Weather Forecast / Current Conditions

Pandora said:It’s… well, it really is a shame you didn't say what I assumed you were going to say… because if you had, you would be… mistaken.
The theory of relativity essentially proved the unity of space and time, which is why it’s referred to as the four-dimensional space-time continuum. Under relativity, time functions as the fourth dimension of space... and the example you provided actually confirms my point... (every single point in space is simultaneously a temporal point, and vice versa... every point serves as an intersection within this four-dimensional space-time).

Now, let us entertain the hypothesis that we travel at infinite speed... what happens then...
what happens is that we are present at every single point in space simultaneously, and time effectively... STOPS...
which implies that time is simply a dimension of space...

Naturally, everything we use to describe the world we inhabit is relative; there is no such thing as an absolute value... therefore, our "time" and our "space"... how we perceive anything depends entirely on the observer and their, uh, positioning—which is exactly what I am constantly pointing out.🙄

Every point in space-time possesses its own temporal component, yet it is NOT temporal, and vice versa. Spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension are distinct; they are not the same coordinates. Consequently, space and time are not identical. It is a continuum of interdependence, but a spatial component isn't a temporal one, nor is a temporal component a spatial one.

If we were traveling at infinite speed, we wouldn't be at every point in space simultaneously unless we were expanding at that infinite speed.😉

Expanding into what, though?

Since we’re talking about expansion... I mean, the universe is expanding, right? But what is it actually expanding *into* if everything is already infinite? Like, can we even wrap our heads around that? It’s kind of like saying yeast expands inside a bowl, but does that really mean the entire universe is just expanding into some giant cosmic bowl? Who knows, honestly. 😕 😁

Alex Ramirez40 said:Expanding into what, exactly?

Since we're on the subject of expansion—the universe is expanding, right? But into what is it expanding, if it's infinite? One could argue yeast expands within a container, but does that imply the universe is merely expanding into some cosmic Tupperware? It's a bit of a circular thought, I suppose.😕 😁

First off, expansion isn't something you can assign a spatial destination to. You aren't moving toward a target; you're simply expanding uniformly from an origin point in every direction simultaneously. It’s a matter of geometry, really.

Second, the universe isn't infinite.

Richard Howard2 said:Every single point in space-time possesses its own temporal component, yet it isn't time itself, and vice versa. Spatial dimensions and the one temporal dimension are distinct; they aren't interchangeable coordinates. Therefore, space and time aren't identical. It is a continuum of interdependence, but a spatial component isn't a temporal one, nor is a temporal component a spatial one.

If we were traveling at infinite speed, we wouldn't be present at every point in space simultaneously—only if we were expanding at an infinite rate.😉

The reality is that there is NO such thing as three-dimensional space on its own... nor any time on its own... space and time form a WHOLE and a UNITY that our minds can't even grasp. What we perceive in three dimensions and what we "feel" as the flow of time isn't "actual reality," but rather segments and cross-sections... which only together constitute the whole. The total space combined with total time... as ONE PIECE... is the existing reality. While what we CALL space and what we CALL time... doesn't truly exist outside of our own "preconceptions."
Now... if a cube is a three-dimensional object... you can't claim height isn't a "cube" component separate from width and length... because without height, a cube ceases to be a cube and becomes a plane.
A plane, however, is a cross-section of a cube, and every point on that "cross-section" inherently possesses "height," even though the plane itself only has two dimensions and lacks a third dimension—height—within its own nature; it merely "moves" through it. Sigh...
So... in that sense, time is a "dimension" of actual space and inseparable from it, meaning every point in space is also a temporal one.🙄 There is no identical space at a different time, just as there is no "identical" plane at a different "height."

😕...... and now I know nothing at all... 😕

...... so now I know absolutely nothing...

Yes, that happens to be the only accurate thing in your last post.

I hate to disappoint you, but you aren't exactly well-versed in the laws of space; rather, you seem to be operating more on mere intuition, wouldn't you agree?

