I'm a Theist

[Immanuel Can]

I am afraid that that is not correct.

Because?

Or are you going to offer me nothing by way of proof that nothing means something?

[uwot]

"you are bound to conclude that Einstein did not believe that space is emptiness."

Best you can say is that he mebbe thought it possessed a nature: "...this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time."

Well, that bit is just him saying that spacetime is, in effect, analogue, rather than digitised.

Not quite the same as declaring it non-empty, or some thing.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a specific reference, but there are many instances where he made his opposition to 'spooky action at a distance' clear. A big part of his motivation to attribute gravity to a substantial 'spacetime' is that it is 'localised', i.e. there is a physical connection between two gravitationally attracted objects, which is missing in Newtonian mechanics.

As for the insinuation I haven't read Einstein's work... ( ︶︿︶)_╭∩╮

Didn't claim to understand it perfectly (*I may, in fact, be dead wrong on a nice chunk of what I think I understand), but I've read what Einstein published, and it seems to me a great many of the ideas attributed to him aren't actually his but are **popularizations of his thinkin'.

Which was my point.

*so, call me idiot if you like, but don't call me liar

Sorry you took it that way

**latex rubber space supporting a bowling ball, that sort of thing

Well yeah, I don't remember reading that anywhere in Einstein.

[bahman]

I am afraid that that is not correct.

Because?

Or are you going to offer me nothing by way of proof that nothing means something?

Because nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. By thing, I mean object, time, space, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

I am afraid that that is not correct.

Because?

Or are you going to offer me nothing by way of proof that nothing means something?

Because nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. By thing, I mean object, time, space, etc.

Right. Nothing is "no thing." It's not a thing. Just like a zero is the absence of a number, not just another number.

But what you have done is shown I am correct.

In what, then, was I "not correct," as you said above?

[bahman]

Because?

Or are you going to offer me nothing by way of proof that nothing means something?

Because nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing. By thing, I mean object, time, space, etc.

Right. Nothing is "no thing." It's not a thing. Just like a zero is the absence of a number, not just another number.

But what you have done is shown I am correct.

In what, then, was I "not correct," as you said above?

You need to try it yourself to imagine nothing. It is possible.

[Ansiktsburk]

Thats pretty cool. You have another translation in english. In my scandinavian language it simply "kunskapens träd"(the tree of knowledge).

Then I humbly submit that the Scandinavian translation you're using is wrong. To show that, here is original Hebrew upon which the manuscripts of all our translations, both English and Scandanavian, depends.

The original Hebrew reads:

but you must not
לֹ֥א (lō)
Adverb - Negative particle
Strong's Hebrew 3808: Not, no

eat
תֹאכַ֖ל (ṯō·ḵal)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 398: To eat

from
מִמֶּ֑נּוּ (mim·men·nū)
Preposition | third person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 4480: A part of, from, out of

the tree
וּמֵעֵ֗ץ (ū·mê·‘êṣ)
Conjunctive waw, Preposition-m | Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 6086: Tree, trees, wood

of the knowledge
הַדַּ֙עַת֙ (had·da·‘aṯ)
Article | Noun - feminine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 1847: Knowledge

of good
ט֣וֹב (ṭō·wḇ)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 2896: Pleasant, agreeable, good

and evil;
וָרָ֔ע (wā·rā‘)
Conjunctive waw | Adjective - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7451: Bad, evil

So you see that the phrase "of good and evil" is in the original. If any translation leaves it out, that's just not correct.

So the willie and the fanny are evil stuff? ( I tried the straightforward nomenclature but got stars)

[Immanuel Can]

You need to try it yourself to imagine nothing. It is possible.

Naw.

However, it's possible to imagine something, and then imagine it's nothing. Like you could imagine a black field, and pretend it's nothing. Or you could imagine a whiteness, and think you've "seen" nothing. But you've imagined a black field or a white screen, and those are not nothings.

It's not possible to imagine nothing. To imagine nothing is to have no imagining.

[Immanuel Can]

So the willie and the fanny are evil stuff? ( I tried the straightforward nomenclature but got stars)

Don't know willie and fanny. Do know Hebrew originals.

[Ansiktsburk]

So the willie and the fanny are evil stuff? ( I tried the straightforward nomenclature but got stars)

Don't know willie and fanny. Do know Hebrew originals.

But that is logically so. The penis and the vagina are evil. At least, exposed.

[henry quirk]

"Well, that bit is just him saying that spacetime is, in effect, analogue, rather than digitised."

That bit, as I understood it, was the summing up of the whole piece, which, as I say, is not quite the same as declaring it non-empty, or something. I think he'd like the idea of space-time being 'context' for object and forces acting on and interacting with each other (but, then again, mebbe not).

