The mind is omnipresent in space-time

[VVilliam]

if there was no 'space', then there would be only one piece of physical matter, only.

No. You are assuming something called space, is not made of anything (is immaterial) while ignoring the fact that this "non substance" must itself have a massive strength to keep objects separate.
The only logical answer as to why this happens, is to acknowledge that space is anything BUT nothing/non-material and accept that while we do not as yet have the instruments to measure the substance space is made of, it must still be material of nature.

As far as I am aware, scientists are not claiming space is immaterial. One simply has to acknowledge the process of black holes to understand that what appears to be "space" (between objects) is also being sucked into said "holes" - so it too must be material in nature.

Also to note - the Universe IS "one object" in that all the objects are all-together ONE thing (which is what the "uni" part of the word points to.

Having 2 things (material and so-called immaterial objects) is no less misinformation than claiming a supernatural thing exists (also said to be "immaterial") and we are best not to allow such unnecessary concepts any place in the universe.

Do you understand now what I am arguing?

[Age]

if there was no 'space', then there would be only one piece of physical matter, only.

No. You are assuming something called space, is not made of anything (is immaterial) while ignoring the fact that this "non substance" must itself have a massive strength to keep objects separate.

1. I am not assuming anything here.

2. Why are you assuming that the word 'space' even has itself any ability at all to keep objects separate.

2. Once again, I suggest you look up, and at, the definition I have provided for the word 'space' here, and recognize that there is absolutely nothing about any ability of, let alone any degrees at all of, of strength nor power to do anything at all.

The only logical answer as to why this happens, is to acknowledge that space is anything BUT nothing/non-material and accept that while we do not as yet have the instruments to measure the substance space is made of, it must still be material of nature.

If one is, first, assuming that 'space' has some sort of ability to separate objects, then one could, and would, be led to the most absurd and ridiculous 'conclusion'; 'space must still be material of nature'.

Once again, here we have another prime example of why it is always better to never pre/assume things.

Also, because all hypothesizes, theories, and/or models of 'things' can, and do, lead people so far astray or astray at all from what the actual Truths are, exactly, then all of these forms of 'guesses/assumptions' should be discontinued with, completely. That is; if people really want to find and see what the actual Truth of things here are, exactly.

As far as I am aware, scientists are not claiming space is immaterial.

Who cares?

What "scientists", like other 'religious' people, claim, can be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. That is; of course unless they have firth the actual proof, which back ups and supports their claim/s.

One simply has to acknowledge the process of black holes to understand that what appears to be "space" (between objects) is also being sucked into said "holes" - so it too must be material in nature.

Is it really not yet clearly obvious to you that 'the space', which is just 'the distance' between and/or around 'matter', is obviously just getting sucked into said 'black holes' because when 'matter' gets sucked in it just 'appears as 'the distance/space' between 'material objects' is getting sucked in as well.

But, if it is true that what is at a so-called 'end' or 'bottom' of a 'black hole' is 'singularity', also known as; an infinite compression of 'matter', therefore 'no space' at all existing, then 'space', that is; 'a distance' between 'matter' is not getting 'sucked in'. In fact it could be said or argued that the 'space' is getting 'squeezed out'.

But, anyway, all of this fits in perfectly with the definitions I have provided so far. And, we really not have even begun to into any real depth here.

But, thanks to you "vvilliam" at least someone is Truly wanting to 'look into' things here and 'find out' what out what the actual Truth is here.

Also to note - the Universe IS "one object" in that all the objects are all-together ONE thing (which is what the "uni" part of the word points to.

I know. And, this is exactly what I have been continually saying and pointing out throughout this whole forum here.

Having 2 things (material and so-called immaterial objects) is no less misinformation than claiming a supernatural thing exists (also said to be "immaterial") and we are best not to allow such unnecessary concepts any place in the universe.

Having a view or belief like you have here, without going fully and Truly in depth to 'see' what another's 'view' is really saying and pointing out, exactly, will lead and leave 'that one' believing in its own False and Wrong assumptions and conclusions.

Do you understand now what I am arguing?

I think I fully understand what you are 'trying to' argue for here. But, I have all of this already covered, well so far, obviously.

Do you understand that you have been and up to here are just misinterpreting 'my words', because you 'currently' presume or believe things, which some of are absolutely nothing at all like what I have been meaning here?