I suppose your efforts are commendable, given that we are discussing philosophy here, but I have already noted on science for science that science is increasingly encroaching upon the territory once held by philosophy. As these subjects begin to undergo rigorous scientific study, we arrive at conclusions that are far more precise, convincing, and—crucially—verifiable than any purely philosophical insight could offer.

But, returning to the matter at hand:

According to the explanation of space, there are four levels of primitive/fundamental entities existing within three spatial dimensions:

1. A Point — a position defined by coordinates; a zero-dimensional entity (zero dimensions required for description)

2. Length — a set of points arranged linearly; a one-dimensional entity (one dimension required for description—length)

3. A Plane — a set of points arranged in all directions within a flat surface; a two-dimensional entity (two dimensions required for description—length and width)

4. A Body/Curved Surface — a set of points distributed in all directions through space; a three-dimensional entity (three dimensions required for description—length, width, and height)

If we incorporate the temporal component, we arrive at a fifth entity:

5. An Event — a point possessing a position not just in space, but also in time; a spacetime entity (one temporal dimension included)

Beyond this, one can make further assumptions, similar to the initial entities but with the addition of time, though those descriptions become significantly more complex due to the inclusion of motion and transformations.

Therefore, your point within the cross-section of a cube is not some three-dimensional body possessing its own "invisible" dimensions; it is merely a point with its specific coordinates. The cross-section itself is simply a surface, yet all of this exists within the context of the three-dimensional body of the cube. Please, do not conflate coordinates with the dimensions that certain concepts occupy in space.

It is true what you say: in practical application, every spatial point is simultaneously a temporal one, but that is not necessarily the case when we are looking at a mathematical mental model.

Richard Howard2 said:Sure, that might be the only accurate thing in your last post.

I hate to disappoint you, but you aren't exactly an expert on spatial laws; you're mostly just winging it, aren't you?

Look, I appreciate the enthusiasm—after all, this is philosophy—but I’ve already mentioned on science for science that science is increasingly encroaching on philosophy's territory. As these subjects are studied scientifically, we reach conclusions that are more precise, more convincing, and (crucially!) more verified than any philosophical insight could ever hope to be.

So, here's the reality: your point within the cube's cross-section isn't some three-dimensional entity with its own "invisible" dimensions; it's simply a point defined by coordinates. The cross-section itself is just a surface, even if it exists within the three-dimensional volume of the cube. Try not to confuse raw coordinates with the actual dimensions occupied by concepts in space.

You're right that in practical terms, every spatial point is also a temporal one, but that isn't necessarily true when we are dealing with a purely mathematical mental model.

Richard, where exactly did I claim a point was a three-dimensional body?

...which means not everything in my post is false, contrary to what you claimed at the start.

But fine... since you're so incredibly confident... tell me EXACTLY and PRECISELY: has science delivered its FINAL verdict on space and time? Is there absolutely NO remaining doubt about what space/time actually is, leaving zero open questions left for anyone to ask?
If the answer isn't yes—and it isn't 🙂—then you can try to justify your little theory about science "encroaching on philosophy" however you like. But between you and me? It’s never going to happen. 🙄

A plane is essentially a cross-section of a cube, where every single point on that "cross-section" also possesses its own "altitude," even though the plane itself only occupies two dimensions and lacks a third dimension—height—within its own internal structure... rather, movement occurs along it.

From this incredibly muddled sentence, my takeaway was that the core idea was that a point only displays two of its dimensions despite possessing a third, acting as a cross-section within a larger framework—meaning the point is three-dimensional. You need to be more precise if you expect to be understood.

It’s true; not everything in your post was incorrect, as I stated at the start of my last message, but it lacked cohesion. Regardless, my apologies.

Look, regarding space as a mathematical model where light and time move linearly—science has provided a definitive answer, which pertains to what I noted under the numbered points.

That particular model is easily applied to smaller spatial scales (up to interplanetary distances), but for anything beyond that, one must utilize the additional frameworks established by Einstein when he discovered that the entirety of space-time is curved within a higher dimensional space. As for those specific complexities, however, science is still investigating and has yet to reach a final conclusion.

