The mind is omnipresent in space-time

[bahman]

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'.

Check dictionary!

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

Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause. The property of spacetime is its curvature.

[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?

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"?

So, you do not seek out proof, you just rely or go on what is told to you, right?

[Age]

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

1. What do you mean by 'properties'.

Check dictionary!

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

Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause. The property of spacetime is its curvature.

So, once again no order and no actual clarity provided.

[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"?

So, you do not seek out proof, you just rely or go on what is told to you, right?

No. Not sure where you got that from what I wrote.

[Age]

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).







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"?

So, you do not seek out proof, you just rely or go on what is told to you, right?

No. Not sure where you got that from what I wrote.

But space is always expanding and contracting in the same moment right here, now.

[VVilliam]

So, you do not seek out proof, you just rely or go on what is told to you, right?

No. Not sure where you got that from what I wrote.

But space is always expanding and contracting in the same moment right here, now.

Do you mean something like "breathing"?

[Age]

No. Not sure where you got that from what I wrote.

But space is always expanding and contracting in the same moment right here, now.

Do you mean something like "breathing"?

Not necessarily so, but one could look at and see it like 'that'.

But, if we go to my definition of 'space', then you could and would see what I mean, and meant, far more clearly.

[VVilliam]

But space is always expanding and contracting in the same moment right here, now.

Do you mean something like "breathing"?

Not necessarily so, but one could look at and see it like 'that'.

But, if we go to my definition of 'space', then you could and would see what I mean, and meant, far more clearly.

Which definition is that and where does one go to for it?

[Age]

Do you mean something like "breathing"?

Not necessarily so, but one could look at and see it like 'that'.

But, if we go to my definition of 'space', then you could and would see what I mean, and meant, far more clearly.

Which definition is that and where does one go to for it?

I will say and write my definition below here, so one does not have to go looking for it. But my definition does exist in the thread I started named or labeled, 'The Universe'. viewtopic.php?t=41744

The word 'space' means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter.

So, 'space' is nothing more than just that distance between and around physical matter, which is obviously always expanding and contracting when matter, and/or particles or objects of matter, move further apart or closer together.

Which, from one perspective, could be looked at and/or seen as something like 'breathing', as you previously asked me.

Although, previously, I would not necessarily have looked at nor seen this, 'this way', but on further reflection, considering that the Universe, Itself, is an actual alive and living Thing, then 'space' contracting and expanding like living lungs when breathing, the invisible, here might work as an 'allegory' in a way

[VVilliam]

The word 'space' means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter.

So, 'space' is nothing more than just that distance between and around physical matter, which is obviously always expanding and contracting when matter, and/or particles or objects of matter, move further apart or closer together.

What does the space consist of?

I see in reading your recent thread which you linked, you write "the only relative thing there is here is the distinction, still, between matter and space, only" my overall impression of your post there is that you think space is not made of matter?

In that sense, something which is not made of anything, does not actually exist (as something) yet clearly the apparently non-existing nothing has to actually exist in order for everything which is something, to appear to be something/everything.

Even if that something/everything was just one object (of whatever size) and no other object existed, it could not be experienced as something unless it existed in (within) a space.

It is a bit like my asking one to imagine the following gap between these words....














...and these words, as "infinite"...it is bound within the frame which distinguishes it and allows one to imagine it...yet one cannot imagine it as infinite without referring to it as "something", which then requires a boundary of some sort.


As per the thread topic, "mind" is also an aspect of the overall universe (certainly re earth) and is the required thing which allows all else (including space [and?] matter) to be acknowledged as existing and examined in order that the mind can perhaps understand the universe.

Recently I have been thinking along the following lines.

There is an infinite field of particle X.
A section of this IFX is imaged below.



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



Whatever caused that to happen in the IFX can be argued about but for now my focus is on the effects.


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.)

[Age]

The word 'space' means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter.

So, 'space' is nothing more than just that distance between and around physical matter, which is obviously always expanding and contracting when matter, and/or particles or objects of matter, move further apart or closer together.

What does the space consist of?

Absolutely nothing.

I see in reading your recent thread which you linked, you write "the only relative thing there is here is the distinction, still, between matter and space, only" my overall impression of your post there is that you think space is not made of matter?

In that sense, something which is not made of anything, does not actually exist (as something) yet clearly the apparently non-existing nothing has to actually exist in order for everything which is something, to appear to be something/everything.

Why does something, which is not made of anything, supposedly, does not actually exist (as something)?

Obviously there is a space, or distance, between quarks, for example, otherwise instead of there being two quarks, there would just be one.

And, the 'space', or distance, between the smallest particles of matter would have to be of absolutely nothing, otherwise that space or distance would be just another piece or particle of matter, smaller in size of course.

Even if that something/everything was just one object (of whatever size) and no other object existed, it could not be experienced as something unless it existed in (within) a space.

Look, you are absolutely free to look at and see things in absolutely anyway you like.

It is a bit like my asking one to imagine the following gap between these words....














...and these words, as "infinite"...

