Re: The mind is omnipresent in space-time
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2024 10:30 am
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
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.
The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause.
All space and matter are considered as a whole.
The dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move
The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
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.
The concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum
Nor was I saying otherwise. What we do (apparently) know is that space IS expanding.
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.No, that is not accurate. Time is a component of spacetime. Space and time come together, they are inseparable, and they are substances.
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.
What is the 'classical regime', exactly, and, what is the 'non-classical regime', exactly?
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?
What are the 'set of properties' of 'mind', exactly?
Yes they can be. But what is 'Universe', to you?
And, what is the size of 'space', itself, exactly?
So, to you the word 'time' refers to a One whole continuation right?
So, what are so-called 'physical set of properties', exactly?
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?
So, just absolutely everything besides 'space', right?
Why distinct from 'energy', exactly?
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?
This is just what you have been 'told'.
So, you both agree here, right?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
VVilliam wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:25 pmAs 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.No, that is not accurate. Time is a component of spacetime. Space and time come together, they are inseparable, and they are substances.
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.
Is there any 'actual other information' existing regarding the supposed and alleged 'expansion of space, itself'?
So, what would you be able to 'critique', or 'treat', that information on, exactly?
Yes. I critique the information. What is told is not regarded as 'true or false' but whether it fits with other information.
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).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 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.So, what would you be able to 'critique', or 'treat', that information on, exactly? And, what would you conclude, in your example above here?