Musing over yesterday's discussion-- a pleasant, stimulating sunday
afternoon-- for me the question for further discussion now arises: Is
there such a thing as object-less space? e.g., space without an object?
And the quirky reciprocal question, is there space without a subject?
Is attention necessary for space to exist? In response to Phil's
question, the "meditative space" I've been enjoying of late is best
worded ("with words,' Lao Tzu wrote, "one should know where to stop")
as "objectless/subjectless peace." Thus the query. What IS beyond time
and space? -bjg
Space
Space
Hi All,
What we call "space" and "time" are particular interpretations of a single underlying reality, which I guess could be called "space-time". In other words, space and time are the same one thing. Of that one thing, "space" is that which is interpreted to be tending towards discrete and linear, while "time" is interpreted to be tending towards wholeness and circular. The thing is, you can't have both in subjective experience because space is a limiting case of time and time is a limiting case of space. Choosing one interpretation at the expense of the other is due to the ad hoc nature of how our mind uses its faculties of perception (namely thinking and feeling - which are also two sides of the same coin).
Additionally, just like space and time exist on the same ontological level, so too does "mind" and "body", where "mind" is the subject and "body" is the object. This is what's held by panpsychism.
My take on "objectless/subjectless peace" is that it's a non-dual experience where subjects and objects and space and time are given equal, or balanced, footing when presented to consciousness. This would be something like a more direct experience of a more actual (and ineffable) situation rather than the typical veiled or filtered version that's well suited for our physical survival.
Mike
What we call "space" and "time" are particular interpretations of a single underlying reality, which I guess could be called "space-time". In other words, space and time are the same one thing. Of that one thing, "space" is that which is interpreted to be tending towards discrete and linear, while "time" is interpreted to be tending towards wholeness and circular. The thing is, you can't have both in subjective experience because space is a limiting case of time and time is a limiting case of space. Choosing one interpretation at the expense of the other is due to the ad hoc nature of how our mind uses its faculties of perception (namely thinking and feeling - which are also two sides of the same coin).
Additionally, just like space and time exist on the same ontological level, so too does "mind" and "body", where "mind" is the subject and "body" is the object. This is what's held by panpsychism.
My take on "objectless/subjectless peace" is that it's a non-dual experience where subjects and objects and space and time are given equal, or balanced, footing when presented to consciousness. This would be something like a more direct experience of a more actual (and ineffable) situation rather than the typical veiled or filtered version that's well suited for our physical survival.
Mike
Primer
Something to ponder...
One suggestion is for the RIST group to start with Larson's view of space and time described in such a way that normal people can understand the boundaries, limitations. Then we can compare with others understanding, for example, I thought I would pass along some information by Jean Gebser in his book the Ever Present Origin. His work is about the emergence of human consciousness.
Well Phil, you asked hahahaha.
Rick
1. Space and Time Relationship (p.117)
Structure
a) Dimension
b) Perspective
c) Emphasis
Archaic
Zero-dimensional
None
Prespatial / Pretemporal
Magic
One-dimensional
Pre-perspectival
Spaceless /Timeless
Mythical
Two-dimensional
Unperspectival
Spaceless / Natural temporicity
Mental
Three-dimensional
Perspectival
space & time bound
Spatial /Abstractly temporal
Integral
Four-dimensional
Aperspectival*
Space-free / Time-free
Time conveys the idea of a divisor, separator, cutting asunder.
