What do we mean by space ?

[matterdoc]

Space is a functional entity, envisaged by rational beings, where real entities exist. It is a container without form or structure. Space extends to infinity means that you can find matter bodies (real entities) however far you go.

[Imparticle]

I have a different approach.

A dimension is a facet of being. Dimension describes one imaginary line among numerous imaginary lines that, in tandem, provide the building of reality in which any given "being" may exist in the universe. Within reason, these dimensions must exist. I find that logically, dimensions are built upon each other; that is to say, dimensions aren't randomly meshed together, they are perfectly built so that each point in each dimension can be congruent, and allow the being represented by said point to be a conclusively congruent being. For example, if there was even one dimension that was not built upon the others, a being's point in that dimension would cause the being in its entirety to be out-phased from the universe. It would be stuck in a crack of hypothesis, between the void of chaotic randomness and the dimensions of the universe. So, each of the real dimensions are built on each other. For common thinkers, this is obvious. Length, width, and depth are plainly built on each other, and if you attempted to build one separately, or to separate one from the others, you would find yourself wedged into something hypothetical--you'd land into the Flatland universe.

 

Moving on, I find that logically one dimension is built upon the previous one. That is to say, a point in one dimension, is a line in the next. For example, a given point in Length, is interchangeably a line in Width. A further point in Width, is a line in Depth. Furthermore, the point in Depth describes a line in Continuity (or, the dimension of time). The issue here is, if dimensions are built this way, then logically they build from innumerable dimensions into further innumerable dimensions. However, we observe that the universe seems to have a beginning and end, in terms of "beings". An apple does begin and end in the universe, we do not observe an apple infinitely unfolding itself into hypothetical dimensions. Again, logically, if anything were to have "innumerable dimensions", it would not be contained within a universe, and would only exist in its own universe of exponential tangents. But since we exist in the universe and can observe beings which do not consist in their own universe of exponential tangents, we must apply this to our dimensional logic. The result: The dimensions do in fact have beginning and ending points.

So, logically, the first dimension would have to be self-containing, that is to say, a line in the first dimension must also represent the first dimensional point. Conversely, the final dimension would have to be self-terminating, a point in this dimension must also represent a line in this dimension. In short, a line in the final dimension represents the end of the point in the first dimension. A point in the first dimension expands into further points in lines that are unfolded from those, until the point only further expands into itself, and any line unfolded from this point would lie on the same line. That is the final dimension. This can be demonstrated by unfolding a piece of paper. Once it is completely unfolded, any further attempts to unfold it result in tearing it. And since we observe that the universe is not dimensionally torn, this must logically be the end point.

 

So, we begin with the first dimension, the self-containing one. In this dimension, a point is also a line. That means, mathematically, a line in this dimension always begins and ends at this same point. This is an "abstract" line, it is not a concrete dimension. This dimension is called Singularity. Without this dimension, there would be no singularity to any given being, and the universe would not be able to remain a singular collective. All beings would be out-phased into the void of chaotic randomness. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in the same unified universe, and allows any and all relativity and interaction.

The second dimensional point lies on a line, that is unfolded from a point in the first dimension. So, a point in Singularity is a line in Length. We all know what Length is. It is the first spatial dimension. If you try to first unfold the Width or Depth of a being in space, logically you will actually unfold its Length. Again, imagine unfolding a piece of paper. You cannot unfold the third or fourth fold without first unfolding it a second time, no matter how hard you try. Width and Depth unfold from this point and so forth.

A point in Depth, is a line in Continuity. It is the dimension of time. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in the universe as it is changed, as it reproduces. It is a reproductive point, on a circular line, figuratively. A point in the fifth dimension is actually represented by two interchangeable points. On a circular line, any given point has a polar opposite. This opposite point describes the polarity of time--past and future. This is the figurative representation of the fifth dimension.

If we imagine all the dimensions figuratively unified, it would look like this: Singularity would be a point in the center. Length width and depth are represented by lines expanded into a cube. If you imagine any given point in time, you see an infinite number of circles around the other dimensions, forming a sphere. This sphere is the fifth dimension, and the volume of the sphere represents space, in its three dimensions. Mass is also described in this figure, where it is visualized displacing the volume of the sphere, hence the involution of space and relativity of time.

That said, there are still further dimensions yet to unfold. Logically, the fifth dimension does not terminate itself, because a point in Continuity unfolds into a line that does not lie in Continuity--in the fifth dimension. This line is the sixth dimension, Simultaneity. Figuratively, this line lies between the two interchangeable points in the fifth dimension. It is the line between time. Without this dimension, beings would continue through time in their own mutually exclusive passages. To put it simply, in order for you to continue to be reproduced within the universe, there must be a facet of you that is built from Continuity onto Singularity. Figuratively, this line contacts the central point that visualizes the first dimension. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in the universe as it is reproducing and changing in unification, in an interrelated web of cause and effect.

