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

[Dan_1985]

There are many problems with your proposal that there's a Big Nothing outside of our universe. For example, how can Nothing be said to exist?, what is the nature of this Nothing?, how did Something (our universe) arise out of Nothing?, what forms the boundary between Something (our universe) and Nothing?, etc.

I agree. I said above, I don't think Rr6's 'nothing' is a real 'nothing', just an unobserved [or emptiness].

***
Is the 'space' in infinite occupied space Universe different from macro-infinite, non-occupied space? I see the 'macro-infinite' as just a mere infinite container of our observable universe (i.e., that which is occupied). Essentially, both must just be 'space'. No?

....1b and 1c} It is occupied space meeting metaphysical-2, non-occupied space. As Ive clearly stated for some years now.
...not "space meeting non-space"........

Right...So it's occupied space (i.e., space with stuff in it) meeting un-occupied space (space with no stuff in it). In this case, there is no meeting. It's like saying, "Look at my infinite garden of grass. Over there, you can see a patch of weeds expanding outwards." There is just stuff expanding outwards. I don't see your infinite occupied space Universe and macro-infinite, non-occupied space as fundamentally different in regards to space.

Furthermore, if it is un-occupied, then how can it be space? There is only space outside of Earth because we can point to stars and other stuff. If we arrive at the end of your occupied space, there would be nothing in the distance by which we could establish a continuing 'non-occupied' space. Otherwise, you are in fact claiming a 'space meeting non-space'.

Have I found a fundamental flaw capable of bypassing your ego?

-- Updated September 1st, 2016, 3:35 am to add the following --

I think this is needed:

Axiom: Space is necessary space 'between (at least) two things'.

If there is no-thing 'out beyond', then there can be no space out there. Fundamentally, there must always be stuff out there into the infinite horizon, otherwise, even space right here and now would not be possible.

[Felix]

This is from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

1. Does the Universe have an edge, beyond which there is nothing?

Galaxies extend as far as we can detect... with no sign of diminishing. There is no evidence that the universe has an edge. The part of the universe we can observe from Earth is filled more or less uniformly with galaxies extending in every direction as far as we can see - more than 10 billion light-years, or about 6 billion trillion miles. We know that the galaxies must extend much further than we can see, but we do not know whether the universe is infinite or not. When astronomers sometimes refer (carelessly!) to galaxies "near the edge of the universe," they are referring only to the edge of the observable universe - i.e., the part we can see.

2. Was the Big Bang the origin of the universe?

It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time "zero," the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature.

The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.

[Rr6]

First off, I may have figured out my erratic posting problems. Ive not yet experiemented enough to have conclusive resolution. I have two browsers on both PC and a Mac. If i'm logged in too same forum on any one or more of those other browsers, that may not allow me to post on the another one.

I agree. I said above, I don't think Rr6's 'nothing' is a real 'nothing', just an unobserved [or emptiness].

"real nothing" vs non-real nothing. This is problem similar to the analogy I stated to Felix and he refused to grok as analogy, via his stating space between moon and Earth is occupied.

I know it is, and have made that point to many for many years. The point in using that scenario was that we can imagine conceptualize non-occupied space embracing occupied space ergo via the analogy for finite occupied space Universe, the basket ball or Earth, with the seemingly space beyond being likend to the true non-occupied space.

I've been very clear, and you two are playing mind games. imho

Is the 'space' in infinite occupied space Universe different from macro-infinite, non-occupied space?

Dan, your either kidding or playing mind games of play dumb. Of course the space is differrent, One is occupied the other is not. Good grief dude. This is simple concept and near the top of cosmic heirarchy.

I see the 'macro-infinite' as just a mere infinite container of our observable universe (i.e., that which is occupied). Essentially, both must just be 'space'. No?

Yeah non-occupied space and occupied space are both space. Do not recognise the word 'space' in both identities? You and Fellix need to put ego based mind games in your play pen, and begin acting like rational, logical commmon sense adults.

Containers are finite. Macro-infinite, non-occupied space is not a container. Macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces, not constrain, not restrain not contain, our finite occupied space Universe. Ive stated this many times in last ten years.