The conception of the fourth dimension is a mental conception it proceeds from Riemann’s geometry, which Einstein introduces in a general form into physics. There it is defined as “time” and employed as a “continuum” for calculation as a fourth dimension of space—curved space. The mathematical formulation and unification of space and time are successful only at the expense of time. Time is subjected to a further spatialization (geometrization) for physical research. 351
The successful incorporation of time as a fourth dimension into three-dimensional space realizes the union of space and time or “space-time unity” which leads to practical results—nuclear physics. It is interesting to note that this inclusion of a dividing principle, one that is dynamic and energetic, transforms space into a “continuum.”351
Einstein’s theory of relativity is a constructed unity of time and space formulated in mathematical terms. It also is conceived in terms of constant decay and simultaneous renewal. This paves the way for a process of expansion, the dividing capacity of the different types and quantities of “time”. This process of expansion is a frenzied rush, pushing the boundaries outward of the microcosm and the macrocosm—dissolving, destroying, and exploding rather than overcoming the spatial structure. This expansion inflates the world of space and psychology. The expansion of consciousness and even the expansion of the universe are rooted in this notion. 353
Einstein fuses the oppositional categories of space and time into the unity of the space-time continuum. His verification that energy and mass/matter are not opposites but merely differing manifestational forms of the one and the same thing points in the same direction. This is further highlighted by Eddington who suggests that mass is just another name for energy and March who notes that “the world is inseparable from the observing subject and is accordingly not objectifiable”. 375
[/]
One suggestion is for the RIST group to start with Larson's view of space and time described in such a way that normal people can understand the boundaries, limitations. Then we can compare with others understanding, for example, I thought I would pass along some information by Jean Gebser in his book the Ever Present Origin. His work is about the emergence of human consciousness.
Well Phil, you asked hahahaha.
Rick
1. Space and Time Relationship (p.117)
Structure
a) Dimension
b) Perspective
c) Emphasis
Archaic
Zero-dimensional
None
Prespatial / Pretemporal
Magic
One-dimensional
Pre-perspectival
Spaceless /Timeless
Mythical
Two-dimensional
Unperspectival
Spaceless / Natural temporicity
Mental
Three-dimensional
Perspectival
space & time bound
Spatial /Abstractly temporal
Integral
Four-dimensional
Aperspectival*
Space-free / Time-free
Time conveys the idea of a divisor, separator, cutting asunder.
- Da (Indo-Germanic) which means to “divide, take apart, tear apart, lacerate” is the root of English “time,” German “Zeit” and Latin “tempus.” It is also the root for the word “demonic.” 173
The conception of the fourth dimension is a mental conception it proceeds from Riemann’s geometry, which Einstein introduces in a general form into physics. There it is defined as “time” and employed as a “continuum” for calculation as a fourth dimension of space—curved space. The mathematical formulation and unification of space and time are successful only at the expense of time. Time is subjected to a further spatialization (geometrization) for physical research. 351
The successful incorporation of time as a fourth dimension into three-dimensional space realizes the union of space and time or “space-time unity” which leads to practical results—nuclear physics. It is interesting to note that this inclusion of a dividing principle, one that is dynamic and energetic, transforms space into a “continuum.”351
Einstein’s theory of relativity is a constructed unity of time and space formulated in mathematical terms. It also is conceived in terms of constant decay and simultaneous renewal. This paves the way for a process of expansion, the dividing capacity of the different types and quantities of “time”. This process of expansion is a frenzied rush, pushing the boundaries outward of the microcosm and the macrocosm—dissolving, destroying, and exploding rather than overcoming the spatial structure. This expansion inflates the world of space and psychology. The expansion of consciousness and even the expansion of the universe are rooted in this notion. 353
Einstein fuses the oppositional categories of space and time into the unity of the space-time continuum. His verification that energy and mass/matter are not opposites but merely differing manifestational forms of the one and the same thing points in the same direction. This is further highlighted by Eddington who suggests that mass is just another name for energy and March who notes that “the world is inseparable from the observing subject and is accordingly not objectifiable”. 375
[/]
Re: Primer
bear wrote:
When space is considered as an aspect of motion, substitute "outside" for space and "inside" for time, to get the conceptual understanding. "Is there such a thing as object-less outsides? outside without on object?"
If you have space/outside, then you'll have time/inside, and something connecting the two--the object/motion.
bear wrote:
Since there is no difference between subject/inside and object/outside, neither space nor time can exist without the dichotomy. But the dichotomy does exist, regardless of the attention given to it, because there is always someone else looking at it, from the inside or the outside, so there is always attention given--you just may not be conscious of it!
Insides and outsided are measured from what you pick as the center. Consider your body... the macrocosm is the outside, the microcosm is the inside. Yet, to your liver, your body--formerly the inside--is now the outside, the macrocosm of the living entity. To the cells within the liver, the liver then becomes the outside, whereas from the liver's point of view, the cells are on the inside.
