THE NON-SPATIALITY CRITERION

[jufa]

THE NON-SPATIALITY CRITERION - Part One


From: Nobody Sent: 11/28/2005 4:36 PM

Contemporary purveyors of the Way of Negation standardly amend Frege's criterion by requiring that abstract objects be non-spatial or causally inefficacious or both. Indeed, if any characterization of the abstract deserves to be regarded as the standard one, it is this: An abstract entity is a non-spatial (or non-spatiotemporal) causally inert thing. But this standard characterization presents a number of perplexities.

Consider the requirement that abstract objects be non-spatial or non- spatiotemporal. Some of the paradigms of abstractness are non- spatiotemporal in a straightforward sense. It makes no sense to ask where the cosine function is. Or if it does make sense to ask, theonly sensible answer is that it is nowhere. Similarly, it makes little sense to ask when the Pythagorean theorem came to exist. And if it does make sense to ask, the only sensible answer is that it has always existed, or perhaps, that it does not exist ..in time' at all. These paradigmatic abstracta have no non-trivial spatial or temporal properties. They have no spatial location, and they exist nowhere in particular in time. But consider the game of chess. Some philosophers take the view that chess is like a mathematical object in these respects. But that is certainly not the most natural view. The natural view is that chess was invented at a certain place and time (though it may be hard to say exactly where or when); that before it was invented it did not exist at all; that it was imported from India into Persia in the 7th century; that it has changed in various respects over the years, and so on. The only reason to resist this natural description would appear to be the thought that since chess is clearly an abstract object (it's not a physical object, after all!), and since abstract objects do not exist in spacetime (by definition!), chess must resemble the cosine function in its relation to space and time. However, one might with equal justice regard the case of chess and other "artificial" abstract entities as a counterexample to the view that abstract objects in general possess only trivial spatial and temporal properties.

This is not necessarily ground for abandoning the non- spatiotemporality criterion. Even if there is a sense in which some abstract entities possess non-trivial spatiotemporal properties, it might still be said thought that concrete entities ..exist in spacetime' in a distinctive way, and that abstract entities may be characterized as items that fail to exist in space and time in the manner characteristic of concrete objects.

The paradigmatic concrete objects generally occupy a relatively determinate spatial volume at each time at which they exist, or a determinate volume of spacetime over the course of their existence. It makes sense to ask of any such object, "Where is it now and how much space does it occupy?", even if the answer must in some cases be somewhat vague. By contrast, even if the game of chess is somehow "implicated" in space and time, it makes no sense to ask how much space it now occupies -- or if it does make sense to ask, the only sensible answer is that it occupies no space at all (which is not to say that it occupies a spatial point.) And so it might be said: An object is abstract if it fails to occupy anything like a determinate region of space (or spacetime).

This promising suggestion faces two sorts of difficulty. First, according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic physical objects fail to occupy anything like a determinate region of space. If we consider an isolated proton whose position has not been measured for some time, the question "Where is it now and how much space does it occupy?" will have no straightforward answer. And yet no one would suggest that an unobserved proton is an abstract entity. Second, it is not out of the question that certain items that are standardly regarded as abstract may nonetheless occupy determinate volumes of space and time. It is generally agreed that sets and functions are abstract entities. So consider the various sets composed from Peter and Paul: {Peter, Paul}, {{Peter}, {Peter, Paul}}, etc.

[The question, "Where are these things and how much space do they occupy?" does not arise in the normal course of inquiry. Moreover, many philosophers will be inclined to say that either the question makes no sense, or the answer is a simple "Nowhere. None."]

But this would appear to be another unreflective application of the unpersuasive inference noted above. In this case: Sets are abstract; abstract objects do not exist in space. So sets must not exist in space. But as before, there is reason to doubt the cogency of such an inference. Let it be granted that pure sets are like the cosine function: located nowhere in space a nd nowhere in particular in time. Is there a principled objection to the view that impure sets exist where and when their members do? It is not unnatural to say that a set of books is located on a certain shelf in the library. So why not say that the sets containing Peter and Paul exist wherever and whenever Peter and Paul themselves exist, and that in general an impure set exists where and when its spatiotemporally located ur-elements are located? To be sure, nothing in set theory forces us to say this. But the applications of set theory to the concrete domain are not inconsistent with this manner of speaking. So, while it may be clear that the impure sets are abstract and not concrete, it is quite unclear whether they fail to exist in space in much the same sense in which paradigmatic concreta exist in space. This suggests that it may have been a mistake from the start to suppose that the distinction between concrete and abstract is at bottom a matter of spatiotemporal locatedness.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects
********

