|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Oct 5, 2007 01:43
Let us dispose of 'space':
If I can't establish a point as 'here' I cannot establish another
point as 'there'. Also, I cannot establish a point as 'there', for I
have no 'here' to place it absolutely. So there is no 'there' either,
but rather space - as comprised of positions - is no more than an
amorphous zone of unpositionable points (note: we do not need quantum
theory to tell us this).
Consequently, all spatial positions of Newtonian space, or indeed any
space - whether euclidean or non-euclidean - are displaced from us and
from any absolute point. The consequences are 1)there are no points
that are either 'here' or 'there', 2) we cannot find ourselves or our
own position in such a space.
It follows that we cannot interact with space, at least as far as the
scientific model of space is concerned.
The strategy we need to adopt to avoid this neutered, non-interactive
'scientific' space, and its problems of re-identifiability, is to
avoid the notion of 'position' altogether, for positions are neither
reidentifiable - nor even identifiable! Thus we dispose of space.
|
| |
|
| | 64 Comments |
|
|
Author: Don StockbauerDon Stockbauer Date: Oct 5, 2007 01:45
On Oct 5, 2:43 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> Let us dispose of 'space':
>
> If I can't establish a point as 'here' I cannot establish another
> point as 'there'. Also, I cannot establish a point as 'there', for I
> have no 'here' to place it absolutely. So there is no 'there' either,
> but rather space - as comprised of positions - is no more than an
> amorphous zone of unpositionable points (note: we do not need quantum
> theory to tell us this).
>
> Consequently, all spatial positions of Newtonian space, or indeed any
> space - whether euclidean or non-euclidean - are displaced from us and
> from any absolute point. The consequences are 1)there are no points
> that are either 'here' or 'there', 2) we cannot find ourselves or our
> own position in such a space.
>
> It follows that we cannot interact with space, at least as far as the
> scientific model of space is concerned.
>
> The strategy we need to adopt to avoid this neutered, non-interactive ...
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: picopico Date: Oct 5, 2007 05:28
> Let us dispose of 'space':
>
> If I can't establish a point as 'here' I cannot establish another
> point as 'there'. Also, I cannot establish a point as 'there', for I
> have no 'here' to place it absolutely. So there is no 'there' either,
> but rather space - as comprised of positions - is no more than an
> amorphous zone of unpositionable points (note: we do not need quantum
> theory to tell us this).
You lose your keys often, don't you.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Oct 5, 2007 06:33
On Oct 5, 3:43 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> Let us dispose of 'space':
>
> If I can't establish a point as 'here' I cannot establish another
> point as 'there'. Also, I cannot establish a point as 'there', for I
> have no 'here' to place it absolutely. So there is no 'there' either,
> but rather space - as comprised of positions - is no more than an
> amorphous zone of unpositionable points (note: we do not need quantum
> theory to tell us this).
>
> Consequently, all spatial positions of Newtonian space, or indeed any
> space - whether euclidean or non-euclidean - are displaced from us and
> from any absolute point. The consequences are 1)there are no points
> that are either 'here' or 'there', 2) we cannot find ourselves or our
> own position in such a space.
>
> It follows that we cannot interact with space, at least as far as the
> scientific model of space is concerned.
>
> The strategy we need to adopt to avoid this neutered, non-interactive ...
|
| Show full article (1.41Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Oct 5, 2007 06:40
On Oct 5, 2:33?pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:> On Oct 5, 3:43 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> Let us dispose of 'space':
>
>> If I can't establish a point as 'here' I cannot establish another
>> point as 'there'. Also, I cannot establish a point as 'there', for I
>> have no 'here' to place it absolutely. So there is no 'there' either,
>> but rather space - as comprised of positions - is no more than an
>> amorphous zone of unpositionable points (note: we do not need quantum
>> theory to tell us this).
>
>> Consequently, all spatial positions of Newtonian space, or indeed any
>> space - whether euclidean or non-euclidean - are displaced from us and
>> from any absolute point. The consequences are 1)there are no points
>> that are either 'here' or 'there', 2) we cannot find ourselves or our ...
|
| Show full article (1.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Oct 5, 2007 06:49
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:43:29 -0700, John Jones wrote:
> The strategy we need to adopt to avoid this neutered, non-interactive
> 'scientific' space, and its problems of re-identifiability, is to
> avoid the notion of 'position' altogether, for positions are neither
> reidentifiable - nor even identifiable! Thus we dispose of space.
Or do we dispose of a type of science?
If a scope can not read some thing that is there, the problem is the scope
not the thing.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Oct 5, 2007 06:57
On Oct 5, 2:49?pm, ZerkonX zerkonx.net> wrote:> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:43:29 -0700, John Jones wrote:
>> The strategy we need to adopt to avoid this neutered, non-interactive
>> 'scientific' space, and its problems of re-identifiability, is to
>> avoid the notion of 'position' altogether, for positions are neither
>> reidentifiable - nor even identifiable! Thus we dispose of space.
>
> Or do we dispose of a type of science?
>
> If a scope can not read some thing that is there, the problem is the scope
> not the thing.
Have we not fathomed the world for our absolute position?! Even self-
reference cannot provide it, nor the expedient of switching frameworks
and declaring that our thought coincides in an absolute sense with
matter.
Even if I should traverse the whole world, even if I should include
all 'positions' in the entirety of the universe, I would not be able
to find where I sit.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Oct 5, 2007 07:04
On Oct 5, 8:40 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> On Oct 5, 2:33?pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Oct 5, 3:43 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>
>>> Let us dispose of 'space':
>
>>> If I can't establish a point as 'here' I cannot establish another
>>> point as 'there'. Also, I cannot establish a point as 'there', for I
>>> have no 'here' to place it absolutely. So there is no 'there' either,
>>> but rather space - as comprised of positions - is no more than an
>>> amorphous zone of unpositionable points (note: we do not need quantum
>>> theory to tell us this).
>
>>> Consequently, all spatial positions of Newtonian space, or indeed any
>>> space - whether euclidean or non-euclidean - are displaced from us and ...
|
| Show full article (2.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Oct 5, 2007 07:13
On Oct 5, 3:04?pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:> On Oct 5, 8:40 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Oct 5, 2:33?pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:>
>>> On Oct 5, 3:43 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>
>>>> Let us dispose of 'space':
>
>>>> If I can't establish a point as 'here' I cannot establish another
>>>> point as 'there'. Also, I cannot establish a point as 'there', for I
>>>> have no 'here' to place it absolutely. So there is no 'there' either,
>>>> but rather space - as comprised of positions - is no more than an
>>>> amorphous zone of unpositionable points (note: we do not need quantum
>>>> theory to tell us this).
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Oct 5, 2007 09:16
> One position is either here or there. If it cannot be here, then in
> the absence of any other basis of absolutely placing it, it cannot be
> absolutely there either. It can still be 'there' but can only be found
> as an unpositioned object.
That is just so screwed up.
> One position is either here or there.
Only one? Drop 'one'.
> If it cannot be here, then in the absence of any other basis of
> absolutely placing it,
Nonsence words.
> it cannot be absolutely there either.
Strike 'absolutely' and 'either' because they do not add to the statement.
> It can still be 'there' but can only be found
> as an unpositioned object.
Qualify 'can'. Strike 'still' and rationalize 'but' and tell us how you
moved from describing position to equating it as an object.
So we have: "Position is either here or there."
|
| Show full article (1.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