Insides and outsides are directions, just like north, south, east, west, up and down. The direction from center to infinity is called the "out-side". The direction from infinity to center is the "in-side". "Side" is just another way to say "aspect".
"In" and "Out" are the aspects of "Side". Time and space are the aspects of motion. Yin and Yang are the aspects of the Tao.
bear wrote:
"Beyond" is just another outside, which means "peace" is the inside. The only way to go "beyond" it, is to make the outside the inside.
There is the concept of "outer space", the void which is understood as space. But technically, the idea of "space" cannot exist within a "void", which is a lack of everything.Musing over yesterday's discussion-- a pleasant, stimulating sunday
afternoon-- for me the question for further discussion now arises: Is
there such a thing as object-less space? e.g., space without an object?
When space is considered as an aspect of motion, substitute "outside" for space and "inside" for time, to get the conceptual understanding. "Is there such a thing as object-less outsides? outside without on object?"
If you have space/outside, then you'll have time/inside, and something connecting the two--the object/motion.
bear wrote:
Think of the Universe as a Hall of Mirrors--an infinite recursion of insides and outsides. The subject of observation is the observer... whom is the observer for other reflections.And the quirky reciprocal question, is there space without a subject?
Is attention necessary for space to exist?
Since there is no difference between subject/inside and object/outside, neither space nor time can exist without the dichotomy. But the dichotomy does exist, regardless of the attention given to it, because there is always someone else looking at it, from the inside or the outside, so there is always attention given--you just may not be conscious of it!
Insides and outsided are measured from what you pick as the center. Consider your body... the macrocosm is the outside, the microcosm is the inside. Yet, to your liver, your body--formerly the inside--is now the outside, the macrocosm of the living entity. To the cells within the liver, the liver then becomes the outside, whereas from the liver's point of view, the cells are on the inside.
Insides and outsides are directions, just like north, south, east, west, up and down. The direction from center to infinity is called the "out-side". The direction from infinity to center is the "in-side". "Side" is just another way to say "aspect".
"In" and "Out" are the aspects of "Side". Time and space are the aspects of motion. Yin and Yang are the aspects of the Tao.
bear wrote:
Sitting on the fence is not the same as leaving the pasture!In response to Phil's question, the "meditative space" I've been enjoying of late is best worded ("with words,' Lao Tzu wrote, "one should know where to stop") as "objectless/subjectless peace." Thus the query. What IS beyond time and space? -bjg
"Beyond" is just another outside, which means "peace" is the inside. The only way to go "beyond" it, is to make the outside the inside.
Every dogma has its day...
Space
From J.E. Cirlot's "A Dictionary of Symbols":
Space. In a manner of speaking, space is an intermediate zone between the cosmos and chaos. Taken as the realm of all that is possible, it is chaotic; regarded as the region in which all forms and structures have their existence, it is cosmic. Space soon came to be associated with time, and this association proved one of the ways of coming to grips with the recalcitrant nature of space. Another—and the most important—was the concept of space as a three-part organization based upon its three dimensions. Each dimension has two possible directions of movement, implying the possibility of two poles or two contexts. To the six points achieved this way, there was added a seventh: the centre; and space thus became a logical structure.
The symbolisms of level and of orientation were finally brought to bear in order to complete the exegesis. The three-dimensions of space are illustrated by means of a three-dimensional cross, whose arms are oriented along these six spatial directions, made up of the four points of the compass plus the two points of the zenith and the nadir. According to Rene Guenon, this symbolism—because of its structural character—is identical with that of the Sacred Palace (or the inner palace) of the Cabala, located at the centre-point from which the six directions radiate. In the three-dimensional cross, the zenith and the nadir correspond to the top and the bottom, the front and back to East and West, the right and left to the South and North. The upright axis is the polar axis, the North-South axis is the solstitial line, the East-West the equinoctial.
