Dan_1985 wrote:I agree. I said above, I don't think Rr6's 'nothing' is a real 'nothing', just an unobserved [or emptiness].
"real nothing" vs non-real nothing. This is problem similar to the analogy I stated to Felix and he refused to grok as analogy, via his stating space between moon and Earth is occupied.
I know it is, and have made that point to many for many years. The point in using that scenario was that we can imagine conceptualize non-occupied space embracing occupied space ergo via the analogy for finite occupied space Universe, the basket ball or Earth, with the seemingly space beyond being likend to the true non-occupied space.
I've been very clear, and you two are playing mind games. imho
Is the 'space' in infinite occupied space Universe different from macro-infinite, non-occupied space?
Dan, your either kidding or playing mind games of play dumb. Of course the space is differrent, One is occupied the other is not. Good grief dude. This is simple concept and near the top of cosmic heirarchy.
I see the 'macro-infinite' as just a mere infinite container of our observable universe (i.e., that which is occupied). Essentially, both must just be 'space'. No?
Yeah non-occupied space and occupied space are both space. Do not recognise the word 'space' in both identities? You and Fellix need to put ego based mind games in your play pen, and begin acting like rational, logical commmon sense adults.
Containers are finite. Macro-infinite, non-occupied space is not a container. Macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces, not constrain, not restrain not contain, our finite occupied space Universe. Ive stated this many times in last ten years.
Rr6 wrote:....1b and 1c} It is occupied space meeting metaphysical-2, non-occupied space. As Ive clearly stated for some years now.
...not "space meeting non-space"........
Right...So it's occupied space (i.e., space with stuff in it) meeting un-occupied space (space with no stuff in it). In this case, there is no meeting.
Yes there is meeting between those two. Where you grass ends is called the boundary. Where finite
occupied space Universe ends is called the boundary. After your grass or whomever, comes the sidewalk or pavement or whatever.
What comes after/beyond/outside our finite occupied space Universe/
Uni-
Verse, is the macro-infinite, non-occupied space.
This is not rocket science. You and Felix do what some others do. Skew what Ive laid out clearly to mean something else that I have not stated.
It's like saying, "Look at my infinite garden of grass.
No it is not. A garden of grass is finite
occupied space. Stick relevant analogies and stop trying to skew my statements to something that Ive not stated or intended.
Over there, you can see a patch of weeds expanding outwards." There is just stuff expanding outwards. I don't see your infinite occupied space Universe and macro-infinite, non-occupied space as fundamentally different in regards to space.
I never made the statements that
occupied space and non-occupied space is fundamentally differrent in regards to your given "space", other than what Ive stated, that one is
occupied and the other not, and that is a fundamental differrence irrespective of how many times you say no, there not fundamentally differrent.
Put you ego aside and stop playing mind games. Our finite, occupied space Universe, is fundamentally differrent from the macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces it. The fundamental differrence is the most fundamental possible differrence and you avoid it like the plaque.
Non-occupied space and occupied space Universe could not be more fundamenetally differrent. Why you would think otherwise makes no sense, and you certainly give no rational, logical common sense that would invalidate occupied and non-occupied as being fundamentally differrent.
These ego based lame attempts to acknowledge and accept obvious truths.
Dan--Furthermore, if it is un-occupied, then how can it be space?
C,mon dude, your really letting your ego hang out there now. Start with a dictionary definition of space, occupied, and non-occupied. Asesmble these words in a correlated manner in your mind/brain and them come back and hopefully attempt to have a rational, logical common sense disscussion.
Your lack of rationally is like saying how can space be space. Duhh, space is space dude. Allowing for various definitions relative to the context of given scenarios. This is where analogies come into play, but lord forgive me if I use an analogy with some people. They cant handle it or grok or or grasp it and then the skew my given analogy as intended i.e they dont want to play fair.
There is only space outside of Earth because we can point to stars and other stuff. If we arrive at the end of your occupied space, there would be nothing in the distance by which we could establish a continuing 'non-occupied' space. Otherwise, you are in fact claiming a 'space meeting non-space'.
