godnotgod
Thou art That
In denoting the sphere in question as a planet, I was referring not to space-time, but to a physical sphere. This can exist without its surrounding space?
-
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!
Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?
- Thread starter Runewolf1973
- Start date
In denoting the sphere in question as a planet, I was referring not to space-time, but to a physical sphere. This can exist without its surrounding space?
godnotgod
Thou art That
Yes, I can imagine another universe that is just a sphere with nothing outside nor inside. a bit like flatland.
But if you restrict to planets, then obviously no, by definition of planet.
Ciao
- viole
Sees
Dragonslayer
Not sure how that helps.
What is actually said with "nothing is nothing, everything is everything, nothing is everything, and everything is nothing"...any thing? Seems like a mental lap around the room without even an inch of progression.
godnotgod
Thou art That
OK, so can we say, at least in the case of planets and other spherical objects, that space is essential to their being what they are?
re: 'another universe': by definition, sphere's surface is defined by that which is not-surface, like space, no?
No. Actually often enough their being what they are is essential to space.
godnotgod
Thou art That
godnotgod
Thou art That
It works both ways. space is essential to solid, as solid is essential to space.
godnotgod
Thou art That
1) There can be no solids in 1-dimensional space
2) There is no solid essential to any space as any space can be defined such that there exists nothing solid in it and independently of anything solid. Spaces can be (and are) rigorously defined.
3) Solid is mostly a misnomer.
Sees
Dragonslayer
How do you see them otherwise?
godnotgod
Thou art That
In speaking of extremes, we are talking about things in relative terms, ie; extreme cold vs extreme heat, etc. But about nothingness, since it is immeasurable, it cannot be an extreme, but nothing can be a relative opposite to something.
godnotgod
Thou art That
What happens when you stop conceptualizing them? Does some sort of transformation of your view occur?
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Isn't it more like an energy field?
godnotgod
Thou art That
But in this case, it is still being defined by what is solid. Can you rephrase the description to exclude solid completely?
I don't think so. But it can host an energy field. A field is defined as a map between a set and another set. In your case a map between space and scalars (energy). A map is different from the sets on which it is defined.
Ciao
- viole
godnotgod
Thou art That
I just want to know where the 'material' part comes in, as regards your comment: 'looks pretty material to me'