Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Rr6, I don't understand much of your post but it appears to be pleasurably brain-bending, especially the notion of interlaced positive and negative geodiscs.

Former member, Obvious Leo, often spoke of the relative unreality of space, that only gravity and time are fundamental, with space being emergent and only existent in a relative sense. I always found the idea both fascinating, but somehow incomplete, and since he moved to another forum I have continued to pester him whenever he raises the idea.

I recently found a link that comes to the same conclusion and provides a detailed explanation that I'm yet to fully plough through but seems logical and credible: http://nautil.us/issue/32/space/lets-rethink-space

This kind of self-organizing happens all the time in physics. For instance, a single water molecule has no temperature. Temperature becomes meaningful when molecules collide and exchange energy. If you mix cold and hot water, the cold warms up, the hot cools off, until they equalize. Before equilibrium, the water is characterized by two temperatures; afterward, by a single value. From complexity comes simplicity. The complexity remains latent, though. You can tell it’s there whenever the temperature fluctuates or water undergoes a transformation such as boiling in a teakettle. Physicists commonly use these deviations from standard behavior as windows into the microscopic composition of materials.

The same might go for space, too. The basic building blocks of nature might be capable of a tangle of relationships that would fill a celebrity gossip rag. Through some organizing mechanism or simply the play of averages, those relationships become regimented, so that they can be laid out on a spatial grid and interact only in strictly prescribed ways. A mind-bogglingly complex network of interactions reduces to a few numbers that we call “the position” and “the time.” The underlying complexity never goes away, though. In situations such as black holes, the system can become disordered and events can cease to have a position or a time. And even when the system is spatial, it contains a vast amount of latent complexity. The universe we see playing out in space may be just the surface level, where we float like little boats while leviathans stir in the deep.

And in the article's conclusion:

Notably, these models presuppose time; they don’t incorporate Leibniz’s and Mach’s suggestion that time should emerge as surely as space does. Some researchers don’t see this as a failing, but as a profound truth about nature—that time must be fundamental even if space isn’t. After all, physics does need to have some foundational structure, something that everything else is built on, and time is as good a candidate as any. Indeed, how could you even talk about emergence as a temporal process if you don’t presume time?

“As soon as you say time is emergent, you run off the rails,” Martinec says. “What are the rules? What do I do?” The Caltech physicist Sean Carroll has put it succinctly: “Space is totally overrated, whereas time is underappreciated ... I think that time is going to last ... Space, on the other hand—totally bogus. Space is just an approximation that we find useful in certain circumstances.”

[Rr6]

What Ive stated in English, with explanations if necessarily, seems relatively simple to me, although, that may be only because I'm familiar with those words or concepts and others are not.

You link talks about the nature of space. I realize now that my message did not include my cosmic hierarchy, so I perhaps did not make clear that, the first sub-category of space, is non-occupied space and occupied space.

In my cosmic hierarchy I layout clearly, that, four fundamental kinds of occupied space;

1) fermions,
2) bosons,
3) gravity,
4) dark energy.

Our observed time is most directly related to fermions and bosons.

Reality of space is apparrent as occupied space. Non-occupied space is not apparent because we deduce its existence from our observations of finite, occupied space Universe ergo what lies beyond the finite, occupeid space Universe can only be non-occupied space.

Not sure why these simple concepts are so difficult for so many.

Space-time, whatever that is, is well accepted aspect of our occupied space Universe. Gravity as a property of space-time is also fairly well accepted. All I did was give specific geometric examples of gravity as part of vector that, I believe, is wholistically inherent to every particle of Universe.

What is not yet accepted is that dark energy is the apposite property of gravitational space-time. Again, this is what I speculate to be the case.

Time, inherent to all occupied space, of course involves space, however, what I'm doing is taking the word space-time and making a clear that gravity and dark energy are distinctly differrent aspect of space, than is time. Where time is what we observe directly as fermions and bosons and are related to the the body of the great tubular vectors.

Space as geodesic arcs of gravity

Time{ frequency ) on two levels defies a sine-wave and sine-wave is common to every particle of Universe, to best of my knowledge based on observations.

Space as geodesic arcs of dark energy makes sense, for two reasons;

...1} dark energy appears to us as expressing phenomena being the exact opposite of gravity,

...2} since opposite of gravity then makes sense that gravity is also a property of the conventional space-time, as is gravity.

