leyline

Sophie

"Your above response reeks of mismanagement of the utilisation of the term space. Can you clarify. I for one strictly use the term dimension to imply an enclosure or a containment field. "

well yeh we do get to the point when deeply examining a concept how exactly we use language.

Referring to your own personal preference i would say that "an enclosure or a containment field. " is indeed what many people would refer to as space. I take your point about the difference between an empty containment field and a space that has intrinsically got mass and energy associated with it. However, i simply maintain that exactly the same conclusion can be used for your understanding of dimension. ie that it is conceptually directly linked to the subjective experience of space. Perhaps you would say that it is abstracted from it which i wouldn't object to. But it is that essential quality of your containment field that is required as a medium for the scientific claims of reality and that in particular the brain is contained in it. Just like the brain is subjectively contained in space. I would point out that scientists are not philosophers. When they tell us that the universe is expanding, they mean it literally. They believe they are talking about reality. It is the scientific paradigm that i am examining, not a general philosophical one.

"I doubt there is anything such as real space. It is only an acyronym for absence of material. The universe is based on material not space, it is only through the arrangements of the material does what lie between various masses propose the concept of space. "

i can see where you are coming from philosophically here. But contrary to your stance science is increasingly trying to use dimensionality to explain everything, including mass and energy. They are now concievably envisaged as tiny intense twisted knots and strings of further dimensions that we cannot perceive. But i personally agree with you that i cannot see how a twisted dimension has any substance however mathematically dramatic the enfoldment.

Of course many scientists would say that mass and energy are fundamental, but the point of my writing is to show that if at least one fundamental concept of science can be shown to be dependent upon the trust of just one aspect of our senses, then philosophically it does not have valid grounds to challenge other paradigms that do the same, by simply saying that such trust is unreliable. (It has other ways to challenge other paradigms of course) Attempting to understand the concievability of the perception of space scientifically reveals this trust.

John Page

I hope you will see I'm having trouble matching up your response with your prior statements.
OK. I'm not sure what we're arguing about here except that the claims are made by humans who follow scientific disciplines.
Scientific investigation should look for disproofs as well as proofs. Anyway, I disagree, a lot of electrical threory doesn't involve distance-related equations, for example.
Well, believe it or not, I have no idea how you come to claim that time is spatial.

I seem to recollect the notion that an observer has their own intertial frame of reference for time that determines objectively measurable time for them at their location. The drift of the two clocks due to velocity differences can be measured (clear support for relativity from experiments with reference clocks on GPS satellites, for example) but I have nowhere read that time is spatial. Time is a function of change, which may involve assumptions about distance/space, but not necessarily.

Cheers, John

BTW, I still think this is a good topic and space is all we might think it is.

leyline

john page

"I hope you will see I'm having trouble matching up your response with your prior statements. "

i can't for the life of me see where i imply that the concept of space or space does not exist in the quote you raised. We are obviously at cross purposes here and going around in circles.

As regards that i said that time was spatial i would have thought it was obvious that i meant the relativistic merging of space-time based on non euclidean geometry. Or as sophie pointed out the alternative terminology of dimensionality whereby mass and energy aren't necessarily implied. But since my arguement has nothing to do with materialism that aspect is irrelevant.

While of course there are aspects whereby space is not implicitly written in to any equation, nevertheless those equations would have no relevance unless in the context of the overall scientific paradigm. eg electrical theory would make no relevant sense without the concept of space. (or geometric dimensionality if you prefer.) But i point out again that science is not philosophy. It makes claims about reality not conceptual schemes, although within science conceptual schemes fight it out for the right to make claims about reality.

I had hoped that someone would have agreed with me by now and i could have gone on to discuss how science could possibly ditch spatial thinking, but in doing so would only set up a new dependence upon the subjectivity of language. There are good cultural reasons why i think it doesn't do that.

John Page

Here it is....
I didn't claim you said it didn't exist, what I posted was a request for clarification:- "Its not clear whether you are you saying the concept of space does not exist or that space does not exist? "
Sorry, it wasn't obvious.
Science does make claims about conceptual schemes - wasn't it such an altering of conceptualization of reality that enabled the formulation of relativity, of atomic structure, that eyes receive information in the form of light and not projecting some undetectable ray to "actively" see objects?
Well I did ask you "Perhaps you can come up with a non-spatial interpretation of scientific observations." a couple of posts ago! :banghead:

Anyway, I still think its a nice topic. Why do you think a non-spatial model would have to rely on (the subjectivity of) language?

Cheers, John

leyline

john page

"Here it is.... "

well again i can't see it. lol

the only thing i can think of that has caused the cross wiring is the following, but i am only guessing.

