The mind is omnipresent in space-time

[bahman]

Are you suggesting space is not physical?

Spacetime is a substance. By physical I mean, stuff like objects, electrons, protons, light, and the like.

What do you mean by 'substance'?

By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties.

[bahman]

Spacetime is a substance. By physical I mean, stuff like objects, electrons, protons, light, and the like.

So are you saying that space is not made of particles?

("Time" is a concept yes?)

Space and time are components of spacetime. Spacetime is not made of particles at least with the classical regime. We don't have the quantum theory of gravity yet but if we had then spacetime is basically gravitons in quantum regime.

[bahman]

"bahman" will you;

Firstly, define what the words below actually mean and refer to, to you, exactly?

Then, list the order of those words when they came to exist? Starting with what eternally exists, if there are any to you.

Mind.

The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause.

Universe.

All space and matter are considered as a whole.

Space.

The dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move

Time.

The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

Matter.

Physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.

Spacetime

The concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum

[VVilliam]

Spacetime is a substance. By physical I mean, stuff like objects, electrons, protons, light, and the like.

So are you saying that space is not made of particles?

("Time" is a concept yes?)

Space and time are components of spacetime. Spacetime is not made of particles at least with the classical regime.

My understanding is that Space is expanding therefore is it made of particles.

Time is a concept so is not made of anything. It exist primarily as a conceptual device to measure movement and since space is moving and measurable, space consists of matter and time is something we use to measure the movement of material/matter.

[bahman]

So are you saying that space is not made of particles?

("Time" is a concept yes?)

Space and time are components of spacetime. Spacetime is not made of particles at least with the classical regime.

My understanding is that Space is expanding therefore is it made of particles.

No one knows why space is expanding.

Time is a concept so is not made of anything. It exist primarily as a conceptual device to measure movement and since space is moving and measurable, space consists of matter and time is something we use to measure the movement of material/matter.

No, that is not accurate. Time is a component of spacetime. Space and time come together, they are inseparable, and they are substances.

[VVilliam]

Space and time are components of spacetime. Spacetime is not made of particles at least with the classical regime.

My understanding is that Space is expanding therefore is it made of particles.

No one knows why space is expanding.

Nor was I saying otherwise. What we do (apparently) know is that space IS expanding.

Time is a concept so is not made of anything. It exist primarily as a conceptual device to measure movement and since space is moving and measurable, space consists of matter and time is something we use to measure the movement of material/matter.

No, that is not accurate. Time is a component of spacetime. Space and time come together, they are inseparable, and they are substances.

As a theory it attempts to make time something other than what it is. Then of course there is the additional problem of explaining a so-called "substance" as existing which is not itself physical in nature (just a concept wrought through supernaturalism) and thus concepts like "souls" "spirit" et al are equally "substances" which have no relation to actual physical substances.

[Age]

Spacetime is a substance. By physical I mean, stuff like objects, electrons, protons, light, and the like.

What do you mean by 'substance'?

By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties.

1. What do you mean by 'properties'.

2. What are the properties of 'Mind', 'space', 'time', and 'spacetime'?

[Age]

Spacetime is a substance. By physical I mean, stuff like objects, electrons, protons, light, and the like.

So are you saying that space is not made of particles?

("Time" is a concept yes?)

Space and time are components of spacetime.

I am not the quickest one here, but saying that the components of 'spacetime' being 'space' and 'time' did not need to be explained in a philosophy forum, well not in the days when this is being written anyway.

Spacetime is not made of particles at least with the classical regime.

What is the 'classical regime', exactly, and, what is the 'non-classical regime', exactly?

We don't have the quantum theory of gravity yet but if we had then spacetime is basically gravitons in quantum regime.

If 'we' do not, supposedly, have 'the quantum theory of gravity', yet, then how do you know what 'the quantum theory of gravity' will contain, in the future?

Also, what does 'gravitons in quantum regime' even mean, and/or is even referring to, exactly?

[Age]

"bahman" will you;

Firstly, define what the words below actually mean and refer to, to you, exactly?

Then, list the order of those words when they came to exist? Starting with what eternally exists, if there are any to you.

Mind.

The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause.

What are the 'set of properties' of 'mind', exactly?

And, how can 'mind' 'experience', and, 'cause', exactly?

Universe.

All space and matter are considered as a whole.

Yes they can be. But what is 'Universe', to you?

Is Universe all space and matter?

if yes, then is there anything else, which is not included within the words 'space' and 'matter'?

Space.

The dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move

And, what is the size of 'space', itself, exactly?

Time.

The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

So, to you the word 'time' refers to a One whole continuation right?

Matter.

Physical substance in general,

So, what are so-called 'physical set of properties', exactly?

as distinct from mind and spirit;

How, exactly, could 'mind' be distinct from 'matter' or 'physical substance/set of properties' when 'mind', to you, is also a 'substance/set of properites' also?

(in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass,

So, just absolutely everything besides 'space', right?

especially as distinct from energy.

Why distinct from 'energy', exactly?

What, to you, is 'energy', exactly?

