fundamentally, do we comprehend everything in terms of space and motion?
- Thread starter Malachi
- Start date
In an effort to try to better understand the concepts of time and space (motion is inextricably linked to both of these concepts), sometimes I try to think about what reality would be like without one or the other.
Without space, there is nowhere to go, nothing to do. You can still move through time, but any notion of distance has completely disappeared from the picture. All you can do is sit there, in your own little world, stuck at a single point in non-existent space. Thinking about it more, you would not be you at all, because without space you couldn't physically exist. If you existed at all, it could only be in spirit. You could compose music, but you wouldn't be able to play a piano. If you'd always been that way, even though music would still be essentially what it is, you probably wouldn't think of it in terms of different tones you hear.
What about a world without time. I'm not talking about relative time, but rather the complete non-existence of the very concept of time itself, where there is never such a thing as before or after, not even such a thing as frozen time or being captured forever in a single moment, because time would have to exist in the first place for it to be frozen or stopped. If you were stuck in a universe without time, you wouldn't be able to move. You heart wouldn't beat, you wouldn't be able to think, and you have all the space in the world to move in, but you can't. Even considering this from the perspective of a purely spiritual being is hard because time is inextricably linked with conciousness.
Of course, there are failings of logic and alternative possibilities everywhere in these examples depending on how you look at them, but for me they aid in the understanding of the nature of our universe, and the nature of ourselves as beings in it.
Since we really can't seperate ourselves from the concepts of time, space and motion, and since the very nature of our reality is based on those concepts, in a very important and real sense the answer to your question is a resounding yes, in my humble opinion of course.
Without space, there is nowhere to go, nothing to do. You can still move through time, but any notion of distance has completely disappeared from the picture. All you can do is sit there, in your own little world, stuck at a single point in non-existent space. Thinking about it more, you would not be you at all, because without space you couldn't physically exist. If you existed at all, it could only be in spirit. You could compose music, but you wouldn't be able to play a piano. If you'd always been that way, even though music would still be essentially what it is, you probably wouldn't think of it in terms of different tones you hear.
What about a world without time. I'm not talking about relative time, but rather the complete non-existence of the very concept of time itself, where there is never such a thing as before or after, not even such a thing as frozen time or being captured forever in a single moment, because time would have to exist in the first place for it to be frozen or stopped. If you were stuck in a universe without time, you wouldn't be able to move. You heart wouldn't beat, you wouldn't be able to think, and you have all the space in the world to move in, but you can't. Even considering this from the perspective of a purely spiritual being is hard because time is inextricably linked with conciousness.
Of course, there are failings of logic and alternative possibilities everywhere in these examples depending on how you look at them, but for me they aid in the understanding of the nature of our universe, and the nature of ourselves as beings in it.
Since we really can't seperate ourselves from the concepts of time, space and motion, and since the very nature of our reality is based on those concepts, in a very important and real sense the answer to your question is a resounding yes, in my humble opinion of course.
That is where the OBSERVER comes in to play in the theory of relativity. Which is another way of saying the universe is dependent upon our perception of it. And since perception does exist, it must be assumed that perception itself is an aspect of the universe. If the only thing that existed in the universe were a golfball, would it be tiny or huge? No penis jokes please.
This, I think, is where the line between science and philosophy becomes a little harder to see clearly.
Personally, I look at it like this. The universe is not dependant on our perception of it. However, the way we describe the universe is. Additionally, we are clever enough to realize that our perceptions are sometimes scientifically incorrect, in which case we discard them in favour of the new understanding we have gained, which you might describe as a more "refined" perception.
I agree that perception itself is an aspect of the universe, because as perceiving beings, we are in it. It is an important aspect in the sense that the only way we can actually look at it is through a pair of glasses tinted with our own idiosyncratic way of perceiving it as human beings.
In that sense, the size of the golfball is irrelevant, or moot, unless there is someone there to describe it in reference to something else. Nevertheless, the golf ball, assuming it is made of matter, will contain the same number of protons, neutrons and electrons (and so would it's penis) whether anyone is here to perceive it or not.
As for relativity, if you were to imagine a universe in which there was nothing but time, the question "how long does this or that take" would be just as meaningless as asking how big the golf ball is. As human beings, we know time goes by. Sometimes it even seems to slow down and speed up depending on what we are doing. That is a matter of perception. But regardless of those perceptions, an electron will still orbit the nucleus of an atom at the same rate it always has, and if you were to measure how many times it did that before the light from the sun gets to earth, you'd get the same result each time regardless of whether you were having a good or a bad day at work
Personally, I look at it like this. The universe is not dependant on our perception of it. However, the way we describe the universe is. Additionally, we are clever enough to realize that our perceptions are sometimes scientifically incorrect, in which case we discard them in favour of the new understanding we have gained, which you might describe as a more "refined" perception.