What I was discussing falls within the boundaries of answers already established. Science is still a long way from a final answer, but one thing is certain: what you are writing is much further off.

If it isn't... and it isn't, you can just blame your convictions on the idea that science "strips competence from philosophy"... and, just between us, I'll whisper to you... that is never going to happen.

Of course, there will always be people who choose to philosophize about certain things.😁

Richard Howard2 said:From this incredibly muddled sentence, my takeaway is that the core idea was suggesting a point represents only two dimensions despite possessing a third—essentially acting as a cross-section within a larger framework, implying the point itself is three-dimensional. You need to be clearer if you expect to be understood.

True. Not everything in your post was wrong, as I noted at the start of my last reply, but it lacked cohesion. My apologies.

Regarding space as a mathematical model where light and time move linearly—science has provided a definitive answer, which pertains to what I detailed under the numbers.

Such a model works fine on smaller scales (up to interplanetary distances), but anything beyond that requires the additional frameworks established by Einstein once it was realized that spacetime itself is curved within a higher dimension. As for those complexities, science is still searching; there is no final answer yet.

What I was discussing falls within the boundaries of settled science. Science remains far from a complete picture, but one thing is certain: your theories are much further off.

Naturally, there will always be those who prefer philosophy over facts.😁

I appreciate it... when you speak with some honesty.😉

..and as a reward... a poem for you...

To Sink

The wing is an illusion of space
and time.
to fly toward oneself,
to explore one's own depths.
To choose the deepest
and into it, quietly
sink.

Tin Kolumbić - The Art of Love and Death

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Richard Howard2 said:Every single point in space-time possesses its own temporal component, yet it isn't time itself, and vice versa. Spatial dimensions and the one temporal dimension are distinct; they aren't just interchangeable coordinates. Therefore, space and time are not one and the same. It’s a continuum of interdependence, but a spatial component isn't a temporal one, just as a temporal component isn't spatial.

If we were traveling at infinite speed, we wouldn't be at every point in space simultaneously—unless we were expanding at infinite speed.😉

*Mr. Richard Howard2, you're trying so hard to inject meaning into your scientism with such absolute nonsense that it's a miracle you don't see where you're failing. Space and time aren't part of the same "battle" (though what their battle would even be, you have no clue!), but they are inseparable.
That's why time has its beginning alongside space within the absolute Spirit of Creation. Otherwise, neither Einstein nor his formulas matter, nor does any science for any theory whose formulas we actually apply to real life!

As for this talk about infinite speed and the infinite expansion of the universe, save it for later! Where exactly is this universe supposed to expand into?
Is it somehow limited in its infinity, having nowhere left to expand? This is scientific garbage that even a cat wouldn't touch!
😎

OFF topic Pandora

Rachel Bishop, it’s quite lovely how romantically you view the world.

I didn't explicitly mention this before, but I maintain that a subjective perspective is just as vital as strict, objective science. In my view, we might grasp the mechanics of our world through objective science, but the ultimate meaning remains something only found within the human spirit.

Science—even as it increasingly strips philosophy of its primacy—ultimately serves to confirm just how magical and magnificent our world truly is.

Our imagination and thoughts can wander quite far, yet it is only through science that we realize the actual reality has ventured much further still.

That is simply my take on it.

Time is a bit of a headache because, say, in the microscopic realm, you can't really tell which way it's heading. But once you start looking at statistics across the entire universe, the direction becomes undeniable. It makes you wonder if time is actually just another dimension like height, isn't it?

Alex Ramirez40 said:Does time actually exist, or is it just a concept humans invented to make sense of days, months, and years?

It doesn't. I've personally experienced what it's like when time isn't a thing. It was a different state of consciousness, but evidence is evidence 😉. Though, admittedly subjective...

Brian Doyle86 said:It doesn't exist. I have personally experienced moments where time simply ceases to be a factor. It was more of a shift in consciousness, perhaps, but a realization is a realization 😉 . Though, being subjective...