The significance of the vertical or level-symbolism concerns the analogy between the high and the good, the low and the inferior. The Hindu doctrine of the three gunas—sattva (height, superiority), rajas (intermediate zone of the world of appearances, or ambivalence) and tamas (inferiority, or darkness)—is in itself sufficient to explain the meaning of the symbolism of level, up and down the vertical axis. It is, in consequence, the intermediate plane of the four-directional cross (that which incorporates the cardinal points and which implies the square) which represents the world of appearances.
Taking next the East-West axis, traditional orientation-symbolism associates the East—being the point of sunrise—with spiritual illumination; and the West—the point where the sun sets—with death and darkness. Passing next to the North-South axis, there is no one definite interpretation. In many oriental cultures, the zenith coincides with the mystic ‘Hole’ through which transition and transcendence are effected, that is, the path from the world of manifestation (spatial and temporal) to that of eternity. But it has also been identified with the centre of the three-dimensional cross, taken as the heart of space. Reduced to two dimensions—those of the contrasting horizontal and vertical arms—the cross comes to represent harmony between extension (associated with width) and exaltation (with height). The horizontal arm concerns the implications of a given gradation or moment in an individual’s existence and the vertical pertains to the moral elevation.
William of Saint-Thierry, describing the seven gradations of the soul, observes that it ascends these steps in order to reach the celestial life. If we seek an interpretation which will justify the four points of the horizontal plane’s being reduced to two (the left and right), we can find a basis for it in Jung’s assertion that the rear part coincides with the unconscious and the font with the manifest or consciousness, the rear then becomes equivalent to the left and the front to the right. Other equivalents are: left side with the past, the sinister, the repressed, involution, the abnormal and the illegitimate; the right side with the future; the felicitous, openness, evolution, the normal and the legitimate.
In all of this, there is an apparent contradiction with the corresponding number-symbolisms: Paneth observes that, in most cultures, the uneven numbers are considered to be masculine and the even numbers to be feminine. Since the left side is the zone of origin and the right that of the outcome, the corresponding number-symbolisms would seem to be one (the uneven or masculine number) for the left side (that is, the past) and two (the even or feminine number) for the right side (the subsequent or outcome). The solution is to be found in the fact that the number on e(unity) never corresponds to the plane of the manifest world or to spatial reality: it is the symbol of the centre, but not in the same of occupying any situation in space which might imply a sequel. Hence we must conclude that two is the number corresponding to the left side and there is that related to the right. Guenon explains the way in which the cosmic order conforms with all this in a lucid exposition of the relevant Hindu doctrines to the effect that the right hand zone is the solar region; the left-hand is the lunar. “In the aspect of this symbolism which refers to the temporal condition, the Sun and the right eye correspond to the future, the Moon and the left eye to the past; the frontal eye corresponds to the present which, from the point of view of the manifested, is but an imperceptible moment, comparable to the geometrical point without dimensions in the spatial order; that is why a single look from the third eye destroys all manifestation (which is expressed symbolically by saying that it reduces everything to ashes), and that is also why it is not represented by any bodily organ;’ but when one rises above this contingent point of view, the present is seen to contain all reality (just as the point carries within itself all the possibilities of space), and when succession is transmuted into simultaneity, all things abide in the ‘eternal present’, so that the apparent destruction is truly a ‘transformation’”.
Now, the seven aspects that define space have been regarded as the origin of all septenary groups, and in particular of the seven planets, the seven colours and the seven kinds of landscape. Hence Luc Benoist can assert that the Christian Church, by building on earth a mighty, three-dimensional cross of stone, has created for the entire world the co-ordinate lines of a supernatural geometry. Benoist then quotes Clement of Alexandria as saying that the six directions of space symbolize—or are equivalent to—the simultaneous and eternal presence of the six days of the Creation, and that the seventh day (of rest) signifies the return to the centre and the beginning. Once the cosmic sense of spatial symbolism has been demonstrated, it is simple to deduce its psychological applications. And once the static laws have been determined, it is easy to grasp the dynamic implications, always bearing in mind the symbolism of orientation. Here, we must point out that th swastika—a solar and polar symbol—implies a movement from right to left, like the apparent movement of the sun; and that Clotho—one of the Parcae—spins her “wheel of destiny” in the same direction, that is, the opposite way to existence, so destroying it.