[VVilliam]

As far as I am aware, scientists are not claiming space is immaterial.

Who cares?

What "scientists", like other 'religious' people, claim, can be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. That is; of course unless they have firth the actual proof, which back ups and supports their claim/s.

I see. If scientists are lying about space, then we should be able to prove that they are. Do you have something to prove there is nothing?

For example, you admitted that the space between you and the nearest object to you contains something. Why do you think this rule does not apply to the space between planets or galaxies or leptons?

As you define it "The word 'space' means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter." which does not itself imply that the space is non physical, any more than the distance between you and the nearest object to you implies a non physical thing.

[Age]

As far as I am aware, scientists are not claiming space is immaterial.

Who cares?

What "scientists", like other 'religious' people, claim, can be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. That is; of course unless they have firth the actual proof, which back ups and supports their claim/s.

I see. If scientists are lying about space,

Who said absolutely any thing at all about "scientists" 'lying'?

I never did, so why bring this up in a reply to me, exactly?

then we should be able to prove that they are.

To me, absolutely any adult human being not just should but do prove, when they are asked to, what they claim exists/ed, happens/ed, or occurs/ed.

Now, if one claims that another is 'lying', then do you not think it best or at least better that the one who makes the claim is, first, able to prove what they claim?

Do you have something to prove there is nothing?

you are completely and utterly BLIND here "vvilliam".

Every thing is 'something', in one way or another. So, even the areas of the Universe, which consist of 'absolutely no physical things' are some 'thing'.

I have already explained how I proved that there are areas of 'no physical things'.

I will do it again, this time. Please inform 'us' if you do or not see 'it', this time.

There has to be areas of no 'physical matter', between the smallest particles of matter would not be particles of matter but would just be one particle of matter.

And, if there was not a 'space' between and around matter, then matter could not move about.

Therefore, this proves that there is no material thing between and around the smallest material things.

For example, you admitted that the space between you and the nearest object to you contains something.

Okay, if you say so.

Why do you think this rule does not apply to the space between planets or galaxies or leptons?

But I did not think this rule does not apply to the space between all of these things here.

Why did you even start to presume such a thing as this here?

As you define it "The word 'space' means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter." which does not itself imply that the space is non physical, any more than the distance between you and the nearest object to you implies a non physical thing.

I think you are confusing "yourself" here.

I say, the word 'space' just means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter.

I say, this does not, itself, necessarily mean that the 'space' is non-physical.

So, is there some sort of issue here?

If yes, then what is 'that issue' to you here, exactly?

[VVilliam]

There has to be areas of no 'physical matter', between the smallest particles of matter would not be particles of matter but would just be one particle of matter.

And, if there was not a 'space' between and around matter, then matter could not move about.

Therefore, this proves that there is no material thing between and around the smallest material things.

The "one particle" would be the IFX

The dot (circled in red) represents the initial moment of the Big Bang (the universe we minds are within).



(Premise re kalam.) the universe began to exist.

As the expansion occurs (due to the force of the Big Bang event) over time (measured within the effect) a bubble is formed in the IFX and the interaction causes that part of the IFX to transform into a number of different substances made up of various combinations, all of which can be reduced to the one particle (IFX) from where they originate.



Now let me remove the boundary representing the section of the IFX being focused upon.



Now one can imagine the bubble of the universe within an infinite field of IFX. The IFX is the "space" and the space is not "nothing" but rather "everything" and "things" which come from the IFX (such as the universe we minds are within) can be sourced or traced to the IFX.

Now even if our universe eventually runs out of momentum and contracts, it will eventually return to its former IFX state.
Or, if the momentum causes it to bubble and appear to disconnect from the IFX...



...again, once we remove the boundary, while that universe is apparently free floating as an individual "thing", it is still within the infinite space of IFX. (The IFX is infinite in every direction.)

I say, the word 'space' just means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter.

I say, this does not, itself, necessarily mean that the 'space' is non-physical.

I see.

If we conflate two things to being the same thing, this can lead to confusion.

When we speak of "distance" we speak of a conceptual framework for measuring. If we were able to measure the distance between you and I, that distance would be represented by a number. The number itself is not physical. (It does not exist as a physical reality).

However, we mustn't confuse distance with space. "Space" is not "distance". Space is a real physical thing.