A point in the sixth dimension is a line in the seventh. But what could this line unfold as, and where could this line be? It unfolds from the point of Simultaneity, and builds from the point of Singularity. Figuratively, is lies between the first point and the sixth line, thus, it cannot be seen as it is an abstract line. The abstract dimensions are all unable to be represented 3-dimensionally, naturally because they do not pertain to those 3-dimensions. We have no method of drawing them as lines relative to 3-dimensional lines, except as abstract points. The seventh dimension is Infinitude. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in our self-congruency. That is to say, any given object is self-congruent, it is infinitely identical to itself. Without the dimension of Infinitude, any given being would not be self-congruent and would be out-phased due to a lack of agreeing with its own reality. Logically, this means that each being is infinite in its own congruency.

The eighth dimensional line is a seventh dimension point. This line unfolds from the seventh dimension, and builds on the fifth. This dimension between Infinitude and Continuity is called Potentiality. Figuratively, if we were to bisect the six-dimensional sphere, so that we could see the seventh dimension as a line between the two halves, the eighth dimension would appear as two interchangeable lines stemming from the seventh line to the two interchangeable points on the circumference of the semi-sphere. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in a mathematically feasible universe.

Boggling, the further dimension is abstracted from the initial abstraction. This dimension is highly abstract. It is a line between the two interchangeable points in Potentiality. A point in Potentiality is a line in the ninth dimension, which is built on the interchangeability of that point. The ninth dimension is Possibility. This dimension describes the dimension of all beings that places us in a universe of infinitely conclusive feasibility. Figuratively, this line is visualized between the two points of the eighth dimension, intersecting the dimensional line of seventh dimension. In a 3-dimensional representation, the ninth dimension is a disc with the geometric "cone" of the eighth dimension. Now, what happens if we try to unfold a line from this ninth dimensional point? Any line drawn out of Possibility cannot build onto anything else. Beyond the infinitely conclusive feasibility of the universe, logically there can be nothing, no further point of dimension. Any line unfolded from a point in Possibility lies on the same line of said point. Alas, we have come to the end of the universe.

 

If the six-dimensional sphere is bisected, and the first point and sixth point are represented as interchangeable, then the complete figure looks like a sphere and two opposite cones with the circumference of the sphere as their bases, and meeting at the point of Infinitude. This forms a sort of conical "infinity" symbol.

 

[TaoRich]

Space is a functional entity, envisaged by rational beings, where real entities exist. It is a container without form or structure. Space extends to infinity means that you can find matter bodies (real entities) however far you go.

 

I see space as the "context within which things exist and interact".

 

The problem I have - or should I say the reason I started pursuing this line of questioning - is that the definitions I find mostly tend to "jump" into descriptions of "the things that exist and the way that they interact" while glossing over a (necessary) formal description or definition of "the context within which they interact".

 

I'm trying to put together a definition "from first principles" which accurately describes what this "context" is.

 

In my opinion, it is not without form or structure ... I'm leaning towards the conclusion that all the characteristics of our reality (physical attributes, properties of interaction, and time itself) emerge from the underlying form and structure of the context of our reality (space).

 

 

 

Rich

[granpa]

space is made of 'events'.

 

events usually interact is a space-like way but they dont have to do so.

they can interact in other ways too.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[michel123456]

I see space as the "context within which things exist and interact".

(...)

 

That could be space-time, not space.

In space only, things cannot interact.

And I suspect that in space only, things cannot even exist.

[URAIN]

"What is the space ?" Now it is main topic of discussion in everywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

Now there are three views about space.

 

 

 

1) Space is notion

 

2) Space is entity and It is empty.

 

3) Space is entity and It is filled.

 

 

 

 

 

Do experts say what is the space?

 

 

 

And how it is?

 

 

 

 

Is it empty or filled?

Edited January 7, 2012 by URAIN

[matterdoc]

I see space as the "context within which things exist and interact".

 

The problem I have - or should I say the reason I started pursuing this line of questioning - is that the definitions I find mostly tend to "jump" into descriptions of "the things that exist and the way that they interact" while glossing over a (necessary) formal description or definition of "the context within which they interact".

 

I'm trying to put together a definition "from first principles" which accurately describes what this "context" is.

 

In my opinion, it is not without form or structure ... I'm leaning towards the conclusion that all the characteristics of our reality (physical attributes, properties of interaction, and time itself) emerge from the underlying form and structure of the context of our reality (space).

 

 

 

Rich

 

 

 

Afunctional entity is visualized to fulfill functions assigned to it by rationalminds. Function of space is only to provide a place for existence ofmatter-bodies. Space is required only when and where matter-bodies are present.Being functional entity, it requires no form or structure. It exists only inrational beings’ minds. That is why it is a container without form orstructure.

 

Distanceis the separation between two matter-bodies (or between two points on amatter-body). It is not a measure of space. Area and volume are degrees ofdistance.

 

Spacehas any meaning only when it is filed entirely (without voids) by a realentity. Matter is the only real entity in nature. As and when we discover anall-encompassing universal medium, made of matter and which fills thespace, space will have a form and structure. Without form and structure,provided by real entity, space cannot deform. Only in a space, filled withuniversal medium, “all the characteristics of our reality(physical attributes, properties of interaction, and time itself) emerge fromthe underlying form and structure of the context of our reality (space)”.

 

 

[Ronald Hyde]

I see space as being in two parts, one is the coordinate system we use to describe positions, which by the rules of SR, we must include with time, and the other is the

'vacuum' which is part of space that has no matter in it. The vacuum has properties, where the coordinate system is only an 'index' of where stuff is located.