....1b and 1c} It is occupied space meeting metaphysical-2, non-occupied space. As Ive clearly stated for some years now.
...not "space meeting non-space"........

Right...So it's occupied space (i.e., space with stuff in it) meeting un-occupied space (space with no stuff in it). In this case, there is no meeting.

Yes there is meeting between those two. Where you grass ends is called the boundary. Where finite occupied space Universe ends is called the boundary. After your grass or whomever, comes the sidewalk or pavement or whatever.

What comes after/beyond/outside our finite occupied space Universe/Uni-Verse, is the macro-infinite, non-occupied space.

This is not rocket science. You and Felix do what some others do. Skew what Ive laid out clearly to mean something else that I have not stated.

It's like saying, "Look at my infinite garden of grass.

No it is not. A garden of grass is finite occupied space. Stick relevant analogies and stop trying to skew my statements to something that Ive not stated or intended.

Over there, you can see a patch of weeds expanding outwards." There is just stuff expanding outwards. I don't see your infinite occupied space Universe and macro-infinite, non-occupied space as fundamentally different in regards to space.

I never made the statements that occupied space and non-occupied space is fundamentally differrent in regards to your given "space", other than what Ive stated, that one is occupied and the other not, and that is a fundamental differrence irrespective of how many times you say no, there not fundamentally differrent.

Put you ego aside and stop playing mind games. Our finite, occupied space Universe, is fundamentally differrent from the macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces it. The fundamental differrence is the most fundamental possible differrence and you avoid it like the plaque.

Non-occupied space and occupied space Universe could not be more fundamenetally differrent. Why you would think otherwise makes no sense, and you certainly give no rational, logical common sense that would invalidate occupied and non-occupied as being fundamentally differrent.

These ego based lame attempts to acknowledge and accept obvious truths.

Dan--Furthermore, if it is un-occupied, then how can it be space?

C,mon dude, your really letting your ego hang out there now. Start with a dictionary definition of space, occupied, and non-occupied. Asesmble these words in a correlated manner in your mind/brain and them come back and hopefully attempt to have a rational, logical common sense disscussion.

Your lack of rationally is like saying how can space be space. Duhh, space is space dude. Allowing for various definitions relative to the context of given scenarios. This is where analogies come into play, but lord forgive me if I use an analogy with some people. They cant handle it or grok or or grasp it and then the skew my given analogy as intended i.e they dont want to play fair.

There is only space outside of Earth because we can point to stars and other stuff. If we arrive at the end of your occupied space, there would be nothing in the distance by which we could establish a continuing 'non-occupied' space. Otherwise, you are in fact claiming a 'space meeting non-space'.

I have no idea what concept it is you think you trying to convey is. Yes our finite

occupied space

Universe, is embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space. This is simple common sense that you play a senseless mind game with.

Occupied space basketball is embraced by occupied space air molecules. Or we can use these two as analogy where the latter is only seemingly non-occupied space. God forgive me for using an analogy with Felix or you.

Earth is an occupied space that embraced by EMRadiation, netrunios, NASA debrie etc...before we get to the moon. We can use that as analogy also--- barring NASA debrie ---. God forgie me for attempting any analogy with your or Felix.

Universe/Uni-Verse is an occupied space embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space. No analogy there and none should be needed. However since were dealing with human ego or other, then I and others sometime use analogies. God forgive us.

Have I found a fundamental flaw capable of bypassing your ego?

Of course you have not. You have offered skewed mind games of what ive stated and intended. In some ways your like the child who says 'NO' irrespective of what the parent says.

R6--"Occupied space exists". Steve, Felix, Dan and some others, 'NO'.

R6--"macro-infinite non-occupied space exists". Steve, Felix, Dan and some others reply, 'NO'

R6---the buffer-zone between our observed occupied space reality and the macro-infinite non-occupied space is gravity and perhaps dark energy. Steve, Felix, Dan and some others rely, 'NO'.

I think this is needed: Axiom: Space is necessary space 'between (at least) two things'.

No that is not correct. A seemingly non-occupied space--- or quasi-non-occupied space ---exists between to

occupied space

objects { fermions, bosons, gravity or dark energy }.

