Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Matter in space or vice versa?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Matter in space or vice versa?

    Greetings folks,

    How is the space occupied by your computer different from the space occupied by your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, the space occupied by my computer is distinguished by the fact that my computer occupies it. The space occupied by my bookshelf is distinguished by the fact that my bookshelf (and not my computer) occupies it."

    OK, then, how do you distinguish between your computer and your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, my computer is different from my bookshelf because my computer resides in a unit of space different from the one occupied by my bookshelf."

    You thus find yourself justifying something seemingly so trivially true using circular logic!

    So, which is ontologically prior or independent? the space or the matter in it?

    How can one get out of this circularity?

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Matter in space or vice versa?

    hari o
    ~~~~~~
    namasté

    I see no conundrum ... it would be like saying the space in pot A is different then the space in pot B. The pots do not 'contain' i.e. restrict space.
    Space or ākāśa provides avakāśa 'to make room' for things to exist and not the other way around.

    Take a pot. Break the pot. Have you released the space in it ? It was never contained as you cannot take the same space from here to there.

    We as a solar system are moving around the galactic center at about 483,000 miles per hour (792,000 km/hr). And our whole galaxy is moving within space. Are we ever in the same space ?

    Nothing stays in the same place, ever , even for a moment. So , are we taking a ~specific space~ with us at any moment? Me thinks not.

    iti śiva
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #3
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    59
    Posts
    639
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Matter in space or vice versa?

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Greetings folks,

    How is the space occupied by your computer different from the space occupied by your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, the space occupied by my computer is distinguished by the fact that my computer occupies it. The space occupied by my bookshelf is distinguished by the fact that my bookshelf (and not my computer) occupies it."

    OK, then, how do you distinguish between your computer and your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, my computer is different from my bookshelf because my computer resides in a unit of space different from the one occupied by my bookshelf."

    You thus find yourself justifying something seemingly so trivially true using circular logic!

    So, which is ontologically prior or independent? the space or the matter in it?

    How can one get out of this circularity?

    Any thoughts?
    Namaste.

    The matter in it, obviously.

    The space my computer occupies can contain a thousand books! (e-books).

    It would take hundreds of bookshelves to contain the same amount of information as one PC can/does.

    Aum Namah Shivaya

  4. #4
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: Matter in space or vice versa?

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Greetings folks,

    How is the space occupied by your computer different from the space occupied by your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, the space occupied by my computer is distinguished by the fact that my computer occupies it. The space occupied by my bookshelf is distinguished by the fact that my bookshelf (and not my computer) occupies it."

    OK, then, how do you distinguish between your computer and your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, my computer is different from my bookshelf because my computer resides in a unit of space different from the one occupied by my bookshelf."

    You thus find yourself justifying something seemingly so trivially true using circular logic!

    So, which is ontologically prior or independent? the space or the matter in it?

    How can one get out of this circularity?

    Any thoughts?
    I think points in space can be defined with respect to a particular origin. i.e. so-and-so distance along xaxis. How do you define the origin(i.e. how do you define a point in space?) according to the object contained in it. How do you define the object contained in a space/ According to its attributes i.e. my computer is so-and-so colour, is of so and so model, was manufactured so and so years ago, has so and so files on it etc.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  5. #5
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: Matter in space or vice versa?

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    I think points in space can be defined with respect to a particular origin. i.e. so-and-so distance along xaxis. How do you define the origin(i.e. how do you define a point in space?) according to the object contained in it. How do you define the object contained in a space/ According to its attributes i.e. my computer is so-and-so colour, is of so and so model, was manufactured so and so years ago, has so and so files on it etc.
    This may not quite work for reasons already outlined in the OP.

    So, point X in space is different from point Y in space because X is x distance away from O (origin) while Y is y distance away from O and x =/= y.

    Presumably you are using a measuring scale that has x and y marked on it. Yes?

    How do you know mark x on the scale is different from mark y on the scale?

    \begin{devil's advocat}
    I claim that x = y.
    \end{devil's advocat}

  6. #6
    Join Date
    October 2010
    Location
    Cradle of Civilisation
    Posts
    423
    Rep Power
    249

    Re: Matter in space or vice versa?

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Greetings folks,

    How is the space occupied by your computer different from the space occupied by your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, the space occupied by my computer is distinguished by the fact that my computer occupies it. The space occupied by my bookshelf is distinguished by the fact that my bookshelf (and not my computer) occupies it."