If you are imagining or believing that what I have said in relation to 'space' between 'matter' as 'infinite', then you could not be and further away from what I have actually said and written here.

it is bound within the frame which distinguishes it and allows one to imagine it...yet one cannot imagine it as infinite without referring to it as "something", which then requires a boundary of some sort.

I have already explained all of this. Now, if you cannot comprehend and understand what I have said, and just want to continue thinking or believing that what you are saying here is even remotely close to what I have said and written here, then so be it. But, just be forewarned you could not really get much further away or even opposing what I have actually said, written, and meant here.

As per the thread topic, "mind" is also an aspect of the overall universe (certainly re earth)

The 'earth' in relation to the 'Universe', Itself, is nothing but a lepton in size and a planck length in time.

and is the required thing which allows all else (including space [and?] matter) to be acknowledged as existing and examined in order that the mind can perhaps understand the universe.

The Mind, Itself, has already understood the 'Universe', you human beings here are just evolving to become aware of this, as well.

Recently I have been thinking along the following lines.

There is an infinite field of particle X.
A section of this IFX is imaged below.



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



Whatever caused that to happen in the IFX can be argued about but for now my focus is on the effects.


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.)

Again, you are absolutely free to look at and see things in absolutely anyway you like.

[VVilliam]

I have already explained all of this. Now, if you cannot comprehend and understand what I have said, and just want to continue thinking or believing that what you are saying here is even remotely close to what I have said and written here, then so be it.

You have misunderstood. I am offering what I understand and if it is not the same as what you understand and you want to argue/critique what I offered, then do so. Clearly we have differing understandings and it is a mistake on your part to think that what I was saying here was an attempt by me to be close to what you have said and written here.

You are of course welcome to think of space as consisting of nothing. I wonder if you think that the space between you and the nearest object to you, consists of "nothing"?

[Age]

I have already explained all of this. Now, if you cannot comprehend and understand what I have said, and just want to continue thinking or believing that what you are saying here is even remotely close to what I have said and written here, then so be it.

You have misunderstood.

Okay.

I am offering what I understand and if it is not the same as what you understand and you want to argue/critique what I offered, then do so.

I can see where and why what you say and claim here does not work.

Clearly we have differing understandings and it is a mistake on your part to think that what I was saying here was an attempt by me to be close to what you have said and written here.

Okay, Can you prove your views or beliefs here irrefutably True?

In other words have you already obtained the unambiguous irrefutable Facts for what you see, say, and write here?

You are of course welcome to think of space as consisting of nothing. I wonder if you think that the space between you and the nearest object to you, consists of "nothing"?

Well if there is 'nothing', then yes.

But, considering the Fact that when you use the 'you' word here you are referring to a human body, and that obviously between 'this body' and the 'nearest object' there is, at least, 'air', which consists of other things, then in your most narrowest way of 'looking at' and 'seeing' things here, you are showing and proving that you have not yet understood absolutely anything in regards to what I have said and written so.

But, if you want to claim that the 'space' between two 'leptons', for example, consists of 'things', other than 'distance', itself, then please by all means inform 'us' here and the whole 'scientific community' what 'that space' consists of, exactly.

[VVilliam]

you are showing and proving that you have not yet understood absolutely anything in regards to what I have said and written so.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I could say the same of you but so what?

have you already obtained the unambiguous irrefutable Facts for what you see, say, and write here?

No. Have you, re your own views?

Or are we simply expressing different philosophical views about the Universe?

But, if you want to claim that the 'space' between two 'leptons', for example, consists of 'things', other than 'distance', itself, then please by all means inform 'us' here and the whole 'scientific community' what 'that space' consists of, exactly.

Are you suggesting that you and "the whole scientific community" have shown that the space between two leptons consists of "nothing"?

[Age]

you are showing and proving that you have not yet understood absolutely anything in regards to what I have said and written so.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I could say the same of you but so what?

If you think or believe that I am not understanding absolutely anything in regards to why you have said and written here, and you would like me to, then just say what part/s, and why you think or believe I am not understanding those part/s.

have you already obtained the unambiguous irrefutable Facts for what you see, say, and write here?

No.

Have you, re your own views?

Yes.

Or are we simply expressing different philosophical views about the Universe?

Well of course we are expressing different views. But, in regards to 'objects', like the Universe, there can only be one real 'view' that is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

But, if you want to claim that the 'space' between two 'leptons', for example, consists of 'things', other than 'distance', itself, then please by all means inform 'us' here and the whole 'scientific community' what 'that space' consists of, exactly.

Are you suggesting that you and "the whole scientific community" have shown that the space between two leptons consists of "nothing"?

Not in the sense of visually with the human eye/s. As obviously the instruments needed to see that in depth or deeply have not yet been build and constructed.

But, I and others can 'show', through understanding, that there will always have to exist 'space', that is; a distance, of no physicality between and around matter, itself. For the obviously reason if there was no 'space', then there would be only one piece of physical matter, only.

Can you fathom, understand, and 'see' this Fact, now?