3

Occupied Space

;
...3c} finite, occupied space Universe

.....3c2} fermions and bosons and any aggregate collection thereof,{ aka observed reality and observed time },

......3c3} metaphysical-3, gravity---positive shaped outer peak of geodesic curvature/arc,

.......3c4} metaphysical-4, darek energy--negative shaped inner peak of geodesic curvature/arc.

If there is no-thing 'out beyond', then there can be no space out there.

Huh? Dude, your offer more irrational illogical lack of common sense, jsut as the child keeps saying 'NO'.

IF we live in a finite,

occupied space

Universe, there exist nothing outside of it. A true nothing that involves space, is the macro-infinite non-occupied space.

Metpahysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are of space not actually space. They are concepts of Space--- occupied or not ---, God, Unvierse, Dogs Cats etc...

This goes back to what Ive stated initially, neither, you nor Felix have any rational, logical assessment of....if we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then what exists beyond that finite boundary. You state above nothing. And I have to repeat to you, that macro-infinite non-occupied space is a true nothingness of space.

The space between earth and Sol or galaxeys is not a true non-occupied space.

Fundamentally, there must always be stuff out there into the infinite horizon, otherwise, even space right here and now would not be possible.

"Infinite horizon"? What is an infinite horizon? Lets just keep it simple Dan. Ive been very clear.

Space is infinite.

Our occupied space Universe is finite. Duh, how many times have i typed that in last 20 years.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces, but does not constrain ir restrain our finite, occupied space Universe/Uni-Verse.

So lets be clear where you stand Dan. Do you really believe that we live in a macro-infinite occupied space Universe? I presume your "ifninite horizon" statement is intended to mean that, without you having to say that i.e. if you remain ambigous, you can always skew your way out of any committed belief with your statements.

Felix likes to go off on big bang tangents to avoid making a clear statement of where he stands on this macro-infinite occupied space Universe or not.

Again, infinite occupied space vs finite occupied space disscussion really deserves its own thread. The big bang scenario can be viewed in various ways. I will be happy to go there and have many times over the years. To go there with people who want to play mind games instead of offerreing rational, logical common sense is no fun.

Fun for some is to just ridicule and repeated say 'NO' and skew others commments to change what is stated and intended. :--(

I would start a Finite Occupied Space Universe thread, but my erratic posting abilities would have to be figured out first, ideally.

r6

[Felix]

Rr6, My point was only that the macro-universe, the universe beyond our observable universe, is also "occupied space." That is, there is only occupied space, there is no reason to believe there are two different kinds or aspects of space. As I said earlier, if you're going to posit another kind of space (unoccupied space) then you'll have to define its properties, which you have not done. If it has no properties, than it can not be said to exist.

Rr6: if we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then what exists beyond that finite boundary?

Your answer is that nothing exists beyond it but you've just given this nonexistence the name "unoccupied space." Giving it a name does not grant it existence. And as I said earlier, you'll have to explain how this infinite nothing gave birth to a finite something - our universe.

We do not know if we live in a finite universe (we only know that we observe a finite portion of it), but even if it is finite, it does not imply there is some sort of physical boundary between it and the super universe beyond it. This is alluded to in the answer from the CFA (Center for Astrophysics) in my previous post #47:

Galaxies extend as far as we can detect... with no sign of diminishing. There is no evidence that the universe has an edge. The part of the universe we can observe from Earth is filled more or less uniformly with galaxies extending in every direction as far as we can see - more than 10 billion light-years, or about 6 billion trillion miles. We know that the galaxies must extend much further than we can see, but we do not know whether the universe is infinite or not.

[Rr6]

Felix--Rr6, My point was only that the macro-universe, the universe beyond our observable universe, is also "occupied space." That is, there is only occupied space, there is no reason to believe there are two different kinds or aspects of space.

What your afraid to say, is that you believe we live in and infinite occupied space Universe, yet you cant bring youself to use those words. Some kinda of mental block of you and Dan there.