Reply

From: Jufa Sent: 11/29/2005 2:26 AM

I will attempt to give you a true insight into the question below:

"The question, "Where are these things and how much space do they occupy?" does not arise in the normal course of inquiry. Moreover, many philosophers will be inclined to say that either the question makes no sense, or the answer is a simple "Nowhere. None."

What is the measurement of space? What instrucment is used to gauge space? And what is space? must be the question which proceed the question above. There is no such thing as space. All which we deem as space is filled, not with abstractness, but the building block of the visible and invisible. This building block is known as Consciousness, and wheresoever there is Consciousness, all space and voids are filled with the thought-life of the forms of that Consciousness, visible and invisible. To be sure, when your mind takes you there in abstractability, or in normal terms, that mind is there in Consciousness, and where Consciousness is, there is not only a fulfillment of that which is deems spatial, but Life. What Life? the Life of the mind that is filling that space by being there.

jufa
********

Reply

From: justgetmethereontimejojo Sent: 11/29/2005 8:08 AM

What is the measurement of space? It is called "X" What instrucment is used to gauge space? It is distance between to known points And what is space? "Space is the thing that is filled by light or other form" must be the question which proceed the question above. or other There is no such thing as space. BS JUST FINNISEH PROVING IT EXIST! All which we deem as space is filled, not with abstractness, but the building block of the visible and invisible. CORRECT! This building block is known as Consciousness,WRONG! IT DOES NOT THINK SO THERE IS NO PERCEPTION AND SO NO MIND! DEFFINITELY NO CONSIOUSNESS! and wheresoever there is Consciousness, all space and voids are filled with the thought-life of the forms of that Consciousness, visible and invisible. NOT TRUE! a POT OF WATER IS A POT OF WATER nO MIND NO CONCIOUSNESS IN ANYTHING INCLUDING LIGHT! To be sure, when your mind takes you there in abstractability, or in normal terms, that mind is there in Consciousness, and where Consciousness is, there is not only a fulfillment of that which is deems spatial, but Life. What Life? the Life of the mind that is filling that space by being there.out the door goes the nothing! you can't just claim the Universe is thingking when we know it does not think, and it is not a mind but a representation of perfection. Perfection does not need to think to be perfect or near perfect.

Why do we have bodies and brains for? Because the Universe has no brains..we are the brains of the Universe! We are Gods not the Universe! We see and we know and we go not the universe that just is like a pond of water or a chiunk of metal...the only thoughts you ever even knew of in all your life is our own of life and the Universe does not qualify as life and never did. Only life makes thought.
********

From: Jufa Sent: 11/29/2005 1:45 PM

[...What is the measurement of space?------ It is called "X" - Justgetmethereontimejojo]

jufa..."X" does not answer the question, it is just a capitalized letter. You must define "X" in terms of how it is used to measure before it can even be considered to be an answer to the question.
=================================

[..."What instrucment is used to gauge space?----- It is distance between to known points" - Justgetmethereontimejojo]

jufa...The question is what is the instrument used to gauge space? not how space is measured.
================================

[..."And what is space?----- Space is the thing that is filled by light or other form" - justgetmethereontimejojo]

jufa...Your answer proves that there is no space, for what is known
as space is filled with light and other forms.
=================================

[...must be the question which proceed the question above. or other There is no such thing as space.----- BS JUST FINNISEH PROVING IT EXIST! - Justgetmethereontimejojo]

jufa...What you have proved was that that which man deems to be space is filled with light and other forms, which means 1.) there is no distance for measurement to occur. 2.) that which is measured is only that which is perceptible and. 3.) light, and all other form interact upon one another to produce specifics according to their blending and interaction, which means there is a wave length of intelligence connecting.
===================================