If you do some research, you not find any clear definitions of what exactly this long time held convention of space-time is exactly, other than it has a proptery of gravity. So what Ive done is to offer more specifics as to exactly what space-time is and included dark energy as opposite geodesic arc and sine-wave time patterns as the body.

These three then define Space-Time-Space vector in every particle of Universe. Each particle of Universe, being composed of no less than three of these great tubular vectors. Except in case of mesons, where we have two quark exchanges between hadrons as the strong nuclear force.

However, these two quark mesons are very short lived because very unstable. So I believe these mesons are composed of two great tubular's each, but understand, they only exist together ergo 4 great tubular's. The hadron{ proton neutron } would no less than 3 quarks ergo 3 sets of two great tubular's is 6 great tubular's for every hadron of Universe.

So what Ive done is given visual specifics for space-time. How I came to get there. Included dark energy redefined conventional now as Space-Time-Space.

I cant post URLs yet( ? ) so I cant give you graphic that may help to see the great tubular vectors I envision. Suffice it to say, I can go further and envision how the geodesics arcs and time sine-wave frequencies, of a specific particle can merge with another or overlap with another particle.

Think of these sine-wave patterned( ^v ) frequencies, fitting together with frequencies of another particle in via the peaks fitting into the valley of the other. Ex place your two hands out in front of you. Now turn your fingers of each hand in to tips of your fingers pointed toward each other. Now the tips of your fingers as the peaks of the sine-wave frequencies the valleys between your fingers are the valleys/troughs of the sine-wave patterns.

So you can now move your hands toward each other and have finger tips go into valleys of other hands fingers.. Now your two hands, or great tubulars have partially meshed like two gears. There my exist many examples I could use to convey this mechanism for the meshing together of the great tubular vectorial fields.

Or, if I was a graphics specialist I could draw it clearly. Some of these ideas are relatively new to me-- 6 months or so ---and Ive yet to find my next new insight or pathways of step to follow that will take these ideas to the next level. I'm also not a mathematics wizard either.

However, there is an old saying that, a picture is word a thousand words. Ive given the numerical patterns of the four levels and I've given texticonic visualizations as first step aids to seeing what I see.

Once I can post URLs I could offer at least one toroidal graphic that goes a little further in better showing what the texticons do not. Tho the texticons do show the inversions of time from gravity and dark energy.

r6

[Present awareness]

People talk about "space", as if it actually exists and they talk about "time" as if it exists. However, the fundamental property of space is that it isn't there, hence it's called space. The fundamental property of time, is based on the movement of light, thru space. Both time and space are abstract concepts, projected onto reality by the human mind, as a way to make sense out of what we experience on a day to day basis.

[Rr6]

[quote="Present awareness"]People talk about "space", as if it actually exists and they talk about "time" as if it exists. However, the fundamental property of space is that it isn't there, hence it's called space. The fundamental property of time, is based on the movement of light, thru space. Both time and space are abstract concepts, projected onto reality by the human mind, as a way to make sense out of what we experience on a day to day basis.[/quote]


Space does exist and in two top of the cosmic heiracarchy catagories;

1) macro-infinite non-occupied space, and,

2) finite, occupied space Universe--- see previous listing of four fundamental kinds of occupied space ---.


Time as frequency{ ^v }see sine-wave pattern --is inherent to all occupied space phenomena and we observe time as frequency with most if not all fermions and bosons.

All of our reality and quasi-reality{ gravity and dark energy } have complementary metaphysical-1 abstractions, that, we access via mind/intellect/concepts. Physical, quasi-physical and metaphyical-1 all exist. To deny these existence of these three stems from lack of comprehensive understanding of nature of Universe. imho

Think of my following cosmic hierarchy as a book and the inside within first few pages we find in most educational books the outline/list for the chapters and subcatagorical set of sub-chapters.

Since I cannot use fancy formatting yet I will have to use a new variation for some words/concepts.

The name of my book is Universe: The Cosmic Heirarchy.