Again, the concept you refuse to acknowledge much less address directly and even less likely to accept as rational, logical common sense, is again, very simple;

If we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then what exists beyond/outside that finite occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite non-occupied space. You Dan refuse to admit this obvious truth of this scenario irrespective it is actually truth of existence.

As I said earlier, if you're going to posit another kind of space (unoccupied space) then you'll have to define its properties, which you have not done. If it has no properties, than it can not be said to exist.

Occupied space has properties? Felix, I think your brain is having a mental problems. The macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces our finite occupied space Universe, does not have any properties.

Where to you get these wild ideas non-occupied space having properties?

Rr6: if we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then what exists beyond that finite boundary?

Your answer is that nothing exists beyond it but you've just given this nonexistence the name "unoccupied space." Giving it a name does not grant it existence. And as I said earlier, you'll have to explain how this infinite nothing gave birth to a finite something - our universe.

My rational, logical common sense scenario is how Ive laid it out clearly for many years now. You have yet to offer any rational, logical common sense that would invalidate the truth of that scenario, irrespective of whether that is the actual existence we live within.

We do not know if we live in a finite universe (we only know that we observe a finite portion of it), but even if it is finite, it does not imply there is some sort of physical boundary between it and the super universe beyond it. This is alluded to in the answer from the CFA (Center for Astrophysics) in my previous post #47:

You still dont get it Felix, if we live in a finite occupied space Universe, then there is only one option as to what is beyond, macro-infinite non-occupied space. YOu refuse to except this rational, logical common sense truth irrespective of whether it is the existence with live within. Your ego is blocking your ability to access and acknowledge obivious truths. imho

Come back and talk to me when you want to have rational, logical common sense disscussion. Also you have not offerred--- and never will ---any alternate options to my given macro-infinite non-occupied space because none exist.

Galaxies extend as far as we can detect... with no sign of diminishing. There is no evidence that the universe has an edge.

Nor have I claimed any evidence of such. My rationale is based on what we do observe, using rational logical common sense. You have not yet done that.

The part of the universe we can observe from Earth is filled more or less uniformly with galaxies extending in every direction as far as we can see - more than 10 billion light-years, or about 6 billion trillion miles. We know that the galaxies must extend much further than we can see, but we do not know whether the universe is infinite or not.

Irrespective what Universe we exist within, the scenario I laid does not change, and you refuse to accept the acknowledge and accept the rationale I laid out as the only option for a finite, occupied space Unvierse. Your ego is in the way. Drop your ego and then we can get on with a rational disscussion regarding what Universe conditions do we exist within.

It is the same as my given scenario, but the rationale's I have not really develed into yet. I repeat, that topic should really have its own thread. It is worthless tho unless people are willing to offer rational, logical common sense oppinions based on what we do observe.

r6

[Dan_1985]

I think this is needed: Axiom: Space is necessary space 'between (at least) two things'.

No that is not correct. A seemingly non-occupied space--- or quasi-non-occupied space ---exists between to
occupied space objects

So here is your definition of 'non-occupied space': The space between two objects occupying space. (And you define these objects as 'aggregate collections'.)

...3c} finite, occupied space Universe
.....3c2} fermions and bosons and any aggregate collection thereof,{ aka observed reality and observed time },

How is the space between aggregate collections different from the space between the aggregates themselves? Based on what you say, there must be unoccupied space within occupied space itself. In which case, your unoccupied space runs through your occupied space. This is obvious, though, as one is nested within the other.

Therefore, you are wrong to state that the unoccupied space exists outside of occupied space.

If occupied space is defined as the occupation of aggregate collections (which themselves contain unoccupied space), then is your occupied space not unoccupied?

There is no object which is not an aggregated collection, and so if unoccupied space is defined as that which is devoid of aggregated collections, then your unoccupied space is equivalent to non-existence.

Even your unoccupied space - which you claim to exist between aggregate collections - is, itself, an aggregate collection: The unoccupied space is contingent upon the surrounding aggregate collections (i.e., without the occupied space, there is no unoccupied space). Therefore, if your unoccupied space is an aggregate collection, it is necessarily an occupied space by your definitions.

In other words, space must necessarily be occupied otherwise it wouldn't exist: This is the only way to avoid the paradoxes of your proposals. And if space must necessarily be occupied to exist, then space must be endless: No beginnings or ends.

