Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Should We Reject A Spatial Reality?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 4:20:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

What you find to be "absurd" or what you assume can or can't be the case has no bearing on reality.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 9:05:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 4:20:04 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

What you find to be "absurd" or what you assume can or can't be the case has no bearing on reality.

Bump
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 1:24:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 4:20:04 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

What you find to be "absurd" or what you assume can or can't be the case has no bearing on reality.

Non-spatiality cannot contain space because there would be no space for it to exist. You obviously didn't pay attention to anything I wrote.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 1:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 5:16:41 AM, BlueDreams wrote:
On GR, space is probably infinite.

There hasn't been enough time for space to be infinite. We know the expansion rate of the universe assuming space exists.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 2:20:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

I had a similar thought once.

The way we discern space is by watching the interactions of matter in that space. But that is not the space itself.

When we observe space expanding we could just be observing the energy/matter expanding from a starting point.

What we observe as a finite space could really be because we do not discern the flat counter top, but only the water rippling outward on the counter top.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 2:35:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 2:20:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

I had a similar thought once.

The way we discern space is by watching the interactions of matter in that space. But that is not the space itself.

When we observe space expanding we could just be observing the energy/matter expanding from a starting point.

What we observe as a finite space could really be because we do not discern the flat counter top, but only the water rippling outward on the counter top.

Are you suggesting that space could be infinite?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 4:03:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 2:35:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 2:20:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

I had a similar thought once.

The way we discern space is by watching the interactions of matter in that space. But that is not the space itself.

When we observe space expanding we could just be observing the energy/matter expanding from a starting point.

What we observe as a finite space could really be because we do not discern the flat counter top, but only the water rippling outward on the counter top.

Are you suggesting that space could be infinite?

I'm entertainign the idea you presented.

And my contention is how do you tell one finite space from another? Is it really the space we discern separate or is it the matter/energy moving from one space into another?

Whether it is infinite is unknowable till the matter/energy hits some limit.

Whether it actually exists or is just the room in which matter and energy move about in is also questionable. The difference between these 2 is: Is space a direction in which movement can happen, or is it a substrate that warps and bends?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 8:44:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 4:03:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/26/2015 2:35:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 2:20:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

I had a similar thought once.

The way we discern space is by watching the interactions of matter in that space. But that is not the space itself.

When we observe space expanding we could just be observing the energy/matter expanding from a starting point.

What we observe as a finite space could really be because we do not discern the flat counter top, but only the water rippling outward on the counter top.

Are you suggesting that space could be infinite?

I'm entertainign the idea you presented.

And my contention is how do you tell one finite space from another? Is it really the space we discern separate or is it the matter/energy moving from one space into another?

It doesn't really matter, 2 finite spaces is still a finite amount of space.


Whether it is infinite is unknowable till the matter/energy hits some limit.

Infinite space seems illogical. Imagine you are stuck in infinite space, and you look in one direction, how many inches of space would there in any given direction? An infinite amount. How many meters though? An infinite amount. However, a meter is bigger than an inch.. Thus, a contradiction arises.


Whether it actually exists or is just the room in which matter and energy move about in is also questionable. The difference between these 2 is: Is space a direction in which movement can happen, or is it a substrate that warps and bends?

Are the two mutually exclusive?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 9:06:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 8:44:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 4:03:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/26/2015 2:35:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 2:20:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

I had a similar thought once.

The way we discern space is by watching the interactions of matter in that space. But that is not the space itself.

When we observe space expanding we could just be observing the energy/matter expanding from a starting point.

What we observe as a finite space could really be because we do not discern the flat counter top, but only the water rippling outward on the counter top.

Are you suggesting that space could be infinite?

I'm entertainign the idea you presented.

And my contention is how do you tell one finite space from another? Is it really the space we discern separate or is it the matter/energy moving from one space into another?

It doesn't really matter, 2 finite spaces is still a finite amount of space.

I'm suggesting the way we define finite spaces is a description of the matter and energy in a localized space. And that it may not be finite space.



Whether it is infinite is unknowable till the matter/energy hits some limit.

Infinite space seems illogical. Imagine you are stuck in infinite space, and you look in one direction, how many inches of space would there in any given direction? An infinite amount. How many meters though? An infinite amount. However, a meter is bigger than an inch.. Thus, a contradiction arises.

I don't see a contradiction. Hilbert's grand Hotel addresses this.

And I have a problem with the idea that infinity can be measured. A measurement is made by comparing the difference between two points to a standard unit.

