What constitutes Cosmic Space?

[PureX]

Space can be measured in length, width and height, can you measure the dimensions of an idea?

An "inch" is the idea of calibrated distance. And we can measure it with other similar ideas of calibrated distances (centimeters, for example). Once we've determined the parameters of a chosen conceptual containment, we can label the non-thing between the things within that containment "space". And we can invent standards of calibration to "measure" the distances between one thing and another thing in that space; where there is no thing.

It always comes down to those binary opposites ... "this is this because that is that". Because that's how the human brain operates.

 

[ChristineM]

An "inch" is the idea of calibrated distance. And we can measure it with other similar ideas of calibrated distances (centimeters, for example). Once we've determined the parameters of a chosen conceptual containment, we can label the non-thing between the things within that containment "space". And we can invent standards of calibration to "measure" the distances between one thing and another thing in that space; where there is no thing.

It always comes down to those binary opposites ... "this is this because that is that". Because that's how the human brain operates.

Word salad, very tasty but irrelevant

It does not matter what the units are, space is 3 dimensional and can be measured.

 

[PureX]

Word salad, very tasty but irrelevant

It does not matter what the units are, space is 3 dimensional and can be measured.

What is being measured? What is "space"? That was the question.

 

[ChristineM]

What is being measured? What is "space"? That was the question.

What is being measured is the dimensions of a particularly volume of space.

One of the definitions of space is "the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move."

 

[PureX]

What is being measured is the dimensions of a particularly volume of space.

One of the definitions of space is "the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move."

But depth, height, and width don't exist as anything other than our cognitive perception. They are 'figments of cognition' based on the brain's binary opposites: 'here/there', 'up/down', 'in/out', and so on. There is no here or there in space. There is only everywhere. So all we're measuring is our perception of space. Not space. I don't even know what space is apart from human perceptual cognition. Do you? If so, what is it?

 

[ChristineM]

But depth, height, and width don't exist as anything other than our cognitive perception. They are 'figments of cognition' based on the brain's binary opposites: 'here/there', 'up/down', 'in/out', and so on. There is no here or there in space. There is only everywhere. So all we're measuring is our perception of space. Not space. I don't even know what space is apart from human perceptual cognition. Do you? If so, what is it?

Of course they do, my wardrobe has depth, withdraw and height.

Space is everywhere, it has volume, we know that because we are in that volume, volume has dimensions, just because they are big dimensions does not make them imaginary

 

[PureX]

Of course they do, my wardrobe has depth, withdraw and height.

Space is everywhere, it has volume, we know that because we are in that volume, volume has dimensions, just because they are big dimensions does not make them imaginary

You keep telling me what "it has" (how you perceive it), and not what it IS.

 

[ChristineM]

You keep telling me what "it has" (how you perceive it), and not what it IS.

It is volume containing all things, i essentially said that in my first first post on this thread. And i have provided a dictionary definition for you in post 44

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But depth, height, and width don't exist as anything other than our cognitive perception. They are 'figments of cognition' based on the brain's binary opposites: 'here/there', 'up/down', 'in/out', and so on. There is no here or there in space. There is only everywhere. So all we're measuring is our perception of space. Not space. I don't even know what space is apart from human perceptual cognition. Do you? If so, what is it?

Ok, so what is real, is your perception real?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

At one time even flat earth was logical.

We are now here in 2021, which is the more logical position? Existence is because it always has, it is the nature of existence, or it popped into existence from nothing, it is the nature of nothing?

 

[PureX]

It is volume containing all things, i essentially said that in my first first post on this thread. And i have provided a dictionary definition for you in post 44

What is "volume" but a human concept? I don't think you're able to understand what I'm pointing out, here, and asking you about.

 

[PureX]

Ok, so what is real, is your perception real?

It is really my perception, yes. Beyond that, my perception does not reach.

 

[ChristineM]

What is "volume" but a human concept? I don't think you're able to understand what I'm pointing out, here, and asking you about.

Wrong, the word is human, the quantity, the space, existed long before humans existed...

I don't think you understand really particularly well

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is really my perception, yes. Beyond that, my perception does not reach.