I doubt your ability to grasp the depth of the analysis here, so feel free to hit me with some "ego trip" talk.

Best,
Dan

-- Updated September 4th, 2016, 12:24 pm to add the following --

In other words, your occupied/unoccupied space dichotomy is superfluous.

[Felix]

Dan_1985: In other words, space must necessarily be occupied otherwise it wouldn't exist

Yes, that was my point too, thank you. Space either has physical existence or it does not. Or it may not physically exist but be some sort of nonphysical transcendent reality (scientific speculations such as multiverses and alternate dimensions would fall into this category). In either case, it would not be "nothing."

[Rr6]

r6--No that is not correct. A seemingly non-occupied space--- or quasi-non-occupied space ---exists between to
occupied space objects.

So here is your definition of 'non-occupied space': The space between two objects occupying space. (And you define these objects as 'aggregate collections'.)

Please stop playing mind games Dan. I stated a seemingly non-occupied space. You playing same mind games Felix play when I used earth or basket ball and moon.

A true or pure non-occupied space only exists outside of/beyond our finite, occupied space Universe, and not between two objects, as you state above. Ive been very clear and you and Felix repeated skew my concepts with your mind games.

...3c} finite, occupied space Universe
.....3c2} fermions and bosons and any aggregate collection thereof,{ aka observed reality and observed time },

How is the space between aggregate collections different from the space between the aggregates themselves?

Huh? You are confused at best Dan. Fermions and bosons occupy space. What part of that do you not understand?

Based on what you say, there must be unoccupied space within occupied space itself.

Stop playing mind games Dan. There is seemingly non-occupied all around us tho we know they are seemingly not occupied because we know the non-occupied space parking lot, or paking space is filled with air and EMRadiation. This goes back to Felix playing mind games with my non-occupied space analogy using local props, basket ball Earth and moon and a seemingly non-occupied space between

Ive been very clear repeated yet you two let allow your ego to play mind games and avoid the obvious truths Ive laid out repeated and clearly.

In which case, your unoccupied space runs through your occupied space. This is obvious, though, as one is nested within the other.

Dan, our finite, occupied space Universe has many places that appear to us as being non-occupied, but we know there is stuff that we cannot see with naked eye, Ex molecules on Eath, EMRadiation between Earth and all else eetc.....

So please stop playing your ego based mind games. What a waste of time and intellect jsut to save your ego.

Therefore, you are wrong to state that the unoccupied space exists outside of occupied space.

Huh" Where you come along with that conclusion lacks any rational, logical common sense. Felix has at least finally come around to almost saying he believes we live in an infinite, occupied space Unvierse, but his ego will still not even allow him to use those words.

You on the other hand or still way behind the cosmic 8 ball of truth.

If occupied space is defined as the occupation of aggregate collections (which themselves contain unoccupied space), then is your occupied space not unoccupied?

Huh? You've lost me here Dan. Ive been very clear from day one and many years on what I state and believe, in these regards. I will say it again untill you want to stop playing your ego based mind games.

If we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then what exists beyond/outside of it, is the macro-infinite, true/pure non-occupied space--- not this seeming non-occupied space we find in parking lots or between Earth and all else ---and it embraces but does not constrain or restrain our finite, occupied space Universe from expanding or contracting if should do so.

There is no object which is not an aggregated collection, and so if unoccupied space is defined as that which is devoid of aggregated collections, then your unoccupied space is equivalent to non-existence.

IVe been very clear on what a true non-occupied space is;

1} fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof,

2} metaphysical-3, gravity,

3} metaphysical-4, dark energy.

When you want to drop you ego based mind games, please come back offer some rational logical common sense replies. You rarely have done that, skewed mind much of what Ive never stated or intended. Sad :--(

Even your unoccupied space - which you claim to exist between aggregate collections - is, itself, an aggregate collection:

YOu are totally confused dude. I think your ego has thrown your mental state into a tizzy.

The unoccupied space is contingent upon the surrounding aggregate collections (i.e., without the occupied space, there is no unoccupied space). Therefore, if your unoccupied space is an aggregate collection, it is necessarily an occupied space by your definitions.