    OK, then, how do you distinguish between your computer and your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, my computer is different from my bookshelf because my computer resides in a unit of space different from the one occupied by my bookshelf."

    You thus find yourself justifying something seemingly so trivially true using circular logic!

    So, which is ontologically prior or independent? the space or the matter in it?

    How can one get out of this circularity?

    Any thoughts?

    I have a question for you.. what causes music..the absence of notes (silence) or the playing of notes?
    ॠमहेशà¥à¤µà¤°à¤¾à¤¯ नमः

    || Om Namo Bhagavate Rudraya ||

    Hara Hara Mahadeva Shambo Shankara

  7. #7
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: Matter in space or vice versa?

    Quote Originally Posted by realdemigod View Post

    I have a question for you.. what causes music..the absence of notes (silence) or the playing of notes?
    I personally believe that silence is the norm whereas sound is placed within the receptacle of what is otherwise silence.

    However, when asked to prove this, it is not possible. Hence, I can not know whether my belief is true or not. Same with the example from the OP. Is space ontologically prior? I would believe so, but can not prove it. Is time ontologically prior or is change ontologically prior? I believe time is ontologically prior and change needs the receptacle of time. But one can not prove it one way or the other. Hence, any position becomes a brute fact - an axiom, if you will.

    Interestingly, I think it is the Mimamsikas who believe that it is sound that is actually eternal. Silence is the unmanifested state of sound. Our day to day speech or music, etc. is the specific manifestation of otherwise unmanifest sound. They need this in order to prove the eternality of the Vedic injunctions.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    September 2008
    Location
    Sri. Valkalam, Kerala, SI
    Posts
    604
    Rep Power
    977

    Re: Matter in space or vice versa?

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Greetings folks,

    How is the space occupied by your computer different from the space occupied by your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, the space occupied by my computer is distinguished by the fact that my computer occupies it. The space occupied by my bookshelf is distinguished by the fact that my bookshelf (and not my computer) occupies it."

    OK, then, how do you distinguish between your computer and your bookshelf?

    You may say - "Well, my computer is different from my bookshelf because my computer resides in a unit of space different from the one occupied by my bookshelf."

    You thus find yourself justifying something seemingly so trivially true using circular logic!

    So, which is ontologically prior or independent? the space or the matter in it?

    How can one get out of this circularity?

    Any thoughts?
    Dear wundermonk,

    To understand and experience the reality of the occupied space one has to apply the mind in an unconventional way. As the mind penetrates new dimensions of consciousness, and our sense of individual self is diminished, conscious awareness itself becomes the mystery and therefore also the answer to what now seems mysterious.

    My house is on the left hand side of the road is meaningless unless it is first explained from which direction the view point is taken. All expressions of reference to distance or direction, such as up, down, near, or far, relate always to a subjective point of reference first established in the mind.

    The concepts of space and time are useful to us for our orientation in the perceived world, but the orientation is happening only in our mind.

    The question of reality of space becomes even more interesting if we take into account the distinctions between psychologically projected space, mathematically computed space, hypothetical physical space, about all of which can only make presumptions.

    If one stands on a hilltop at night when the sky is clear, many constellations of stars can be seen in our galaxy, the Milky Way. The horizon will be very wide, and space will seem infinite. No one would think of the immense vastness of space as a projection of the mind!!!

    Apart from the psychologically projected and mathematically computed experiences of space, there is a mysterious factor which compels the mind of man to conceive space. Man has not discovered anyway of jumping out of his psychological outfit and rational speculation to find any means to solve this mystery. What he experience is at once real and unreal, hence it is called Sat- Asat in Vedanta.

    The absolute is Sat, “that which exists”. But Maya is indefinable in that it is impossible for the mind to conceptualize “it is” and “it is not” at one and the same Time.

    Hence, Vedanta as a philosophy is not asking us to add to the already very many perceptual and conceptual patterns we have created. Instead, it is asking us to get rid of them so that we can go back to our primal Consciousness. Love
    ॐ इदम् न मम
    be just l we happy

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23 May 2012, 04:10 PM
  2. A thoughtful article
    By kallol in forum Science and Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 21 March 2012, 12:34 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28 June 2010, 11:56 AM
  4. Akasa - my favorite
    By yajvan in forum Science and Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14 August 2008, 08:38 PM
  5. This akasha from a science POV
    By yajvan in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12 May 2007, 11:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •