-- *Mar*Your questions move at the boundary between physics, philosophy, and contemplative insight. I’ll respond in layers rather than giving a single rigid answer. ------------------------------ 1. Can space-time be confined into definitions and scopes?
In physics, especially in the work of Albert Einstein, space-time is defined mathematically as a four-dimensional manifold with geometric properties shaped by mass and energy. Within science, definitions are necessary. They create clarity, predictive power, and shared understanding. But does that mean space-time is *confined* by the definition? No. A definition does not imprison reality; it frames a usable model of it. The map is not the territory. Mathematical space-time is a conceptual structure that successfully predicts gravitational lensing, black holes, and cosmic expansion. Yet whether this structure exhausts what “is” remains open. So definitions are tools of scope—not walls around existence. ------------------------------ 2. Is the urge for definitions tied to the visible spectrum? Partly, yes—but more broadly, it is tied to survival. Human cognition evolved in a narrow ecological band. We depend heavily on vision. The visible spectrum shaped our metaphors: - “I see” means “I understand.” - “Clear” means “intelligible.” - “Obscure” means “confusing.” Our brain is optimized to detect boundaries—edges, contrasts, shapes. Definition itself means drawing a boundary (from Latin *definire*: to set limits). That boundary-making instinct is deeply biological. But it’s not only visual confinement. It is neurological necessity. The brain must compress infinity into manageable patterns. Without boundaries, action would be impossible. So yes, the urge for scope and definition is partly linked to our sensory conditioning, but more fundamentally to cognitive economy. ------------------------------ 3. Why can we not bear pure infinity without definition? Because infinity destabilizes the survival-oriented mind. The human nervous system seeks: - Predictability - Control - Coherence Infinity offers none of these. Psychologically, pure boundlessness feels like loss of reference. The ego-structure depends on contrast: - Self vs. world - Inside vs. outside - Before vs. after Infinity dissolves contrast. Without contrast, the constructed self trembles. This is why mystics speak of both ecstasy and terror in encounters with the infinite. It is not that infinity is hostile—it is that identity is structured by limitation. ------------------------------ 4. Can the vacuum of “Nothing” govern perception? In physics, vacuum is not absolute nothingness. Quantum field theory shows vacuum fluctuations—structured potentiality. Even “empty space” is dynamic. But you are pointing to something subtler. In perception, what allows perception to occur? Awareness itself has no color, no weight, no 3D geometry. Understanding does not occupy space like a table. A thought has no measurable volume. In that sense: - Awareness is not 3D. - Meaning is not spatial. - Understanding is not an object. So yes—our deepest cognitive ground does not have shape. It does not need to be imprisoned within spatial metaphors to function. But language forces us into spatial metaphors. ------------------------------ 5. Why do we imprison the formless for manageability? Because management requires structure. Science, engineering, economics—these depend on measurable parameters. The moment we move into governance, prediction, or technology, we must define. Definition is the price of coordination. The danger arises when: - The defined model is mistaken for total reality. - The measurable is assumed to be the only real. - The invisible is dismissed because it resists quantification. That is where philosophical imbalance begins. ------------------------------ 6. A Balanced View There are two legitimate movements: *Movement 1: Confinement* - Define - Measure - Structure - Model This builds bridges and spacecraft. *Movement 2: Release* - Contemplate - Observe without boundary - Allow ambiguity - Rest in openness This builds inner clarity. Neither negates the other. The problem is not definition itself—but absolutizing definition. ------------------------------ 7. On “Pure Nothing” If by “vacuum of Nothing” you mean a fundamental ground beyond form, then many traditions speak of it: - Buddhist śūnyatā (emptiness) - Advaita’s Brahman beyond attributes - Mystical apophatic theology Modern physics does not confirm metaphysical nothingness, but it does show that what we call “empty” is structurally rich. The philosophical insight is this: The mind seeks boundary. Reality may not be bounded. The tension between them generates both science and spirituality. ------------------------------ My Direct Comment Your intuition that understanding itself has no 3D shape is correct. Meaning is not spatial. Consciousness is not a visible object. The urge to reduce everything to measurable structure is a feature of technological civilization, not a final metaphysical truth. However, we must be careful not to reject structure entirely. Without definitions, there is no shared inquiry. Without boundaries, there is no communication. Infinity cannot be grasped by definition. But it can be approached by disciplined silence. The mature position is not to abandon definitions—but to know their limits. And that knowledge itself is already a movement beyond confinement. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLuoENoBk0jw75LzG2Dcy1SP3OMRkqcWPKaCqW4EYmYFA%40mail.gmail.com.