If you ask a scientist how do we percieve a tree, then they will say. We don't entirely know yet. But that is not to say that they believe that the scientific discovery of how we persieve a tree is inconcievable. Far from it. They will talk about their discoveries about light, and the lens in the eye, and some may go on to make computer like metaphors for the brain. In other words they believe the task is concievable. If we point out that we can also percieve a tree by touch and sound, then they will agree and describe sound as a pressure wave and so on, and the biologists come in with nerve endings and the like.

Now fundamental to the concievability of this whole paradigm is that the brain resides in space and is ultimately the seat of the mechanism for perception. It is when we consider the perception of space however, trusting this brain centered paradigm, that i claim that their general suspicion of the subjective experience is compromised. I am not going to repeat all the things i have said about that. If what i am writing now suddenly makes a difference then i ask you to reread what i have said in that light. But for the life of me i cannot see how this could mean that i am saying that either space or the concept of space does not exist. Within the scientific paradigm they both exist, and as i have said incidentally, i personally don't disagree with the scientists axiomatic assumption that space exists from the subjective experience of it. (which is still different to real space according to science, but nevertheless gives the fundamental quality of geometric dimensionality and the trustworthy fact that the brain is contained by a space.)

"Science does make claims about conceptual schemes "

well yes i did actually say that didn't i? The claims thay make of their competing conceptual schemes is that they reveal the nature of reality.

WRT going on and discussing how science might possibly ditch spatial schemes i did hint that it would be a revolution in science. Since i claim that it grips firmly to space how for the life of me am i supposed to articulate a "a non-spatial interpretation of scientific observations" without it necessarily being controversial?? People would quite correctly point out that one of the fundamental and most successful theories of science is intrinsically spatial and that i have completely misunderstood science by saying that it relies upon language! Not only that but under the new scheme the trust in the fact that the brain is contained by space would not be made, and that is not scientific. Science relies on space at the moment and looks like it is going even further into geometry. Any sheme offered up as ditching it would cease to be science as it is now. This is precisely where conceptual schemes in science makes claims about reality. Science says that reality is fundamentally spatial.

With respect the thread is confusing enough and i am unwilling to elaborate further. I have tried my best to get across my point but singualrly failed. thats life.

John Page

To hell with controversies! Does the sun go round the earth or is this a spatial illusion?

How about:

"The human mind's conception of its environment cannot be freed from the spatial model because of the manner in which sense data is analyzed by the nervous system. This very realization, however, begs the question as to the relationship between the 'ultimate nature of the universe' (itself a highly abstract concept) and the nature of the mind that perceives such ultimate nature of the universe.

With this in mind , it is possible to invent the science of Perceptics, that is, the study of possible minds and how they conceive of their environments."

What do you think?

Cheers, John

sophie

leyline, indicated thet contrary to my stance science is increasingly trying to use dimensionality to explain everything, including mass and energy.

When the dust settles and science looks at itself, what they will realise is existence is being explained through the foundation of existence.

In reality Newton's equation : V = U + at should be written as
V (dt) = U (dt) + at (dt).

leyline, what I believe you are implying in your argument is that existence is a given in the way I have rewritten Newton's equations to indicate its place in reality. The implied existence, which is the existence of mass and energy is intuited by scientists. The universe is intuited and as Kant claimed, space and time is apriori, and this is the basic reason why it is apriori, because it is founded on our intuition of existence.

John Page

The leaves knew the mud was a priori, for the mud was what they were ultimately made of, the stuff of life, the very fabric of the universe. Certain leaves would rustle from time to time, if only to remind each other that the form of all leaves was indelible upon them and they were condemned to autumn's fall as much as they were celebrated by spring's rebirth.

The tree, however, knew better. Time did not exist a priori for the leaves before the tree had appeared. They could rustle as much as they wanted, but their intuition was no substitute for the trees superior knowledge.

Kant intuited the a priori for, I think, the same reasons leyline is offering that we all and science intuits them. Now we have to go ask the tree of knowledge a.k.a. science. <loop forever>. In this way I think you are agreeing with leyline. Is my intuition correct?

Cheers, John

sophie

hi John, I wanted to clarify what this intuition of existence to which I previously made reference means to me.

The intuition of existence is embedded in our evolution alongside the universe. We are a natural part of the system. We seem to have taken this for granted, granted that was a valid move in the quest for knowledge. This line of thought trails out when we regard our senses as also having evolved in the universe. The question philosophers must ask themselves is what is the accuracy of our senses when it comes to supplying us with information about this wonderful world all around us.

cheers to you.

sophie

leyline,

classical physics explains how material is affected by existence, the other theories try to explain the foundation of existence. The basic parting line, that soon to be famous line of demarcation between how we are driven and what is it that drives us will determine the founding nouns of our universe.

When you are mentioning space concerning containment I think it is clearer to use existence because the behaviour within is determined by that which is extant. Here I think it is foolish to do away with time completely, because what the scientists are creating is that universe-space which must be enduring. My point can be reinforced concerning existence has a sidekick called time.