life, and not just an imitation of life.

 

[godnotgod]

No communication occurs. There is no information transfer.

The *correlation* of the two particles is initiated when the particles form.

But the response of one agent to the other is instantaneous; no time is involved, even though they are separated by many hundreds or thousands of miles.

Does communication necessarily involve information transfer?

 

[metis]

I see eternity as 'beginingless/endless', and infinity as 'limitless/boundless'.

I see infinity as 'beginngless/endless' and infinity as 'limitless/endless'.

 

[Polymath257]

But the response of one agent to the other is instantaneous; no time is involved, even though they are separated by many hundreds or thousands of miles.

That isn't a 'response'. The correlation was set up before the measurement and was preserved. So, when one measurement was taken and one result determined, the other was already determined.

Again, it is sort of like cutting a coin in half: put the heads part in one box and the tails part in another. Then send the boxes very far away from each other. Then, if you open one and find a heads, the other *must* have a tail. That isn't communication or even information transfer. It is simple correlation.

The difference is that in quantum mechanics, the result isn't settled when you split the coin and put it into the boxes.

Does communication necessarily involve information transfer?

Yes. That is sort of the definition of the concept.

 

[Darkstorn]

I now see that you are a very confused person, and I cannot continue a discussion with someone whose basic premises are corrupt.

Problem: From my perspective it looks like you're merely stating this, without:

A. You showing how i'm either confused or how my premises are flawed.

B. You actually answering to ANY of the points in my posts.

Aaaand your post is a direct attack on my person instead of my comments. You have been reported. But even better: This is a public forum:

We can ALL see you dodge my entire post, and try to make it into a case of ridiculing me. And you somehow think you're arguing from a higher ground? Please. Your post is analogous to you simply ignoring everything i said and calling me drunk and confused. Scratch that, it's not analogous to that. That's exactly what you did. And ALL you did.

NOT to mention you are employing the appeal to the stone and proof by assertion logical fallacies in your post. AND an ad hominem. You forgot to show any of your claims to be true in any way except you merely stating it.

/TLDR: You are actually merely dodging my post. THAT is all.

All I have done here is to ask where the dimensions of height, width, and depth are located in space, in response to the assertion that "space is those dimensions". Just show me where they are, and we will be done with this issue. But to date, no one can provide a reasonable answer. I am not the one making the claim, so it is not incumbent upon me to respond to any demand for evidence. On the contrary, show me the evidence that 'space is those dimensions'. That's all. No need to get apoplectic about it.

Spacetime - Wikipedia

And:

Space - Wikipedia

You're going to ignore that, i'm sure. I think part of the problem here is that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what space is. It's a mathematical model, and a concept of physics. It's an attempt to describe reality. That's all it is.

And the dimensions that make up "space"(according to current knowledge) are indeed height, width and depth. And it's ALL relative.

 

[ChristineM]

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.'

I suggest you look up the definition of space. You may learn something.


Move 10 metres ahead is a movement.

 

[godnotgod]

That isn't a 'response'. The correlation was set up before the measurement and was preserved. So, when one measurement was taken and one result determined, the other was already determined.

...and yet, one only moves when the other does. That seems to be a response from one to the other, and additionally involves information, but not the kind of information we usually have in mind. But my point is that the 'response' (for lack of a better word) is instantaneous across space, so no time is involved. How is that, if time is a fundamental aspect of the universe?

 

[Polymath257]

...and yet, one only moves when the other does. That seems to be a response from one to the other, and additionally involves information, but not the kind of information we usually have in mind. But my point is that the 'response' (for lack of a better word) is instantaneous across space, so no time is involved. How is that, if time is a fundamental aspect of the universe?

There is no 'motion' when the other moves. There is no 'response'. The measurement at one location is correlated with that at another location. They are both *single* measurements. The correlation was formed way before the measurements.

No information is transfered: the measurements are random at both ends. It is only when the measurements are compared side by side that the correlation is found.

 

[godnotgod]

.... what space is. It's a mathematical model, and a concept of physics. It's an attempt to describe reality. That's all it is.

And the dimensions that make up "space"(according to current knowledge) are indeed height, width and depth. And it's ALL relative.

Yes, 'relative' to the measuring device. There is nothing existing in 'space' that includes dimensions we call 'height, depth, or width', because space itself has no reference point from which to determine the existence of such dimensions. They exist only as conceptual models, relative to some arbitrary reference point.

Do you see what you just did? You jumped from: 'model; concept, and description of space', to saying exactly what ChristineM is saying: 'dimensions are that space'. In the same breath, you just stated that space is a model and a concept, both descriptions of space, and then jumped to saying that dimensions make up space. That is illogical. You cannot have it both ways. Dimensions cannot be both a concept/model about space, and inherent to space at the same time. But you probably fail to see the illogic of your position, even though I have brought it out into the light for all to see. Put simply, you're not thinking properly.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no 'motion' when the other moves. There is no 'response'. The measurement at one location is correlated with that at another location. They are both *single* measurements. The correlation was formed way before the measurements.

No information is transfered: the measurements are random at both ends. It is only when the measurements are compared side by side that the correlation is found.

The following excerpt is not from a scientific journal, but is a brief explanation of entanglement in lay terms, admittedly:

" Entanglement concerns the behavior of tiny particles, such as electrons, that have interacted in the past and then moved apart. Tickle one particle here, by measuring one of its properties — its position, momentum or “spin” — and its partner should dance, instantaneously, no matter how far away the second particle has traveled.

The key word is “instantaneously.” The entangled particles could be separated across the galaxy, and somehow, according to quantum theory, measurements on one particle should affect the behavior of the far-off twin faster than light could have traveled between them."

Opinion | Is Quantum Entanglement Real?

As far as I know, 'dance' and 'behavior' are actions. Is the article wrong to portray the second entangled particle as behaving in this way? 'Tickling' one particle here, and enabling a 'dance' on the other, is a response, as far as I am concerned.

 

[godnotgod]

Move 10 metres ahead is a movement.

I never said it wasn't. I said that, in your example of '10 metres', it is one of the dimensions of height, width, or depth, but that '10 metres' does not exist inherently to space. It exists inherently to the measuring device which yields the value: '10 metres'.