Ditto all of my above...you have lost all touch with rational logical common sense.

In other words, space must necessarily be occupied otherwise it wouldn't exist: This is the only way to avoid the paradoxes of your proposals. And if space must necessarily be occupied to exist, then space must be endless: No beginnings or ends.

Ive been over this many times before and laid it out clearly. You and Felix need to drop your ego's. imho

Space:
....1a} truly/purely non-occupied, and only exists beyond/outside our finite occupied space Universe,

...1b} occupied space ergo fermions, bosons and any collection thereof,

...1c{ gravity,

...1d{ dark energy.

I doubt your ability to grasp the depth of the analysis here, so feel free to hit me with some "ego trip" talk.

In depth lack of rational, logical ability to grasp simple concepts because of your ego. imho

In other words, your occupied/unoccupied space dichotomy is superfluous.

They are exist near the top of my cosmic heirarchy as reflecting what I believe is the finite Universe we live in and the macro-infinite non-occupied space Universe that embraces it.

Yeah take note here just like Felix, tho even more so your ego will not allow you to directly address the simple concept above and many other ways and times Ive presented it to you.

You dont have any rational reply to what exists outside of a finite occupied space Universe, and your refuse to state that we live in a infinite occupied space Universe, because you know in your heart how irrational that concept is. Same as Felix, tho he states that in his round about way.

r6

[Dan_1985]

In other words, your occupied/unoccupied space dichotomy is superfluous.

They are exist near the top of my cosmic heirarchy as reflecting what I believe is the finite Universe we live in and the macro-infinite non-occupied space Universe that embraces it.

You dont have any rational reply to what exists outside of a finite occupied space Universe, and your refuse to state that we live in a infinite occupied space Universe, because you know in your heart how irrational that concept is.

You say finite occupied space is "fermions, bosons and any collection thereof", so your unoccupied space which "only exists beyond/outside our finite occupied space Universe" is just where the particles run out. OK. Fine.

I have read too much metaphysics into your words. I have also confused your use of the words 'occupy' and 'space'. I have the bad habit of mis-assessing others' intended mode of analysis.

Back to the OP:

Is there time in your unoccupied space Universe? If there is nothing outside of the finite occupied space, then is there anything to measure? Could this constitute an 'end of time'?

[Rr6]

Dan_1985--You say finite occupied space is "fermions, bosons and any collection thereof", so your unoccupied space which "only exists beyond/outside our finite occupied space Universe" is just where the particles run out. OK. Fine.

No not fined, because I've stated more than that many times and been very clear.

2} Occupied Space:

....2a} fermions, bosons and any collection thereof
...........aka physical/energy ^v ergo observed time......

....2b} metaphysical-3, gravity ( )---positive shaped outer surface peak of geodesic curvature/arc,

....2c}metaphysical-4, dark energy )( ---negative shaped inner surface peak of geodesic curvature/arc.

I have read too much metaphysics into your words. I have also confused your use of the words 'occupy' and 'space'. I have the bad habit of mis-assessing others' intended mode of analysis.

I would say that is a good start to making a fair assessment of your actions. Thank you for that. I too have my ego problems, that, are reinforced from typing the same stuff in so many ways over so many years, with slight less or more clarity and context at differrent times in the heat of back and forth communications.

Sorry for my short fuse if and when I get frustrated. My initial cosmic hierarchy, comes in slightly differrent versions, so more or less content is left out, and I sometimes forget that some people are new to my given concepts and lack the years of repetition of so many details, that I may many times not put into each explanations to each person.

Is there time in your unoccupied space Universe?

See above if not other post in this thread. Physical/energy ^v = Observed Time ^v = Topology of Sine-wave ^v = Frequency ^v= observed quanta ^v.
......note also, the Fullers jittebug VE transforms into the topolgy of a sine-wave pattern as well as a few other exotic shapes of space......

And the other ind of time that is more abstract in our language of measurement, feet, meters, degrees, arcs, radians, hours, etc......