Due to relativity the observer position effects the measurement made. To measure an infinity how space we would have to be removed from it.



Whether it actually exists or is just the room in which matter and energy move about in is also questionable. The difference between these 2 is: Is space a direction in which movement can happen, or is it a substrate that warps and bends?

Are the two mutually exclusive?

I do feel a direction of possible travel is different than a substrate. A direction is nothing. But what directions one can travel in is dependent upon the substrate. While I am inclined to think directions can be infinite in nature, I do not think substrates can be.

Mutually Exclusive not necessarily. A substrate can be finite, curved and growing will have some infinite directions.
BlueDreams
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 5:26:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 1:25:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 5:16:41 AM, BlueDreams wrote:
On GR, space is probably infinite.

There hasn't been enough time for space to be infinite. We know the expansion rate of the universe assuming space exists.

I think it's a matter of conceptualizing it. (I'm using this uncertain language because I haven't approached this topic in a while). Imagine if space began as a four by four inch square. You're probably imagining the expansion of this square across time and then concluding that there hasn't been enough time for space to be infinite. However, the picture isn't really like that. Think more of topological surfaces. If we imagine a topological surface, is the underlying point set finite, or can we create an infinite amount of points within the neighborhood of the set? That's really what the question of whether or not space is infinite is truly about. As I said, the evidence from cosmology supports the conclusion that it is infinite, but we may never know.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 1:49:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite).

The Big Bang only deals with the observable universe. It does not need to contradict with an infinite universe and could fit into an infinite universe very nicely.

Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all).

There is no middle in an infinite large universe, a universe without boundary. You can arbitrarily pick a point and try to count outward in all directions, but it is pointless. What is not pointless is the distance of objects in relation to each other.

However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

There are some who see it that way. In fact there was a mathematical model recently developed upon the Holographic principle which in theory would allow our experience and seeming reality of three dimensions on a two dimensional plane.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 4:21:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

Basically, lets assume that a spatial universe exists (like most people believe). It contains objects like computers, phones, your body, and my body that have real spatial extension between them. This seems to present a huge problem because it forces us to ask "what space allows for the spatial extension between this finite space's boundaries?". The idea that a finite space can exist, but doesn't have to exist within space seems absolutely absurd because there would be no space to ground the spatial extension between the finite space's boundaries.

This sort of goes back to the old cosmology question of "what is space expanding into?". I take this to be much more than an interesting question, but an actual argument against space existing itself. It seems that a finite space cannot possibly exist without space to ground its own spatial extension between boundaries. If you have a ball with spatial extension between the boundaries then it must exist within space to allow for such spatial extension. The issue, is that the same applies for the boundaries of finite space in its own right.

There are two ways that I see to get around this but they are both problematic in themselves. One way is to say our space isn't finite, but that contradicts The Big Bang (assuming space isn't an illusion for the sake of argument, we know the expansion rate of space; there simply hasn't been enough time for space to get infinite). Another way is to say is to say that an infinite space grounds our finite space, but not only is this ad hoc, but it presents a problem. The problem is where is this finite space within the infinite space? If the meta-space is literally infinite, then it wouldn't matter where the finite space was it would always be in the middle because there is the exact same amount of space around the finite space from all angles (there are no boundaries to infinite space after all). However, the idea that the finite space could be literally anywhere within X but always be in the middle of X is an absurdity. Thus, infinite space seems illogical. At the very least, it is unnecessary.

It seems that no matter how you slice it, the idea that a spatial world exists is problematic. Again, I could be totally off my rocker here. If I am wrong, I welcome any good reason as to why. Thank you.

By all means. Next time you go out for a drive, reject that fictitious spatial reality.
Let me know how it works out for you.
We should never let our yearning for seeking ulterior and alternative explanations for the nature of reality get in the way of....well, "Reality!"
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 5:53:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 3:30:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be on to something, or I could be failing terribly. Either way, I appreciate your input...

For any given finite space that doesn't exist within some other space, there can be 0 spatial extension between the boundaries of the given finite space. However, if there is 0 space between the boundaries of space; then spatial extension inside the boundaries of space is impossible.

This assumes that space is a physical "thing" which contains other "things" and not an abstract set of relationships. If space is a mathematical structure then it doesn't have to be "embedded" in a background space in order to provide a metric of separation between informational entities because space already does that. In fact, it could not be embedded in anything because there would be nothing to embed. It is the syntax of embedment itself; if it could be embedded in something else, then it would would not really be space, or would at least be an incomplete description of it.