[...All which we deem as space is filled, not with abstractness, but the building block of the visible and invisible.----- CORRECT! - Justgetmethereontimejojo

----- This building block is known as Consciousness,-----WRONG! IT DOES NOT THINK SO THERE IS NO PERCEPTION AND SO NO MIND! DEFFINITELY NO CONSIOUSNESS! - Justgetmethereontimejojo]

jufa...To say this is wrong, then you must defind Consciousness, and what it is capable and incapable of accomplishing. But more succinct, in saying this is wrong is to say that reproduction in the human body cannot occur because the sperm and the egg do not think, and therefore cannot find ground for existence, no less all that occurs in the process of conception. What is it that guides the sperm and the egg upon two different path, yet each holds the same purpose? Neither has a brain to give them this thinking and directional vision.
====================================

[...and wheresoever there is Consciousness, all space and voids are filled with the thought-life of the forms of that Consciousness, visible and invisible.----- NOT TRUE! a POT OF WATER IS A POT OF WATER - Justgetmethereontimejojo]

jufa...If it is not true, then there could be no pattern or order of things in the universe. Let me give you and example of what I am talking about. Haley's Comet is in a pattern of orbit that take it from one solar system to another in a circular order. This occurance has been happening for eons. One can state it is the gravitional path this Comet is in which keeps it in this state of orbit. But then this ignores the fact that gravitational pulls fluctuate and dissolve, or become stronger to hold things in position. So what is it that keeps this Comet coming and going in exactness eon after eon? What hold this Comet in the continuous circular order, when witwhout an intelligence, or Consciousness dictating the ebb and flow of the inter-acting light, energy, and atoms, there would be no order, even of this world to be able to sat on rotations axels. A pot of water is not a pot of water. It is a pot, and it is water, they are not one and the same.
==================================

[...NO MIND NO CONCIOUSNESS IN ANYTHING INCLUDING LIGHT! To be sure, - Justgetmethereontimejojo---] "when your mind takes you there in abstractability, or in normal terms, that mind is there in Consciousness, and where Consciousness is, there is not only a fulfillment of that which is deems spatial, but Life. What Life? the Life of the mind that is filling that space by being there." That in quotation is what I quoted Justgetmethereontimejojo, not what you are saying to let other know to keep confusion at minimal.out the door goes the nothing - jufa

jufa...Out the door goes all you have stated above, for this is the very thing I have claimed from the beginning, there is no such think as nothing. Thank you for contradicting yourself and proving my position
=================================

[...you can't just claim the Universe is thingking when we know it does not think, and it is not a mind but a representation of perfection. Perfection does not need to think to be perfect or near perfect.- Justgetmethereontimejojo]

jufa...I do not claim the universe is thinking, I claim there is no such thing as space and; that it is a Consciousness that allows all thing to interact which is the building block of all that is. You have yet to define perfection to me so that I can in the exactness of your perception see what you are calling perfection.
===================================

[...Why do we have bodies and brains for? Because the Universe has no brains..we are the brains of the Universe! - Justgetmethereontimejojo]

jufa...Because we are the Consciousness of all the universe we are aware of, yet it is Consciousness which is the only source of our Consciousness. This means we are the Columbus's of the universe we are individually aware of. This is how different individuals come forth with tangible and abstract knowledge of the universe. It is their Consciousness which has discovered that which at one time was said to be non-existent.
====================================

[...We are Gods not the Universe! We see and we know and we go not the universe that just is like a pond of water or a chiunk of metal... the only thoughts you ever even knew of in all your life is our own of life and the Universe does not qualify as life and never did. Only life makes thought.- Justgetmethereontimejojo]

jufa...We are not Gods. we are wherewithal organs (for lack of a better word) which fulfills a component unit which makes up universal Intelligence. In that unit of Intelligence which we are, is all that has ever been, and will ever be. God thus cannot be singularlized to represent plurality or community collectiveness --We.

Being the only thoughts I have ever known are those of mine, then when I view anything within the bound of that Life, I have given my thought Life to that which I am aware of. This then qualifies all within my thought Life to be alive, for it is my thought Life that gives volume, shape, and visual comprehension to whatever it is, and wherever I have been taken on this thought journey.

jufa

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[IJesusChrist]

wow yur* so smart