Right-handedness is characteristic of all symbols of natural life; hence, in the Egyptian system of hieroglyphs, to enter is to go towards the right and to go out is to go towards the left; orienting these hieroglyphs, we have the right corresponding with the rise and the left with the setting of the sun. Similarly, the right side takes on an extra implication of birth and life, while the left side acquires an association with death. Another consequence, apparent in allegories and emblems, is that the right side corresponds to the higher virtues—if one may put it that way—such as compassion, and the left side to justice. All of the above conclusions are logical deductions drawn from the study of oriental tradition, supported by the findings of experimental psychology. But they are conclusions which have also been verified by anthropologists and sociologists in their studies of the habits of diverse peoples. Ania Teillard, for example, has collated a mass of facts; she quotes J.J. Bachofen as asserting (in his Mutterrecht und Urreligion und Grabersymbolik der Alten) that, in the important and very common equation “right hand=masculinity”, the left hand harbours magic powers and the right hand the force of reason, and also that in matriarchal societies one always finds the idea of superiority attributed to the left side, and conversely. To implying introversion; to turn to the right is to look upon the outside world, implying action and extraversion. At the same time, ethnologists are agreed that during the first stage of any period of sun-worship, the right side becomes pre-eminent, whereas in lunar cults it is the left side which prevails. In paintings, reliefs and other artistic creations of man, the left side is characterized by a more vivid projection of the self (that is, by identification) and the right side is more extravert.
Space. In a manner of speaking, space is an intermediate zone between the cosmos and chaos. Taken as the realm of all that is possible, it is chaotic; regarded as the region in which all forms and structures have their existence, it is cosmic. Space soon came to be associated with time, and this association proved one of the ways of coming to grips with the recalcitrant nature of space. Another—and the most important—was the concept of space as a three-part organization based upon its three dimensions. Each dimension has two possible directions of movement, implying the possibility of two poles or two contexts. To the six points achieved this way, there was added a seventh: the centre; and space thus became a logical structure.
The symbolisms of level and of orientation were finally brought to bear in order to complete the exegesis. The three-dimensions of space are illustrated by means of a three-dimensional cross, whose arms are oriented along these six spatial directions, made up of the four points of the compass plus the two points of the zenith and the nadir. According to Rene Guenon, this symbolism—because of its structural character—is identical with that of the Sacred Palace (or the inner palace) of the Cabala, located at the centre-point from which the six directions radiate. In the three-dimensional cross, the zenith and the nadir correspond to the top and the bottom, the front and back to East and West, the right and left to the South and North. The upright axis is the polar axis, the North-South axis is the solstitial line, the East-West the equinoctial.
The significance of the vertical or level-symbolism concerns the analogy between the high and the good, the low and the inferior. The Hindu doctrine of the three gunas—sattva (height, superiority), rajas (intermediate zone of the world of appearances, or ambivalence) and tamas (inferiority, or darkness)—is in itself sufficient to explain the meaning of the symbolism of level, up and down the vertical axis. It is, in consequence, the intermediate plane of the four-directional cross (that which incorporates the cardinal points and which implies the square) which represents the world of appearances.
Taking next the East-West axis, traditional orientation-symbolism associates the East—being the point of sunrise—with spiritual illumination; and the West—the point where the sun sets—with death and darkness. Passing next to the North-South axis, there is no one definite interpretation. In many oriental cultures, the zenith coincides with the mystic ‘Hole’ through which transition and transcendence are effected, that is, the path from the world of manifestation (spatial and temporal) to that of eternity. But it has also been identified with the centre of the three-dimensional cross, taken as the heart of space. Reduced to two dimensions—those of the contrasting horizontal and vertical arms—the cross comes to represent harmony between extension (associated with width) and exaltation (with height). The horizontal arm concerns the implications of a given gradation or moment in an individual’s existence and the vertical pertains to the moral elevation.
