First of all, you talk about space as if it is some obvious concept. But is not obvious at all. As a quale in consciousness, space is a particular meaning that ended up in our consciousness for evolutionary reasons: this quale helped us survive and reproduce. Is identical to the quale of "sexy woman". That sexiness that you feel when you look at a woman, is a quale in your consciousness designed to facilitate reproduction. Space is identical to sexiness: is a quale designed to facilitate survival and reproduction. Yes, it feels as if it has nothing to do with such matters, it feels as if it is some pre-existing stage in which consciousnesses only later appeared and only based on this pre-existing stage did they partake in the processes of survival and reproduction. But this feel is misleading. The quale of space itself is involved in survival and reproduction directly. Given this true nature of what space actually is, your questions become simple nonsense, random mumbling, no different that the angels on a needle. Do you understand now how deep the rabbit hole goes ?
And also as I bonus, sometimes when I'm tired and I sit in bed at night, I experience 4D space. How that 4D feels like is as if I'm seeing an object both all-around and inside. So where does that 4D space reside if not solely in my consciousness ? On Thursday 3 October 2024 at 20:25:14 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 11:19:20 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > The very words that you use have no meaning. So how can any conversation > be had ? Is like wanting to debate how many angels fit on the head of a > needle. Sure, it has the appearance of a well formulated question, but it > is actually meaningless. > > > You're entitled to your opinions, but I'm seeking substantive responses, > so please refrain from posting on this thread. AG > > > On Thursday 3 October 202 Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 9:50:12 AM UTC-6 > Cosmin Visan wrote: > > You can only ever observe yourself. So by unobservable you mean the minds > of other consciousnesses ? > > > I'm seeking substantive responses, so please refrain from posting on this > thread. AG > > > On Thursday 3 October 2024 at 17:21:28 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > > To recapitulate and clarify the argument: > > Firstly, by "universe" (our "bubble"), I mean the observable *and* > unobservable regions defining our expanding universe. > > Secondly, since our universe is expanding, we could run the clock backward > to any earlier time, and imagine enclosing it in a sphere, say, > establishing that the observable region is finite in spatial extent. (It's > actually measured to have a radius of 46 BLY.) > > Thirdly, concerning the *un*observable region, let's assume it's infinite > in spatial extent. If so, this couldn't have occurred in stages, say by > spatial expansion, since no matter how fast it might expand, or for how > long a length of time, it would remain finite throughout, and could never > achieve infinite status. Hence, the only way it could be infinite in > spatial extent, would be for it to be either *UN*-*created*, or if it had > a beginning it must have expanded *instantaneously* to infinity in > spatial extent. These options are falsified in two ways; first by the CMBR, > which is predicted by the Big Bang. That is, empirical evidence affirms it > had a starting time. And second, as previously argued, if it is now > infinite in spatial extent and had a beginning, it would have had to expand > *instantaneously* to infinity. Since I consider this physically > impossible -- which is my unproven and likely unprovable assumption -- by > two lines of argument our universe must be finite in spatial extent. > > Final conclusions:, being *finite* in spatial extent, *it cannot be flat* > (despite the consensus view), since that implies infinite in spatial extent > (assuming it's not toroidal). And there is no need to do any measurements. > Using a purely logical argument, our universe is finite in spatial extent > and cannot have a flat global geometry. Its likely global geometry is > approximately spherical, since it's expanding in all directions from every > point in spacetime and is approximately isotropic. What could be *uncreated > and infinite in space and time*, is the substratum from which our > universe emerged. > > QED, AG > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2dd3585c-0abf-44f3-84b3-77289f5ce55cn%40googlegroups.com.