So your perception is real, but that which is perceived is not real?
How can the perception of yourself which by your definition is not real, be the source of something real, ie. your perception?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The point is, cause and effect may be functions of our own illusory perspective, specifically in relation to time.

Yeah, it may be like that, but I would accept if the scientific community speaks on that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We are now here in 2021, which is the more logical position? Existence is because it always has, it is the nature of existence, or it popped into existence from nothing, it is the nature of nothing?

There are people who offer "From Nothing" theories. 'Eternal' proves nothing.

"Abstract
Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and ‘what was there’ before it came to existence have been of great interest to mankind at all times. Several suggestions have been presented during the ages – mostly assuming a preliminary state prior to creation. Nevertheless, theories that require initial conditions are not considered complete, since they lack an explanation of what created such conditions. We therefore propose the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory, aimed at describing the origin of the Universe from ‘nothing’ in information terms. The suggested framework does not require amendments to the laws of physics: but rather provides a new scenario to the Universe initiation process, and from that point merges with state-of-the-art cosmological models. The paper is aimed at providing a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory."
Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo - ScienceDirect

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are people who offer "From Nothing" theories. 'Eternal' proves nothing.

"Abstract
Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and ‘what was there’ before it came to existence have been of great interest to mankind at all times. Several suggestions have been presented during the ages – mostly assuming a preliminary state prior to creation. Nevertheless, theories that require initial conditions are not considered complete, since they lack an explanation of what created such conditions. We therefore propose the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory, aimed at describing the origin of the Universe from ‘nothing’ in information terms. The suggested framework does not require amendments to the laws of physics: but rather provides a new scenario to the Universe initiation process, and from that point merges with state-of-the-art cosmological models. The paper is aimed at providing a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory."
Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo - ScienceDirect

Ok, take your choice, some time back, out of nothing emerged existence, or, there was no beginning to existence, it's reality itself and it can never cease existing. There is no theory around at present, that if applied, could cause existence to cease existing, hence unless or until a way is found, we must logically conclude existence has always existed.

If you choose Nothing as that where existence came from, then it must also be logically possible to cause existence to cease existing until Nothing exists again... What is scary about this belief is that since existence came to be without any known theoretical way to understand how or why, existence may also suddenly disappear some time, we have no way of knowing why or when at present.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you choose Nothing as that where existence came from, then it must also be logically possible to cause existence to cease existing again until Nothing exists.. What is scary about this belief is that since existence came to be without any known theoretical way to understand how or why, existence may also suddenly disappear some time, we have no way of knowing why or when at present.

Yeah, that goes with the theory, nothing surprising. What is scary in that? Today you are, tomorrow you won't be. Does not that happen in life? The problem is that you fear reality.

RigVeda - 'Nasadiya Sukta' - Prajapati Parameshthi (around 1,000 BCE):

"THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
..
Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
..
Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
..
..
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
..
Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
..
.."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[rational experiences]

An example. I design a bowl. The bowl manifested out of pre mass form is known. As a thinker, the human conceptualising.

So if I believe in space I first observe form. I can manipulate form as the space in which I am living is not as dense, and the density is gases water oxygen. So I conceptualise that space is variant....as depth of density.

I cannot conceptualise whole mass. But I can take whole mass as I live in a density of less mass spatial presence and manipulate that mass. Hence I quote to achieve the result a bowl, I used space to manipulate and separate said physical material...made it separate. Now that bowl has emptiness inside of it by design. I can fill it up with different mass, yet it does not cojoin as I already caused separation.

I make the bowl become empty as I consume the mass I had put into emptiness.

I teach myself hence space owns containment plus density by the experience.

So I taught it was a womb inside of an eternal body from which it separated.

Hence I ask what is separation. A portion is involved in change.

I then ask what is the change and I said heat and consuming. So then I conclude space exists because it was emptied of a pre owned form gone.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, that goes with the theory, nothing surprising. What is scary in that? Today you are, tomorrow you won't be. Does not that happen in life? You fear reality.

RigVeda - 'Nasadiya Sukta' - Prajapati Parameshthi (around 1,000 BCE):

"THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
..
Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
..
Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
..
..
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
..
Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
..
.."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Well this Nothing behind the scenes begins to appear a lot like a creator God behind the scenes, It determines existence or non-existence, why and when we do not know.