Finite observed Time ex r6, is sometimes accompanied by a finite abstract measurement ex 40 - 50 - 60 - 70 some odd years old, 5' 9" tall, 170 lbs mass, catagory caucasian etc......

If there is nothing outside of the finite occupied space, then is there anything to measure?

So glad your attempting and are now making some rational, logical common sense statements. Thank you!

There is nothing outside, and again that nothing is best defined as non-occupied space. Finite may be accompanied by a finite measurement.

Infinite is beyond finite ergo beyond measurement. Macro-infinite, non-occupied space is what embraces our finite, occupied space Universe.

Now here above we could have a thread dedicated to this issue, because, there are a few scenarios involved that you may not be aware of that involve multiverse concepts and multiple local universes moving away from each other at speeds beyond speed-of-radiation--- ergo inflationary space ideas ----that come into play and I would be happy to consider them with you or anyone.

I use to have a link to good graphics explaining those.

Could this constitute an 'end of time'?

As with some many terms and concepts involving language--- especially English language --- when ask that, and when I answer we have to consider various related context.

Since Observed Time is occupied space and it has a boundary, then yes we could say, that there spatial end here over here.

However, the Observed Time, as our finite, occupied space Universe/Uni-Verse, exists eternally. Occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed.

This is where Felix goes off on the big bang and the creation of space and time. Again, nobody really knows what happened 13.5 - 17.5 bullion years ago and if you want to have a discussion involving those scenarios along with multi-verse scenarios, I'm happy to do so, but think we should have a thread dedicated to that discusion.

Oh yeah, called my ISProvider yesterday, and just before i called them to let them know that i had narrowed my posting problems to a single common source being them, I thought of unlugging my modem, but I didnt so in long run they rebooted my modem from their end, and that solved my problem.

NOTE: if you use a modem and router, always consider rebooting them on regular basis and any problems with net.

I hadnt really considere that option much because, I was for most part getting on the net and accessing most all links ok, but I did have a clue something of that nature was involved, jsut to slow to realize.

All is good, except when its is bad.

r6

[Dan_1985]

I would say that is a good start to making a fair assessment of your actions. Thank you for that. I too have my ego problems, that, are reinforced from typing the same stuff in so many ways over so many years, with slight less or more clarity and context at differrent times in the heat of back and forth communications.

I wouldn't call it as much 'ego' as communication skills. Part of my reason for joining this forum was to at least attempt to become more aware of how to improve my dialoguing skills. I tend more towards metaphysics and how concepts inform us about the world, but not everyone is inclined in the same way.

There is nothing outside, and again that nothing is best defined as non-occupied space. Finite may be accompanied by a finite measurement.

If your finite, occupied space Universe is infinite in its existence, then time does not have a temporal beginning or end within this space, but a spatial (or domain-of-application) end.

Would you agree?

[Rr6]

Dan_1985--I wouldn't call it as much 'ego' as communication skills. Part of my reason for joining this forum was to at least attempt to become more aware of how to improve my dialoguing skills. I tend more towards metaphysics and how concepts inform us about the world, but not everyone is inclined in the same way.

I agree and thanks again for tolerance, time and effort to be clear.

There is nothing outside, and again that nothing is best defined as non-occupied space. Finite may be accompanied by a finite measurement.

If your finite, occupied space Universe is infinite in its existence, then time does not have a temporal beginning or end within this space, but a spatial (or domain-of-application) end.Would you agree?

Your question seems strange and not quite clear to me., so I do not know for sure what it is I would be agreeing to or not.

1| a finite, occupied space Universe has a sum-total set of finite time { temporal } events,
....finite Universe has a spatial boundary ergo that is why I call it finite.........

2} an infinite, occupied space Universe would have no sum-total set of finite time { temporal } events
...has no finite boundary ergo that is why it is called infinite............

Within either Universe, there still exists local, special-case set of time events ex it still takes a finite amount of time to put on our socks, sneeze, drive to town, moon to orbit planet, particles to decay etc........

So what Ive answered you with you would see farily obvious to me, and not sure of exactly what your question is trying to discern exactly. Ed your "or domain-of-application" is mysterious too me.