I have no idea what concept it is you think you trying to convey is. Yes our finite
occupied space
Universe, is embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space. This is simple common sense that you play a senseless mind game with.
Occupied space basketball is embraced by occupied space air molecules. Or we can use these two as analogy where the latter is only seemingly non-occupied space. God forgive me for using an analogy with Felix or you.
Earth is an occupied space that embraced by EMRadiation, netrunios, NASA debrie etc...before we get to the moon. We can use that as analogy also--- barring NASA debrie ---. God forgie me for attempting any analogy with your or Felix.
Universe/
Uni-
Verse is an occupied space embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space. No analogy there and none should be needed. However since were dealing with human ego or other, then I and others sometime use analogies. God forgive us.
Have I found a fundamental flaw capable of bypassing
your ego?
Of course you have not. You have offered skewed mind games of what ive stated and intended. In some ways your like the child who says 'NO' irrespective of what the parent says.
R6--"Occupied space exists". Steve, Felix, Dan and some others, 'NO'.
R6--"macro-infinite non-occupied space exists". Steve, Felix, Dan and some others reply, 'NO'
R6---the buffer-zone between our observed occupied space reality and the macro-infinite non-occupied space is
gravity and perhaps
dark energy. Steve, Felix, Dan and some others rely, 'NO'.
I think this is needed: Axiom: Space is necessary space 'between (at least) two things'.
No that is not correct. A seemingly non-occupied space--- or quasi-non-occupied space ---exists between to
occupied space
objects { fermions, bosons, gravity or dark energy }.
3
Occupied Space
;
...3c} finite,
occupied space Universe
.....3c2} fermions and bosons and any aggregate collection thereof,{ aka observed reality and observed time },
......3c3} metaphysical-
3,
gravity---positive shaped outer peak of geodesic curvature/arc,
.......3c4} metaphysical-
4, darek energy--negative shaped inner peak of geodesic curvature/arc.
If there is no-thing 'out beyond', then there can be no space out there.
Huh? Dude, your offer more irrational illogical lack of common sense, jsut as the child keeps saying 'NO'.
IF we live in a finite,
occupied space
Universe, there exist nothing outside of it. A true nothing that involves space, is the macro-infinite non-occupied space.
Metpahysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are of space not actually space. They are concepts of Space--- occupied or not ---, God, Unvierse, Dogs Cats etc...
This goes back to what Ive stated initially, neither, you nor Felix have any rational, logical assessment of....if we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then what exists beyond that finite boundary. You state above nothing. And I have to repeat to you, that macro-infinite non-occupied space is a true nothingness of space.
The space between earth and Sol or galaxeys is not a true non-occupied space.
Fundamentally, there must always be stuff out there into the infinite horizon, otherwise, even space right here and now would not be possible.
"Infinite horizon"? What is an infinite horizon? Lets just keep it simple Dan. Ive been very clear.
Space is infinite.
Our occupied space Universe is finite. Duh, how many times have i typed that in last 20 years.
Macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces, but does not constrain ir restrain our finite, occupied space Universe/Uni-Verse.
So lets be clear where you stand Dan. Do you really believe that we live in a macro-infinite
occupied space Universe? I presume your "ifninite horizon" statement is intended to mean that, without you having to say that i.e. if you remain ambigous, you can always skew your way out of any committed belief with your statements.
Felix likes to go off on big bang tangents to avoid making a clear statement of where he stands on this macro-infinite occupied space Universe or not.
Again, infinite occupied space vs finite occupied space disscussion really deserves its own thread. The big bang scenario can be viewed in various ways. I will be happy to go there and have many times over the years. To go there with people who want to play mind games instead of offerreing rational, logical common sense is no fun.
Fun for some is to just ridicule and repeated say 'NO' and skew others commments to change what is stated and intended. :--(
I would start a Finite Occupied Space Universe thread, but my erratic posting abilities would have to be figured out first, ideally.
r6