William of Saint-Thierry, describing the seven gradations of the soul, observes that it ascends these steps in order to reach the celestial life. If we seek an interpretation which will justify the four points of the horizontal plane’s being reduced to two (the left and right), we can find a basis for it in Jung’s assertion that the rear part coincides with the unconscious and the font with the manifest or consciousness, the rear then becomes equivalent to the left and the front to the right. Other equivalents are: left side with the past, the sinister, the repressed, involution, the abnormal and the illegitimate; the right side with the future; the felicitous, openness, evolution, the normal and the legitimate.
In all of this, there is an apparent contradiction with the corresponding number-symbolisms: Paneth observes that, in most cultures, the uneven numbers are considered to be masculine and the even numbers to be feminine. Since the left side is the zone of origin and the right that of the outcome, the corresponding number-symbolisms would seem to be one (the uneven or masculine number) for the left side (that is, the past) and two (the even or feminine number) for the right side (the subsequent or outcome). The solution is to be found in the fact that the number on e(unity) never corresponds to the plane of the manifest world or to spatial reality: it is the symbol of the centre, but not in the same of occupying any situation in space which might imply a sequel. Hence we must conclude that two is the number corresponding to the left side and there is that related to the right. Guenon explains the way in which the cosmic order conforms with all this in a lucid exposition of the relevant Hindu doctrines to the effect that the right hand zone is the solar region; the left-hand is the lunar. “In the aspect of this symbolism which refers to the temporal condition, the Sun and the right eye correspond to the future, the Moon and the left eye to the past; the frontal eye corresponds to the present which, from the point of view of the manifested, is but an imperceptible moment, comparable to the geometrical point without dimensions in the spatial order; that is why a single look from the third eye destroys all manifestation (which is expressed symbolically by saying that it reduces everything to ashes), and that is also why it is not represented by any bodily organ;’ but when one rises above this contingent point of view, the present is seen to contain all reality (just as the point carries within itself all the possibilities of space), and when succession is transmuted into simultaneity, all things abide in the ‘eternal present’, so that the apparent destruction is truly a ‘transformation’”.
Now, the seven aspects that define space have been regarded as the origin of all septenary groups, and in particular of the seven planets, the seven colours and the seven kinds of landscape. Hence Luc Benoist can assert that the Christian Church, by building on earth a mighty, three-dimensional cross of stone, has created for the entire world the co-ordinate lines of a supernatural geometry. Benoist then quotes Clement of Alexandria as saying that the six directions of space symbolize—or are equivalent to—the simultaneous and eternal presence of the six days of the Creation, and that the seventh day (of rest) signifies the return to the centre and the beginning. Once the cosmic sense of spatial symbolism has been demonstrated, it is simple to deduce its psychological applications. And once the static laws have been determined, it is easy to grasp the dynamic implications, always bearing in mind the symbolism of orientation. Here, we must point out that th swastika—a solar and polar symbol—implies a movement from right to left, like the apparent movement of the sun; and that Clotho—one of the Parcae—spins her “wheel of destiny” in the same direction, that is, the opposite way to existence, so destroying it.
Right-handedness is characteristic of all symbols of natural life; hence, in the Egyptian system of hieroglyphs, to enter is to go towards the right and to go out is to go towards the left; orienting these hieroglyphs, we have the right corresponding with the rise and the left with the setting of the sun. Similarly, the right side takes on an extra implication of birth and life, while the left side acquires an association with death. Another consequence, apparent in allegories and emblems, is that the right side corresponds to the higher virtues—if one may put it that way—such as compassion, and the left side to justice. All of the above conclusions are logical deductions drawn from the study of oriental tradition, supported by the findings of experimental psychology. But they are conclusions which have also been verified by anthropologists and sociologists in their studies of the habits of diverse peoples. Ania Teillard, for example, has collated a mass of facts; she quotes J.J. Bachofen as asserting (in his Mutterrecht und Urreligion und Grabersymbolik der Alten) that, in the important and very common equation “right hand=masculinity”, the left hand harbours magic powers and the right hand the force of reason, and also that in matriarchal societies one always finds the idea of superiority attributed to the left side, and conversely. To implying introversion; to turn to the right is to look upon the outside world, implying action and extraversion. At the same time, ethnologists are agreed that during the first stage of any period of sun-worship, the right side becomes pre-eminent, whereas in lunar cults it is the left side which prevails. In paintings, reliefs and other artistic creations of man, the left side is characterized by a more vivid projection of the self (that is, by identification) and the right side is more extravert.