I agree that perception itself is an aspect of the universe, because as perceiving beings, we are in it. It is an important aspect in the sense that the only way we can actually look at it is through a pair of glasses tinted with our own idiosyncratic way of perceiving it as human beings.
In that sense, the size of the golfball is irrelevant, or moot, unless there is someone there to describe it in reference to something else. Nevertheless, the golf ball, assuming it is made of matter, will contain the same number of protons, neutrons and electrons (and so would it's penis) whether anyone is here to perceive it or not.
As for relativity, if you were to imagine a universe in which there was nothing but time, the question "how long does this or that take" would be just as meaningless as asking how big the golf ball is. As human beings, we know time goes by. Sometimes it even seems to slow down and speed up depending on what we are doing. That is a matter of perception. But regardless of those perceptions, an electron will still orbit the nucleus of an atom at the same rate it always has, and if you were to measure how many times it did that before the light from the sun gets to earth, you'd get the same result each time regardless of whether you were having a good or a bad day at work
Last edited:
As Kant put it, space and time are our methods of intuition -- meaning a sort of filter in the mind which all perception must be interpreted through. It's impossible to imagine an object which is not in space-time, because
This leaves it impossible to collect any evidence for an objective space-time, since any observation would seem space-time to us whether the thing in itself is or isn't. But by applying Occam's razor, we can see it's much more reasonable (far simpler) to suppose that space-time doesn't exist outside of being the necessary method of filtering in the mind.
Of course, if there were no universe outside of us we'd have no conceptions of space... it's the relation of things-in-themselves to the mind-in-itself that creates the sense of space in the mind which can't really exist without the external relation doing its part of meeting up with the sensory devices.
This leaves it impossible to collect any evidence for an objective space-time, since any observation would seem space-time to us whether the thing in itself is or isn't. But by applying Occam's razor, we can see it's much more reasonable (far simpler) to suppose that space-time doesn't exist outside of being the necessary method of filtering in the mind.
Of course, if there were no universe outside of us we'd have no conceptions of space... it's the relation of things-in-themselves to the mind-in-itself that creates the sense of space in the mind which can't really exist without the external relation doing its part of meeting up with the sensory devices.
RAV, a reply
I agree. I think that it is a mistake to alot unequal weight to any disclipine. Everything is connected. I say this because the fulcrum of perception underlies everything within the human experience. I also think that when trying to determine why something influences human behavior, the fundamentals should be addressed FIRST. What is perceived should first be sent through the filter of biology. Is it adaptive or maladaptive? Before building a great monument with feet of clay, we should first determine how the enviroment may have pressured the vessel that our knowledge has boarded in hopes of seeing another sunrise.
I agree. I think that it is a mistake to alot unequal weight to any disclipine. Everything is connected. I say this because the fulcrum of perception underlies everything within the human experience. I also think that when trying to determine why something influences human behavior, the fundamentals should be addressed FIRST. What is perceived should first be sent through the filter of biology. Is it adaptive or maladaptive? Before building a great monument with feet of clay, we should first determine how the enviroment may have pressured the vessel that our knowledge has boarded in hopes of seeing another sunrise.
an apology
Please forgive me. I responded to your post without taking the time neccessary to fully appreciate what you were saying. The above statement echoes a chilly wisdom. Chilly in the sense that little sunlight reaches truth. Which is probably why the truth is usually picked apart by strange fish with wide pupils and white needle-like teeth.
Please forgive me. I responded to your post without taking the time neccessary to fully appreciate what you were saying. The above statement echoes a chilly wisdom. Chilly in the sense that little sunlight reaches truth. Which is probably why the truth is usually picked apart by strange fish with wide pupils and white needle-like teeth.
I know exactly what you mean. Considering reality in a purely scientific context can sometimes seem cold and empty, but my intention is never to take my perception of the world as the vibrantly colorful and mysteriously wonderful reality that it is, and replace it with a vision that ignores those truths of human experience.
In the quest for ultimate truth however, I do think it's necessary on occasion to attempt to seperate our subjective perceptions of the universe from the objective realities (which I believe exist).
Once we understand those objective truths (which I believe we can), then strange fish with wide pupils and white needle-like teeth can live in harmony with them because we are also the amazingly imaginative and intelligently creative creatures that bridge the gap