[Age]

There has to be areas of no 'physical matter', between the smallest particles of matter would not be particles of matter but would just be one particle of matter.

And, if there was not a 'space' between and around matter, then matter could not move about.

Therefore, this proves that there is no material thing between and around the smallest material things.

The "one particle" would be the IFX

The dot (circled in red) represents the initial moment of the Big Bang (the universe we minds are within).



(Premise re kalam.) the universe began to exist.

Because something is called 'a premise', this in absolutely no way at all means that 'that thing' is true, right, accurate, nor correct all all, nor partially.

Can you and do you comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact?

If yes, then we can move along.

But if no, then 'we' will wait for 'you', 'here'.

As the expansion occurs (due to the force of the Big Bang event) over time (measured within the effect) a bubble is formed in the IFX and the interaction causes that part of the IFX to transform into a number of different substances made up of various combinations, all of which can be reduced to the one particle (IFX) from where they originate.

Do you want to just keep repeating what you have said before, which, again, is only just what you have been thinking along the lines of?

Or, would you like me to ask you a series of clarifying and/or challenging questions to you here?

Now let me remove the boundary representing the section of the IFX being focused upon.

Okay I will let you do this.

But why would you even want to?

Why did you put 'a boundary' there in the first place?

Now one can imagine the bubble of the universe within an infinite field of IFX.

Are you aware that absolutely anyone can imagine just about absolutely anything?

If yes, then, to me, just imagining something, which does not align with what is actually possible and actually occurs is not very helpful at all here.

Oh, and by the way, are you even aware that a so-called 'infinite field of some particular thing' could not be of limited size?

The IFX is the "space" and the space is not "nothing" but rather "everything" and "things" which come from the IFX (such as the universe we minds are within) can be sourced or traced to the IFX.

The words, 'an infinite field of material x', until explained sensibly, to me, does not make any sense.

1. An 'infinite field' is just a field that goes on, forever.

2. An 'infinite field' of material x, does not say what x is, exactly.

3. An 'infinite field' of material x, means that there would not be absolutely anything else but just 'x', [whatever x is, exactly].

4. An 'infinite field' of material x, could not expand, nor contract. As, obviously, there is an 'infinite field' of one material thing only, which you call x here.

Now even if our universe eventually runs out of momentum and contracts, it will eventually return to its former IFX state.

1. The Universe, Itself, is not 'your', nor others.

2. The Universe returning to a former state has never been an issue. you, however, saying and claiming that there is some so-called 'infinite field of material x' is an issue. And, until you resolve this issue, then what you say and claim is just what you are 'currently' thinking along the lines of, only.

Or, if the momentum causes it to bubble and appear to disconnect from the IFX...

Why do you presume or believe that there is some sort of so-called 'bubble' anyway?

What could the 'bubble', itself, be made out of, how does one distinguish between it and the rest? Among other questions and issues that you will need to resolve if you want to come here saying and claiming what you are here.

Also, how could something within an 'infinite field' even 'appear' to disconnect from an 'infinite field', let alone actually be able to do this?

...again, once we remove the boundary, while that universe is apparently free floating as an individual "thing", it is still within the infinite space of IFX. (The IFX is infinite in every direction.)

How can something:

1. Be 'free floating' in an 'infinite field' of some thing 'material'?

2. How could any thing be an 'individual thing' in relation to an 'infinite field' of some thing else, or of the exact same thing?

I say, the word 'space' just means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter.

I say, this does not, itself, necessarily mean that the 'space' is non-physical.

I see.

If we conflate two things to being the same thing, this can lead to confusion.

If you say so, but are you 'conflating' things here?

If yes, then what are they, exactly?

When we speak of "distance" we speak of a conceptual framework for measuring. If we were able to measure the distance between you and I, that distance would be represented by a number. The number itself is not physical. (It does not exist as a physical reality).

Neither does 'the space/distance', itself, exist as a 'physical thing'.

That is; you delve into and look deep enough at things here.

However, we mustn't confuse distance with space. "Space" is not "distance". Space is a real physical thing.

Really now?

If yes, then what does 'space', itself, look like, feel like, smell like, taste like, and/or sound like, exactly?

Tell 'us' here "vvilliam" what is 'space', exactly, to you?

[billssw]

" The mind is omnipresent in space-time"

Totally agree with this sentence.