Every dogma has its day...
Space
The study group meeting yesterday could have been titled, "The
Many Faces of Space". Bruce went over the first part of his
Primer through space concepts. Then participants discussed
their concepts of what space is. It was eye opening to me how
diverse the concepts are.
It may take a while before we have just one unified starting
definition of space (and time). Do we forge after that or
document the many beginning definitions? I suspect we need to
do both. I hope that our final starting point, which I call
fundamental space, will be able to map (or project) back into the
many beginning definitions.
Mr. Larson just assumes space and time as aspects of motion in
his Reciprocal System. That is his starting point. He does not
spend much effort defining them. By in large, engineers have
similar concepts of space and time. Probably why Larson
supporters in the past have mainly came from engineering
backgrounds.
Just as water assumes many forms under varying conditions, it
looks like space assumes many forms under varying environmental
and observational conditions. That last sentence seems quite
significant, as I reread it.
I suspect this topic will be revisited some more before we are
unified. Clearly points out the problems of constructing a
theory based upon space-time, when there are so many starting
concepts of space (and looking forward, I suspect, time).
Attended by Bruce, Bear, Christina, Scott, Phillip. We agreed
scheduling regular meetings through the next two holiday months
would be difficult. We would just let our schedule go with the
flow (because that is what is happening anyway).
Possible homework: Could each of us post our own personal
definition(s) of space (and time)?
I will start:
fundamental space -- the aspect of fundamental motion that gives
rise to all observed and unobserved spacial effects. (Note: Mr.
Larson says this does not exist in the physical universe, except
as an aspect of generalized or fundamental motion, so according
to him, I am defining an imaginary construct operator.)
legacy space -- the "normally" observed space measured by a
ruler and protractor and existing as volume in three independent
directions.
meditator's space -- the uniform, undifferentiated, matter clear
void? (Bear, do you have better words for this one?)
Euclidean space -- a model of legacy space defined by Euclid and
widely used in scientific modeling.
Many Faces of Space". Bruce went over the first part of his
Primer through space concepts. Then participants discussed
their concepts of what space is. It was eye opening to me how
diverse the concepts are.
It may take a while before we have just one unified starting
definition of space (and time). Do we forge after that or
document the many beginning definitions? I suspect we need to
do both. I hope that our final starting point, which I call
fundamental space, will be able to map (or project) back into the
many beginning definitions.
Mr. Larson just assumes space and time as aspects of motion in
his Reciprocal System. That is his starting point. He does not
spend much effort defining them. By in large, engineers have
similar concepts of space and time. Probably why Larson
supporters in the past have mainly came from engineering
backgrounds.
Just as water assumes many forms under varying conditions, it
looks like space assumes many forms under varying environmental
and observational conditions. That last sentence seems quite
significant, as I reread it.
I suspect this topic will be revisited some more before we are
unified. Clearly points out the problems of constructing a
theory based upon space-time, when there are so many starting
concepts of space (and looking forward, I suspect, time).
Attended by Bruce, Bear, Christina, Scott, Phillip. We agreed
scheduling regular meetings through the next two holiday months
would be difficult. We would just let our schedule go with the
flow (because that is what is happening anyway).
Possible homework: Could each of us post our own personal
definition(s) of space (and time)?
I will start:
fundamental space -- the aspect of fundamental motion that gives
rise to all observed and unobserved spacial effects. (Note: Mr.
Larson says this does not exist in the physical universe, except
as an aspect of generalized or fundamental motion, so according
to him, I am defining an imaginary construct operator.)
legacy space -- the "normally" observed space measured by a
ruler and protractor and existing as volume in three independent
directions.
meditator's space -- the uniform, undifferentiated, matter clear
void? (Bear, do you have better words for this one?)
Euclidean space -- a model of legacy space defined by Euclid and
widely used in scientific modeling.