Could you expand on how you arrived at that conclusion?

It’s not about reaching a conclusion; it’s about the experience itself.

Look, you get in a wreck, you’re launched from your body, and for a second, you aren't sure if you're alive or dead—but you know you're still there, just... different. Then you’re hovering nearby, looking down at your wrecked car. Suddenly, twenty years of life start unspooling at high speed, yet everything feels frozen, every single frame of those two decades compressed into a fraction of a second. It all happens at once. A lifetime of lost and found memories surfaces in 3D, swirling through the scene. Twenty-plus years passing in a heartbeat. That’s why I lost a few more memories from when I was two or three. 🙂

So, does time exist in a state of consciousness like that? Definitely not. That's a fact, not a promise. 😉 🙂 .

Orion said:It isn’t about reaching a conclusion; it’s entirely about the experience itself.

Picture this: you're in a car wreck, and suddenly you're ejected from your own body. At first, there is this total disorientation—you can't tell if you're alive or dead, yet you feel present, though everything feels fundamentally different. Then, you find yourself hovering nearby, looking back at your own physical form inside a wrecked vehicle. That's when the reel starts spinning. Twenty-odd years of life begin unspooling at high speed, yet everything remains frozen; every single frame of those two decades compressed into a mere fraction of a second. It all happens simultaneously. A massive weight of lost and rediscovered memories floats up from nowhere, swirling through scenes one after another... twenty-some years passing in what we call a few seconds of "time." Because of that, the void managed to snatch away even more memories from when I was two or three years old. 🙂

So, does time actually exist in that state of consciousness? In such a state, certainly not. There is my proof. It isn't just some vague promise 😉 🙂 .

Impressive. If that is truly how it happened, I suppose I have to admire you, in a way.

However, you are discussing the perception of time here, not time itself. If your definition of time is limited strictly to the sensations occurring within our minds, then fine, I'll grant you that. But I still maintain that time is an objective reality—something our brains simply register as existing and moving forward, regardless of whether we are there to witness it or not.

Boba Fett said:Impressive. If that's the case, I guess I admire you, in a way.

Though, you're talking about the perception of time here, not time itself. If you define time strictly as a sensation in our heads, then sure, fine. But I still maintain it's something our brains simply register—something that exists and moves regardless of us.

Time is a sensation, an experience. Part of your second sentence is right, though if you caught my drift, I was referring to a different state of consciousness where time probably doesn't exist in the way we perceive it in this three-dimensional world. It’s physically impossible for your entire life up to that point to flash before you in a second or two, right? It isn't. That's just a fact. It happened. How do you compress twenty-plus years of data, images, and events into a couple of seconds?

Orion said:How on earth can you compress twenty-odd years—all those memories, photos, life events—into just a second or two?

Time is relative. Einstein said that, and honestly, it’s been repeated so often it’s practically a cliché. But then again, as Max Payne would say, it’s never a cliché when it’s happening to you...

It is actually scientifically possible. If you're traveling near the speed of light, what feels like twenty years to an observer passing by might pass for the traveler in mere seconds.

It’s also possible on a subjective level. If you were to experience every single memory simultaneously—meaning a total, simultaneous activation of all data within the brain—it would essentially feel like a few seconds of reviewing your entire history.

Personally, though, I believe time is something that passes independently of us. Regardless of how we perceive it, we know it exists for one simple reason: its flow manifests in our physical environment. If that weren't the case, we might never even grasp the concept of time itself; we would still experience transience, sure, but everyone would experience it differently, and there would be no agreed-upon system to measure the passage of time. Of course, subjective time is entirely dependent on how our brains function—it comes down to how much our minds register that movement. But what remains certain is that this progression is constant outside of ourselves. No matter how much we *think* time has passed, looking at its physical manifestation tells us how much time has ACTUALLY passed.

LOL, too funny

It’s probably just John Wick being ridiculous. The chat is acting up...