Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Bowser, Jul 6, 2018.
Sure but space means space nothing else
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I've just used it to describe two locations a billion light years apart, and under entirely different physical conditions. One at the centre of a star, the other, the virtual area on my screen. One is three dimensional the other is two dimensional.
Where did you describe these two locations , what post ?
Post 160. "There is lots of space on my screen for text."
I'll leave it to the reader to divine the implicit the other meaning of space.
I could come up with a dozen more, if that would help. But I'm feeling a bit under pressure, so give me some ... space.*
*that would be emotional, attentional space, not physical space.
Oh, and I'll have to be brief since there's little .... space left on my drive (despite the fact that memory on a drive has exactly the same volume whether there's "space" on it or not.)
Yet the understanding of space never changed .
Everybody would understand your usage of " space " as space and nothing else
And yet, I used it in four distinct ways.
Which way did I use this time?
It's inherent, right? Which means the definition is in the word, right? You don't need me.
So: distant vacuum? Screen real estate? Emotional distance? Quantity of memory?
I get you but here is the thing , the definition of space never changes .
In comparison think of a rock , rock and roll , rock on . The definition of a rock changes . From an actual rock to an abstract metaphor .
You keep repeating this, despite the fact that I've just shown you at least four examples to the contrary.
Unless you've got more than just repetition, I'm afraid your argument is busted.
Is that right ! not to me .
What is the difference between my post #165 and 167 ? Emotions aside
Waiting for any response that hasn't already been shown to be false...
Why wait on something that is proven to your thinking to be false .
You are wrong , end of story
The difference between you saying I'm wrong and me saying you're wrong is that I have demonstrated it, above, with examples, for all to read - including you.
You have done nothing but make baseless assertions with zero argument to support them. Repeating baseless assertions over and over does not constitute an argument.
Yet you do not address my post # 169
It doesn't say anything not already addressed.
The baseless assertion they make has already been proven false by my simple examples or four different kinds of "space".
Simply repeating the same thing over and over is not an argument; it is simply vexatious.
Your not addressing my post # 169
Asked and answered.
I'm not into repetition like you are.
I've refuted your assertion that "space is space and nothing else".
That being settled, you have nothing else.
You have not addressed my post #169
Ha ha. So what is it now? 165? 167? or 169?
Maybe all I need to say is "Oh, I just didn't get your point!" and then ignore it, eh?
If you have anything that has not already been refuted, spit it out. Otherwise, this is pretty much done.
My post #169
You have an extremely short memory, and you lazily make others do your homework. But OK.
Your post 167 suggests that "the definition of space never changes."
In post 164, I gave you four distinct definitions of space.
In post 166, I said "Space!".
If you say the word has inherent meaning that never changes, tell me what I meant by "Space!" You've got a 25% chance at best. Don't blow it.
Separate names with a comma.