Spacetime

The concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum

So, 'spacetime', to you, is only the 'concept' of the so-claimed 'indefinite continued progress of existence as a whole, and not the 'actual', supposed, 'indefinite progress of existence as a whole', and, the non-material area, which everything material exists within always, right?

And, when you say 'continuum' does it have a start, or beginning, and/or a finish, or ending?

Also, you missed, or forgot, purposely or unintentionally, to list the order of those things as you see when they began, if they did, and came into existence.

Which was what I was most 'looking forwards to', as this might have then shed some more understanding of your views and beliefs here.

[Age]

So are you saying that space is not made of particles?

("Time" is a concept yes?)

Space and time are components of spacetime. Spacetime is not made of particles at least with the classical regime.

My understanding is that Space is expanding therefore is it made of particles.

This is just what you have been 'told'.

Or, do you have some actual first hand experience of 'space', itself, which you would like to share with 'us' here.

Also, what is 'space', itself, which could actually expand?

Time is a concept so is not made of anything.

So, you both agree here, right?

It exist primarily as a conceptual device to measure movement and since space is moving and measurable, space consists of matter and time is something we use to measure the movement of material/matter.

I say that 'time' is just the word used to describe the measuring of duration between perceived 'events'. If this at all helps anyone here.

[Age]

Space and time are components of spacetime. Spacetime is not made of particles at least with the classical regime.

My understanding is that Space is expanding therefore is it made of particles.

No one knows why space is expanding.

No one even knows if 'space', itself, is even expanding. you human beings just tell each other that 'space is expanding', and as can be clearly seen here, some just end up thinking or believing that it does. Just like when in the even more 'older days' human beings were telling each other that 'the sun revolves around the earth'. Some just ended up thinking or believing that this is true, without ever questioning it nor seeking actual proof for the claim.

See, some people really did, back in those 'olden days', just accept, and/or believe, somethings that they were 'told'.

Time is a concept so is not made of anything. It exist primarily as a conceptual device to measure movement and since space is moving and measurable, space consists of matter and time is something we use to measure the movement of material/matter.

No, that is not accurate. Time is a component of spacetime. Space and time come together, they are inseparable, and they are substances.

How can both 'space' and 'time' 'now' be made up of 'substances/sets of properties' when you also claim that 'spacetime', itself, which is composed of 'space' and 'time', is 'not made of particles'? (Well, at least with the classical regime. Which 'we' await you describing to 'us' what that is, exactly, to you.)

[Age]

My understanding is that Space is expanding therefore is it made of particles.

No one knows why space is expanding.

Nor was I saying otherwise. What we do (apparently) know is that space IS expanding.

Now, here is a more accurate claim. Even though you human beings do not, 'actual', know that space is expanding, at all really, at least the word 'apparently' makes the claim more accurate.

Time is a concept so is not made of anything. It exist primarily as a conceptual device to measure movement and since space is moving and measurable, space consists of matter and time is something we use to measure the movement of material/matter.

No, that is not accurate. Time is a component of spacetime. Space and time come together, they are inseparable, and they are substances.

As a theory it attempts to make time something other than what it is. Then of course there is the additional problem of explaining a so-called "substance" as existing which is not itself physical in nature (just a concept wrought through supernaturalism) and thus concepts like "souls" "spirit" et al are equally "substances" which have no relation to actual physical substances.

[VVilliam]

This is just what you have been 'told'.

Yes. I critique the information. What is told is not regarded as 'true or false' but whether it fits with other information. If (for example) someone were to "tell" me that they were "from the future" and that "space does not expand" then I would treat their information in the same manner I treat all information.

[Age]

This is just what you have been 'told'.

Yes. I critique the information. What is told is not regarded as 'true or false' but whether it fits with other information.

Is there any 'actual other information' existing regarding the supposed and alleged 'expansion of space, itself'?

Or, is it just the beliefs and/or presumptions that is what is getting shared, and told, here only?

If (for example) someone were to "tell" me that they were "from the future" and that "space does not expand" then I would treat their information in the same manner I treat all information.

So, what would you be able to 'critique', or 'treat', that information on, exactly?

And, what would you conclude, in your example above here?

[VVilliam]

This is just what you have been 'told'.

Yes. I critique the information. What is told is not regarded as 'true or false' but whether it fits with other information.

Is there any 'actual other information' existing regarding the supposed and alleged 'expansion of space, itself'?

Or, is it just the beliefs and/or presumptions that is what is getting shared, and told, here only?

That is what I am attempting to ascertain. There are cases where "being told" is done "as if" the information is true, rather than presenting the information as theory (which may or may not be true).

If (for example) someone were to "tell" me that they were "from the future" and that "space does not expand" then I would treat their information in the same manner I treat all information.

So, what would you be able to 'critique', or 'treat', that information on, exactly? And, what would you conclude, in your example above here?

That depends upon the quality of the information. If someone told me they were from the future I could accept their word at face value as being "true" or "false" thus I accept they have told me they are from the future but the quality of that information is lacking anything which would help me to place it in the probably true or probably false category.

In this sense, there is not much if anything which can be critiqued because the one telling it has not provided supporting information which can be examined.
Therefore I would simply shrug and not give it any particular relevance. In other words, I would conclude "so what that the personality tells me it is from the future?" or that "space does not expand"?