Where are You Now ?

[Good_Egg]

everything is relative {like Relativity}.

The reference to relativity (in the original Einsteinian sense) is exactly right.

I know my location relative to other things around me and I am at rest (sitting drinking coffee in the kitchen) relative to the rest of the planet.

Yes that frame of reference is not at rest relative to other frames of reference (e.g. the stars) and therefore it's location is changing relative to that other frame. So what ?

Relativity is the principle that the choice of reference frame is arbitrary. We are all free to choose whatever frame is convenient for our own purposes.

All the frames of reference within which I don't know where I am are no more right and are less useful for locational purposes.

[UniversalAlien]

everything is relative {like Relativity}.

The reference to relativity (in the original Einsteinian sense) is exactly right.

I know my location relative to other things around me and I am at rest (sitting drinking coffee in the kitchen) relative to the rest of the planet.

Yes that frame of reference is not at rest relative to other frames of reference (e.g. the stars) and therefore it's location is changing relative to that other frame. So what ?

Relativity is the principle that the choice of reference frame is arbitrary. We are all free to choose whatever frame is convenient for our own purposes.

All the frames of reference within which I don't know where I am are no more right and are less useful for locational purposes.

Yes, and the significance is worth considering.

Could the fact that where we are is relative lead to a way of 'junmping out' of the matrix you are in and into another matrix so as to
jump through space time - A shortcut to allow intergalactic space travel

For now this is sciencefictionalism - Still I wonder

[Pattern-chaser]

Before you even attempt to answer don't forget to consider that time and space are in a state of perpetual motion

That depends on how you look at it. If we consider the spacetime universe as a single entity — which it is — it looks different... Motion is a function of time, nothing more.

[UniversalAlien]

Before you even attempt to answer don't forget to consider that time and space are in a state of perpetual motion

That depends on how you look at it. If we consider the spacetime universe as a single entity — which it is — it looks different... Motion is a function of time, nothing more.

I thought about your assertion for awhile..........And then decided to dispute it.

1. How do you know that " the spacetime universe as a single entity" - Can you prove this
Other hypothetical beings with higher powers of observation may see us {Humans} as living in in small area of a much greater and vaster
Universe with many vectors of space and time

2. You say " Motion is a function of time" - I say motion must occur withn time - Time is a prime requisite for all that exists,
Before the so called 'Big Bang' there was no time and hypothetically nothing existeed - And then the occurecnce of the Big Bang
started time - Everything that occurred after and is occurring now is occurring in time - Motion is observable within time and is also
a measurement of time and can be used to measure time

[Pattern-chaser]

Before you even attempt to answer don't forget to consider that time and space are in a state of perpetual motion

That depends on how you look at it. If we consider the spacetime universe as a single entity — which it is — it looks different... Motion is a function of time, nothing more.

I thought about your assertion for awhile..........And then decided to dispute it.

Ah, OK.

1. How do you know that "the spacetime universe as a single entity" - Can you prove this

I think you might've read "as" as "is"? Read again: "If we consider the spacetime universe as a single entity..."

Also, I don't think there's any need to "prove" something that can be confirmed by simple empirical observation, is there? It's there. It has no dividing 'lines' that separate some parts of it from other parts. Empirically, I can see no reason or justification for our assumption that the universe may be divided into distinct and separable parts. That is dubious, wouldn't you say? But I offer no "proof". I'm not sure there is any, if observation is not sufficient for you.

Other hypothetical beings with higher powers of observation may see us {Humans} as living in a small area of a much greater and vaster
Universe with many vectors of space and time

We generally use "universe" to refer to all matter, energy, etc., that exists. I used it in that way in my comment.

2. You say "Motion is a function of time" - I say motion must occur within time - Time is a prime requisite for all that exists.

Time is necessary for change, not for existence?

Motion is observable within time and is also a measurement of time and can be used to measure time

Motion is used to measure time? Do you refer to mechanical clock mechanisms here? Without the concept of time, motion is meaningless, yes?

[UniversalAlien]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

That depends on how you look at it...........

TRUE

So for the sake of argument, and with no ability to prove it, let me assert that I am at the center of the Universe

Now the problem is this - Even though at the center of the universe, I don't know where or when this is.

- Do you know where or when the center of the Universe is

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

That depends on how you look at it...........