1) Universe-1

....1a} metaphysical-3, mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Universe, God, space etc....not actual Universe, God or space.
....1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space--- aka metaphysical-2 ---,
.....1c} finite, occupied space Universe-2

2) Universe-2 aka occupied space

....2a} fermions and bosons aka spirit-2 or physical reality,
....2b} gravity aka spirit-3 or quasi-physical or metaphysical-3
.....2c} dark energy aka spirit-4 or quasi-physical or metaphysical-4.

r6

[Rr6]

[quote="Present awareness"]People talk about "space", as if it actually exists and they talk about "time" as if it exists. However, the fundamental property of space is that it isn't there, hence it's called space. The fundamental property of time, is based on the movement of light, thru space. Both time and space are abstract concepts, projected onto reality by the human mind, as a way to make sense out of what we experience on a day to day basis.[/quote]

Space is generalized, generic term or word. What I do with my cosmic hierarchy is to be more specific. The following is beginnings of table of contents for a book titled Universe-1: The Cosmic Hierarchy

1) Universe-1: The Cosmic Hierarchy
.....1a} metaphysical-1, aka spirit-1 is mind/intellect/concept ex. concepts of Universe, concepts of God, concepts of space etc...
.....1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space--- existent beyond finite, occupied space Unvierse --- is metaphyiscal-2,
......1c} finite, occupied space Universe.

2) Universe-2: Occupied Space
....2a} Fermi and Bose aka spirit-2 or as physical/energy aka observed reality and/or as time
.......time as frequency being exemplified by common sine-wave patterning{ ^v } sine-wave pattern.

....2b} gravity aka quasi-physical or is metaphysical-3, or as spirit-3,
......positive shape geodesic arcs of space--- speculation ----.......

.....2c} dark energy aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4, or as spirit-4,
......negative shaped geodesic arcs of space--- speculation ----...........

3) Universe-3: Local universe{s}
.....3a} any universe in multiverse scenarios of two more universe's,
.....3b} local sphere of influence of humanity or individual.

So, to be clear, occupied space does exist and there are many simple examples that do not require lab experiments to prove. Ex most people experience occupied space as trees, computers, chairs, autos, our skull, or brain, or house etc.......

The proof reader does not allow me to post some well known names associate with all matter particles and all force particles, so above In 2a} I may use the names of those people those two primary classes of particles were name after. Fermi and Bose.

r6 aka ebuc

[Steve3007]

It could be argued that other things, such as "matter", are also abstract concepts whose purpose is to make sense of our experiences. If you don't make that argument for matter but do make that argument for space, then the challenge is to point out the genuine difference between the two.

There are some models in physics (like General Relativity) that talk about space in a way that is very reminiscent of the way we normally talk about such things as matter - that we normally think of as "real" in a common-sense everyday way. They talk of space being curved, and the movements of matter being a reaction to the shape of the local space in which it finds itself. Many people are deeply suspicious of this type of model, precisely because it runs against our normal common-sense notions of what space is i.e. it is nothing. "How can nothing be curved?" they ask.

Much of physics is like this. It takes abstract mathematical concepts and treats them as if they're "real things". This confuses and arouses suspicions in many people who believe there to be a clear, objective distinction between things and abstract concepts.

But any abstract mathematical concept is a "real thing" to the extent that it is successful in describing and predicting observations. If General Relativity's notion of space is successful in this sense then I think it makes sense to think of space as a "thing". It's useful to do so. Until somebody thinks of a better (more widely applicable) model and invents a new "thing".

-- Updated Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:59 pm to add the following --

(The above is a reply to Present awareness)

[Present awareness]

It has been observed that light, travelling thru space, may be curved by gravity. If the gravity is strong enough, as in a black hole, light is unable to escape it at all. My conclusion would be that a force like gravity, has the ability to bend something we call light, at lest in the wavelength of the visible spectrum. My assumption is that it is not the space that is bending, but simply light bending in response to the force of gravity. To bend something which is not there, which I define as space, does not seem possible, as Steve mentions.

[Steve3007]

You regard space as "not there". But you also mention a "force" called gravity. Do you regard that force as "there" or "not there"? Do you regard the concept of force as being more or less abstract than the concepts of time and space?

I ask because I think all such things, including concepts like energy and matter, are essentially the same - abstract concepts which we use to describe patterns in our observations. I think this is illustrated most clearly if we examine the concept of energy.

[Present awareness]

You regard space as "not there". But you also mention a "force" called gravity. Do you regard that force as "there" or "not there"? Do you regard the concept of force as being more or less abstract than the concepts of time and space?

I ask because I think all such things, including concepts like energy and matter, are essentially the same - abstract concepts which we use to describe patterns in our observations. I think this is illustrated most clearly if we examine the concept of energy.

