About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 9:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:

"What in the universe are the connecting lines supposed to be analogous to?"

What you have done is create a boundary (remember that the pen is not raised from the paper) that encloses all the matter in the universe. The straight lines are boundary lines that by definition have no width. There is no distance between them but one of them defines that there is no matter one side of the (double) line and the other defines that there is no matter on the other side of the (double) line.

Sam


Post 41

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 7:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Sam,

For the sake of convenience, let's just say the dots are in a circle, so the line connecting them forms a circle. What's in the center of the circle? There are no dots there. I'd say nothing or space. But that nothing or space is within the circle, which by analogy means its in the universe.

Jordan


Post 42

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 12:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:

It makes no difference if the points are on a circle. If you go initially around the circuit clockwise everything on your left is outside the universe. Because it is a single boundary, even when you are backtracking in a counterclockwise direction, everything on your left is also still outside the universe.

The double, coincident lines, have no area so it has no effect on the continuity of the area outside the universe on both sides of the line.

That's about as explicit as I can get in explaining this. Sorry if it hasn't done the job. I've always said that if one can't explain something so that other people can understand it then the shortcoming is yours. Maybe I'll come up with another way of explanation.

Sam
 
p.s. It occurs to me that the reverse is also true. If you go initially around the circuit clockwise everything on your right is outside the universe. Because it is a single boundary, even when you are backtracking in a counterclockwise direction, everything on your right is also still outside the universe.
 
— and this is compatible.


Post 43

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm sorry, Sam. I'm just not getting it. One point of confusion is what you mean by stuff on my left. I thought I was a line connecting a bunch of dots. Once I connect all the dots, I make an enclosed shape. I figured the "universe" was everything within or on that enclosed shape, and everything outside the enclosed shape is outside the universe and is nothing. Where am I going wrong? If anyone else can see what Sam is getting at, please jump in. And Sam, I'll understand if you choose to leave this be. In any case, I do appreciate your patience.

Jordan


Post 44

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 2:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:

"I figured the "universe" was everything within or on that enclosed shape, and everything outside the enclosed shape is outside the universe and is nothing."

Yeah, that's correct. Perhaps what I haven't made clear is that it matters which way you enclose the particles as to what's inside and what's outside. On the initial route going clockwise if you pass a particle on the left (leave it to the right) and on the return route you also enclose the particle by leaving it on the right then everything on the right  is within the universe (on both routes).

Sam


Post 45

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 8:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Sam,

The stuff of "universe" is just the dots, though, right? All else within the enclosed shape is, well, space/nothing. And it's weird to say that "nothing" is within the universe.

Where is everybody else here? Surely someone else understands Sam.

Jordan


Post 46

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry for hijacking this thread. I don't think anyone else is interested and maybe this should be done privately. However, I'll try it again. We'll go backwards.

Consider, say, five points (not true points, but matter, that have area) aligned horizontally with the first point on the left. The horizontal line through the center of the points is a reference line, or axis, not to be confused with anything we draw. At the left most part of point 1 on the reference line put your pencil down. Proceed to enclose the top half of the first point up to where the reference line intersects the far end of point 1. Draw a straight line to the left most point of point 2 where the reference line intersects it. Enclose the top half of the second in the same manner as you did the first, and so on until you've enclosed the top half of the fifth (last) point.

Now go in reverse, completing the enclosing of the fifth point by going around its bottom to the point where the reference line intersects it on the front. This is also the point where a line was drawn from the fourth point to the fifth point. Go to the back of the fourth point by retracing the former line and finish enclosing the fourth point, etc., until you end up at the right end of the first point.

You now have a string of five points each connected by two coincident lines. Now we can disperse the points by moving them to positions that resemble the dispersion of actual matter in the universe. Everything within the boundary we have drawn encloses everything in the universe and everything outside that boundary does not exist.

What I was describing before is the same process but I didn't put the points in a straight line first, but it's easier to describe that way. Also, in my former description I made the string a closed loop. It wasn't erroneous but it was harder to understand and wasn't necessary.

In any case, 'space' doesn't exist because it isn't in the universe.

Sam


Post 47

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 11:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:
>Daniel, It just dawns on me that there's another alternative that somewhat bypasses the whole problem...

Seems like something would still have to move on each page. Think of each "page" as being one of those shift-puzzles.

>Where is everybody else here? Surely someone else understands Sam.

I'm here but I'm not getting it either.

- Daniel


Post 48

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 7:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I guess I'm done on this subject. I can only suppose that I'm not able to convey that the points on the paper in two dimensions represent matter in the universe (of three dimensions) and that we can construct a boundary around all the matter (the universe)leaving out any areas which we would normally call 'space'.

(sigh)

Sam.


Post 49

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Sam,

But there's distance between two connected points. The distance is...space, no?  Maye it's time to let this one rest. Again, thanks for your patience.

Daniel,
Seems like something would still have to move on each page. Think of each "page" as being one of those shift-puzzles.
Nope. Each page is completely still. Movement is the fact that one page is different from another. Time is the difference between two pages. I find this model of the universe very handy. It avoids all sorts of ontological problems. I can explain it in more detail if you like, just on some other thread.

Jordan


Post 50

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan: No, distance is not space. Distance is a measurement.

Sam


Post 51

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam (Paul),

I see space as a a facet or component of matter, not as something independent of it. It is merely a concept we use to focus on this aspect if treated separately - like an imaginary point that has no mass. I also see no boundary to the universe that has been discovered by any observation that can boil down to the five senses.

Am I missing anything?

Michael

Post 52

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael: I don't see how you can regard space as a component of matter unless you're thinking of the 'spaces' between atoms. But even in that case space is the absence of matter.

I  agree that a point has no mass but only because it has no dimensions. A point is only a location so that there is no meaning in talking about mass. It doesn't exist as a physical entity. It isn't a 'thing'.

Sam



Post 53

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 10:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I guess this all comes down to whether you consider matter occupying space or displacing it.

Sam


Post 54

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Sam,
Jordan: No, distance is not space. Distance is a measurement.
The distance is a measurement of what?

Jordan


Post 55

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 10:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:

Distance is a measurement of the degree of separation of locations. (Objects occupy many locations)

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/01, 11:04am)


Post 56

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Sam,
Distance is a measurement of the degree of separation of locations. (Objects occupy many locations)
If those locations don't contain objects, and if those locations are in the universe, then those locations contain nothing/space (assuming for now that objects and their attributes are the only existents), and the distance between those locations is a measurement between two spaces/nothings. No?

Jordan


Post 57

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 4:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:

"If those locations don't contain objects, and if those locations are in the universe, then those locations contain nothing/space (assuming for now that objects and their attributes are the only existents), and the distance between those locations is a measurement between two spaces/nothings. No?"

I agree with the first part of your statement. A location can't contain an object and the locations are in the universe because in order to determine a location relative to another one has to measure the distance. In the process one must use a measuring stick. The measuring stick is a physical object and in the process of measuring the location it exists at those two locations. That is why locations are in the universe. Locations can't exist without the measuring stick that defines them.

Sam .



Post 58

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,
I guess this all comes down to whether you consider matter occupying space or displacing it.
How about incorporating space - being merely one aspect of the same thing?

Is a bunch of space without any matter (including energy) whatsoever even possible?

Michael


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I define "space" very simply in terms of entities as: space is where entities aren't.

I'm not joking, although it does tickle me to say it that simply. :-)

REB


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.