TRUE

So for the sake of argument, and with no ability to prove it, let me assert that I am at the center of the Universe

Now the problem is this - Even though at the center of the universe, I don't know where or when this is.

- Do you know where or when the center of the Universe is

Surely the simple truth is that location, like velocity, is relative? Wherever the 'centre' of the universe is, its position is relative to the rest of the universe; it cannot be otherwise.

[Vagueabsolute]

In the World, the Universe, the planet and place on the planet, where are you at this moment

Before you answer I want you to consider that as far as is known the Universe and all the stars and planets in the Universe are in a state
of continuous motion and time marches on.

In this matrix that you exist in is it possilbe to establish where you are

Can you give me even a close approximation of where you are

Before you even attempt to answer don't forget to consider that time and space are in a state of perpetual motion

Firstly, i consider myself (as well as everyone else) to be a concept. A certain set of possible patterns and phenomena. Therefore location/position isn’t a phenomenon directly comparable to ME. The matter forming this body of mine tho, might not ever be located at one point, but rather an infinite (yet precise) range of places. Imagine animating a person walking. You can flip through the frames to illustrate movement. If you instead show all the frames at once, then isn’t that the absolute location of that animated person?

In a way, I don’t believe in time, this is one of the main factors contributing to this take on an answer to your question.

[UniversalAlien]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

That depends on how you look at it...........

TRUE

So for the sake of argument, and with no ability to prove it, let me assert that I am at the center of the Universe

Now the problem is this - Even though at the center of the universe, I don't know where or when this is.

- Do you know where or when the center of the Universe is

Surely the simple truth is that location, like velocity, is relative? Wherever the 'centre' of the universe is, its position is relative to the rest of the universe; it cannot be otherwise.

Rest of the Universe Yes, but what does that mean

You see pictures of the Milky Way as a spiral that seems to rotate around a center - But how do you picture the whole Universe

What if the whole Universe is lierally a matter of observation - Not just a matter of Relativity but also dependent on position of
the obsemver in more than just a relativistic sense

Can you picture a universe existing outsiide of observation

If observation itself is as important as I'm implying then one might wonder if it is possible to tweak observation
-- Purpose being a new way of long distance space travel other than moving mass through space at the relativity slow speed of light

[Pattern-chaser]

Surely the simple truth is that location, like velocity, is relative? Wherever the 'centre' of the universe is, its position is relative to the rest of the universe; it cannot be otherwise.

Rest of the Universe Yes, but what does that mean

You see pictures of the Milky Way as a spiral that seems to rotate around a center - But how do you picture the whole Universe

What if the whole Universe is literally a matter of observation - Not just a matter of Relativity but also dependent on position of
the observer in more than just a relativistic sense

Can you picture a universe existing outside of observation

If observation itself is as important as I'm implying then one might wonder if it is possible to tweak observation
-- Purpose being a new way of long distance space travel other than moving mass through space at the relativity slow speed of light

You offer many (more) questions, UniversalAlien, but little in the way of answers, and nothing, it seems, of your own opinions or views. Why not say what you think?

[Samana Johann]

What's meant by "you", good householder. Could he trace it then?

[Pattern-chaser]

What's meant by "you", good householder.

"You", in this case, refers to the 'good householder' who I am replying to.

[Samana Johann]

What's meant by "you", good householder.

"You", in this case, refers to the 'good householder' who I am replying to.

Conventional: body? mind? What's "you"? How could one answer without knowing to wish to locate what.

(and it wasn't explicitly in regard of good householders post, but on the OP's question)

But enough of wasted time here.

[Pattern-chaser]

Conventional: body? mind? What's "you"? How could one answer without knowing to wish to locate what.

(and it wasn't explicitly in regard of good householders post, but on the OP's question)

But enough of wasted time here.

I think the time-wasting involves asking pedantic questions like "What's 'you'?"

[Samana Johann]

Conventional: body? mind? What's "you"? How could one answer without knowing to wish to locate what.

(and it wasn't explicitly in regard of good householders post, but on the OP's question)

But enough of wasted time here.

I think the time-wasting involves asking pedantic questions like "What's 'you'?"

Make less sense if wishing to philosophy into when the object isn't clear, or what would good householder think?
While body might be conventional trace-able, the mind, and even the notion of "me" certain not, by what ever means. Not to speak of trying to fetch one gone beyond.