Oh wait a second. Maybe what your trying to ask me is does an infinite, occupied space Universe exist eternally. H,mmm interesting question for me, because, since ideas of infinite occupied space Universe has no integrity involment, it seems to open infinite possibilities ergo purple unicorns that are born with keys to a toyota land crusier in their stomachs, or whatever nosensical thing we can think of.

Since our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally, I can only presume that an infinite, occupied space Universe would also exist eternally.

I dunno, but if you have some clear, rational logical common sense statement in regards to an infinite occupied space Universe, existing eternally or not, I'm all ears. Seems to me your skipping over what comes first in the line of thought, and that is whether we live in a finite or infinite, occupied space Universe.

Again, I think such a question is better served in a thread that is specific to Is Occupied Space Finite or Infinite? Then your temporal time issues can be better applied and considered, tho, they will not likely have any rational, logical, common sense basis, because an infinite, occupied space Universe, has not any rational, logical common sense basis. imho


All of that also goes back to our making the distinction between space and time in reference to my previous comments early on in this thread;

space is to infinite as time is to eternity

infnite-fiinite

time-eternity

I thought Ive already been clear on this, at least in regards to our finite, occupied space Universe.

The sum-total set of finite time events, as our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally. Felix of course will always go back to big bang issues, and as Ive stated repeatedly we dont know what happened 13.5 - 17.5 billion years ago much less at times beyond those numbers.

There have been various scecnarios proposed by some as away to determine what existed before the big bang. Again, that may best be served in a differrent thread.. imho

[Felix]

Proof that time can have a beginning without an end has now been supplied by onlinephilosophyclub.com, where threads can have a beginning but never end.

[Dan_1985]

Since our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally, I can only presume that an infinite, occupied space Universe would also exist eternally.

This is what I meant.

So perhaps this constitutes an answer to the OP with regards to your model.

[Rr6]

Proof that time can have a beginning without an end has now been supplied by onlinephilosophyclub.com, where threads can have a beginning but never end.

Yeah, philosophers believe philosophy is eternally existent...no surprise there.

r6

-- Updated September 7th, 2016, 9:39 am to add the following --

Since our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally, I can only presume that an infinite, occupied space Universe would also exist eternally.

This is what I meant.So perhaps this constitutes an answer to the OP with regards to your model.

Huh? YOuve lost me here Dan. I see no rational, logical common sense in any of my comments above, that, infer/imply/suggest a beginning of time.

I think there is a lot of wishful thinking going on, on your end. Ive address the OP in one or most posts in this thread before entering into disscussion with you and afterwards.

If you want to have a beginning in your scenarios then you need to follow Felix's narrow focus, only on a big bang scenario, irrespective of its lack of rational, logical common sense. Philosophy is find for some philosophers, until they are required to find some rational, logical common sense for their viewpoints.

Much less any valid evidence to support their viewpoint. Felix has niether ergo he bows out and begins silly comments when his ability to find rational, logical common sense runs. Ive seen this happen over and over at this forum and others.

1} "U"niverse = "G"od ergo Universe = God ergo Uni-Verse = G-O-D
.....The Cosmic Heirarchy..........

.....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts i.e. concepts of God, Universe, Space, Concepts, Dogs, Cats etc......
------------------line of demarcation..........................

...1b} metpahysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,

....1c} finite, occupied space Universe/Uni-Verse

..........1c2} fermions, bosons and any aggregate thereof,

.............1c3} metaphyscial-3, gravity ( )---positive shaped outer surface peak of geodesic curvature/arc,

................1c4} metaphysical-4, dark energy )( ---negative shaped inner surface peak of geodesic curvature/arc.

For those who seek the most complex truths, this above is the place to begin, as it is the most comprehensive whole set of existence, i..e there is no existence to consider beyond the list of 1a, 1b, 1c and any subcatagories thereof. imho

The truth may set some free to then consider all subcatagories of the above, an/or the truth will show that freedom is limited to the above list.

Observed time is finite occupied space Universe and all of its individual events, that, eternally exist.

Temporal time is finite and sum-totals in complementation to the finite occupied space, that, exists eternally.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space, is beyond time, but not space.

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are beyond time and space.

r6