Pi_314

I'll try to be a bit more specific. It is time that I refer to as being nothing at all. Space would be a combination of nothing, and geometric markers, and matter is essentailly the same as space. The difference between matter and space is that matter holds the foci of these geometric representations, while space is the extension of those geometries. In this sense the universe is the definition of nothing. This is to say that nothing exist by way of the markers on a geometric scale. The markers can be considered points, wherein nothing (the non-event) between these points has meaning on your time scale (biological clock). We sense for instance the time of a horse race by comparison to this clock. The beginning of the horse race represents a marker, and the end of the race is another marker. What is between those markers is compared to the likewise non-event between your biological markers, by which a sense of time is presented. Thats partly my understanding of time. It comes by way of the understanding that the universe is nothing more than conceptual geometric representations of non-existence, by which existence is the logical fallout by way of no other possibilty.

From the first post. I think I disagree here. A second is a slice of spacetime, although I prefer to call spacetime nothing at all. The tick and tock of any measure constitute markers for the non-event. It is the non-event that is sensed. In other words we have tick (an event) then no event at all, and then tock (another event). Time lies between the events. Events stand as the device if you will, for measure of nothing at all. Granted we could not sense time in the absence of the markers, but that only implies an infinity of time, with no device for measure.

Here is a slightly diferent view of the universe than triggergrin, if it were possible to see it, and it isn't, but here it is if you could. Since we are within the boundries of existence, we will see the universe as unbounded, and seemingly infinite. If we could travel the speed of light, we would still garner the same information of an infinite universe. That is because the universe is an ongoing process by which it's boundries are increasing at C. Thusly we could never approach these boundries any closer than we are now, no matter what direction we choose. The universe is no more than the definition of nothing. It is a conceptual definition by fiat i.e there is no other alternative. This is to say that reality is not a physical enerprise. Physical existence can only be brought on by conceptual means. In other words ... we think we are physical entities. The answer to the question of where does space end? {would be} At the boundries of our universe. It really is that simple! One might ask how far is it to the boundries? It may be so that this is impossible to determine. This could be analogous to the approach of the speed of light, wherein an infinity of energy is required to hit the speed limit. We could say that we observe 99% of the universe, but in reality that last 1% is a trillion times the size of what we consider to be 99%. hence we may never know. Hows that for barging in with a first post on these forums?