#

"Off the top of my head, I can't think of a specific reference, but there are many instances where he made his opposition to 'spooky action at a distance' clear. A big part of his motivation to attribute gravity to a substantial 'spacetime' is that it is 'localised', i.e. there is a physical connection between two gravitationally attracted objects, which is missing in Newtonian mechanics."

Well, like I say, objects and forces act on and interact with one another. Action over a distance is evident all the time. I think Al just had a problem with quantum jiggery-pokery.

#

"Well yeah, I don't remember reading that anywhere in Einstein."

You never did: that's part of that populatizin' I mentioned.


Anyway, I've evoked Al's ghost enough, and probably abused him more than a little bit. Certainly, I concede that yours is the superior understanding (you're Mr. Science), so, this...

Space-time is an abstraction, a 'context' for the actions of real objects and forces. It, space-time, is not a substance or a dimension or dimensions. Space is not (like) a deformable latex sheet and time is not (like) a river. Objects and forces act on and interact with other objects and forces, not on space-time.

A massive object in space, for example, bends light, not space; massive enough, such an object can even affect the changes in matter that we measure, not the measurement itself. That is: the the measurable changes in objects and forces slow but the measuring itself, is unaffected.

Bluntly: space is emptiness, time is a measure of change.You can only fill emptiness and you can only record the passage of time (measure change). Neither can be altered or shaped or bent. Only real objects and forces can be altered, shaped or bent.

...I'll stick with (cuz it makes sense to me) but leave Al out of it.

And: just to be even more contrary, that goddamned cat in the box, it's alive or it's dead, it ain't both dead and alive till, as big brains say, it's observed.

[Immanuel Can]

The penis and the vagina are evil. At least, exposed.

Sez who?

[attofishpi]

How is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil...NOT a Tree of Knowledge?

Because it places no prohibition on knowledge of any kind, except for one kind...the knowledge of evil.

The idea that God has something against people having other kinds of knowledge is simply wrong.

Why are you not stating:- Because it places no prohibition on knowledge of any kind, except for TWO kinds...the knowledge of good AND of evil?

There is nothing wrong in our discourse to simply 'knock off' the end bit 'of good and evil' - to save typing - you are being pedantic, you knew what I was talking about.

[attofishpi]

And, btw: space is analog, not digital...seamless, smooth (mebbe a little lumpy here and there); time is a measure, not a substance or dimension.

Space must be binary\digital at its most infinitesimally finite scale - a point where there is either an event or there isn't.

This makes no sense to me. Space is emptiness, it has no substance in itself. Stuff exists in space. Stuff may be digital, but space isn't. Hell, it's not even analog, as I said it was up-thread (that was me fallin' prey to a figure of speech).

Space is nothing, no-thing.

When I was talking of 'space' I was meaning the entire space of the universe and its contents. Does that change your mind in any way?

[Immanuel Can]

Why are you not stating:- Because it places no prohibition on knowledge of any kind, except for TWO kinds...the knowledge of good AND of evil?

I explained earlier, but in a message to someone else. Apparently, you didn't see that message, so I'm reprise briefly, for your convenience.

There was no speaking of "knowledge of the good" while everything was "good," and evil was simply an utterly unknown quantity. To know good was the same as to know anything that existed. But to come to know evil is also to recognize that it is the opposite of the health, life, harmony, rightness and so forth that had previously characterized life here...so it entails that you not only learn what evil is, but for the first time can speak about what "good" you have lost in the process.

So the two are entailed.

There is nothing wrong in our discourse to simply 'knock off' the end bit 'of good and evil' - to save typing

There's all the difference in the world between saying, "God said getting any kind of knowledge was wrong," and saying, "God said that getting knowledge of evil was wrong."

If you were to suppose that that makes no difference, then typing really isn't the problem; more likely, reading is.

[Age]

Expected reactions like this. What i mean is deep existential matters that can shake the fundamentals of existence itsef. Fear on a level unfathomable. Some thoughts should be avoided.

Not a "reaction," A. Just a "question." I genuinely cannot see what you're fearing there.

Just as we explore new lands by pushing the boundaries of our geography, so too we learn by pushing the boundaries of our current knowledge. If we ever stop asking questions, fearing something is simply "unfathomable," then we're like sailors who won't go sailing for fear of falling off the edge of the globe. Then learning ends.

Sail on, say I.

Remember the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. From the tree of knowledge. That is the story that makes most sense to me in the bible. As long as it is “exploring the world”, thats all very well, but in the area where the guys were digging, there are thoughts that you definitely do not want to find. Been there, done that.

You have been where, and done what, exactly?