I believe that you are right Steve, in that all the things we perceive, are only abstract concepts. Humans have developed an abstract language of sounds, so that we may give names to our observations. We observe the force of gravity, when we trip and fall and we say that the force which pulled us to the ground is "gravity" but we don't really "know" what gravity is, we only observe what it does. We observe the effect that gravity has on light, happening in empty space, but all our observations take place, within our minds, after data that has been input through the five senses, is interpreted. All human concepts, including space and time, are practical ways of interpreting reality, which helps us survive in the world. Survival and reproduction are the primary objectives of all life forms. But who can say, for sure, what is real or not? Life seems real, when we are alive, but where was the universe before we were born and where does it go, after we die?

[Rr6]

[quote]"Rr6"--Space does exist and in two top of the cosmic heiracarchy catagories;
1) macro-infinite non-occupied space, and,
2) finite, occupied space Universe--- see previous listing of four fundamental kinds of occupied space ---.[/quote]

Occupied space is reality, that,has abstract, metaphysical-1 mathematics as its complement. Cant have one without the other.

Some occupied space reality-- fermions and bosons ---we observe directly as specific quanta and there associated quantity's.

Some occupied space reality-- gravity and dark energy ---we do not observe directly ergo we do not have any quanta or associated quantity's.


[quote]Time as frequency{ ^v }see sine-wave pattern --is inherent to all occupied space phenomena and we observe time as frequency with most if not all fermions and bosons.[/quote]

As with occupied space things, we have two aspects of time;

1) metaphysical-1 abstractions as mind/intellect/concept, and,
2) observations directly or indirectly.


[quote]All of our reality and quasi-reality{ gravity and dark energy } have complementary metaphysical-1 abstractions, that, we access via mind/intellect/concepts. Physical, quasi-physical and metaphyical-1 all exist. To deny these existence of these three stems from lack of comprehensive understanding of nature of Universe. imho[/quote]
Ditto the previous. Philosophical mind games are limited to the words we use to define what we observe directly indirectly.

Rational, logical common sense deductions use those same words ergo we arrive at realtive and absolute truths via our word definitions.

[quote]1) Universe-1
....1a} metaphysical-3, mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Universe, God, space etc....not actual Universe, God or space.
----------------line---of-------demarcation---------------------------------------------------
....1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space--- aka metaphysical-2 ---,
.....1c} finite, occupied space Universe-2[/quote]

The most holistically{ whole } inclusive set.
[quote]
2) Universe-2 aka occupied space
....2a} fermions and bosons aka spirit-2 or physical reality,
....2b} gravity aka spirit-3 or quasi-physical or metaphysical-3
.....2c} dark energy aka spirit-4 or quasi-physical or metaphysical-4.[/quote]

The holistic set of occupied space, in 3 or 4 distinctly specific categories.

Philosophy can debate the definitions of words and rational, logical common sense conclusions, however, philosophy cannot debate absolute truth as derived from our words, when the definitions are agreed upon.

Philosophy can debate the relative nature of occupied space.

Philosophy cannot debate existence of occupied space.

Philosophy can debate the resultant deduction of existence of macro-infinite non-occupied space.

r6

[Niebieskieucho]

Time solely does not occur in nature. Thus must be of something. Time of anything cannot be a fourth dimension. We can move in space:
up - down; to the left - to the right; forward - backward and all it means that we NEED TIME to move in any of spatial dimensions. Consequently, the separate and alleged dimension as time becomes irrelevant.

--
I had a dream that on my yard a UFO landed but when I woke up, they had already gone

[Atreyu]

The point is that time can be viewed as the fourth dimension of space, and when we do that, we can better understand and cognize the true nature of space/time....

[Steve3007]

Yes, space, time and everything else can be viewed in any way we choose. It just so happens that the model in which space and time are represented as four dimensions is useful for describing and predicting some, but not all, observations. So I'd say that the title of this topic would be better expressed as: "It might sometimes be useful not to think of time as a 4th dimension."

[Atreyu]

Yes, space, time and everything else can be viewed in any way we choose. It just so happens that the model in which space and time are represented as four dimensions is useful for describing and predicting some, but not all, observations. So I'd say that the title of this topic would be better expressed as: "It might sometimes be useful not to think of time as a 4th dimension."

I'd say an even better way to express it would be: "It might be more useful to think of time as all of the dimensions of space beyond the first three, rather than just the fourth."

[Steve3007]

Yes. It might be useful to think all kinds of things. I was just specifically trying to convert the title of this topic into something a bit more accurate.

In actually fact, although other models might turn out to be more useful in the future, I think the most useful way to think of time that has so far been found seems to be as a single 4th dimension - as in General Relativity.