Thread: Distance

>.<

The concept of distance is blowing my mind into a little pieces.

The concept of distance in terms of the human perception is very easy for me to comprehend.

Sadly once I eliminate the human perception from the idea my brain goes kaplut. System fried. Ouch, brain freeze!

I don't know how to describe it better than that. Which is mainly because I'm confused about the whole concept myself.

Obviously there is a distance between two objects...but that is only the way we perceive it right? I mean. It is like saying the universe is "orderly." No the universe isn't orderly, we just happen to have evolved to see it as orderly to function.

In terms of existence I don't think I can honestly say distance exists. I can only say reaction exists..

I hope someone understands my confusion.

Obviously distance exists..since it takes X time to get to Y point...but if we think about it as just reaction, then distance doesn't exist.

=( Someone make my curiosity go away.

People always say, "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line..."

I always say, "the shortest distance between two points is to realize there is no point..."

In actuality, the two points are just one point stretched out enough to be perceived by itself as two.

You can't stretch out a point. To stretch it is to make it take up [more] space, but points have no dimensions. SolSkye, the sound of your posts is the sound of one hand slapping its owners own face.

Originally Posted by Mark75

You can't stretch out a point. To stretch it is to make it take up [more] space, but points have no dimensions. SolSkye, the sound of your posts is the sound of one hand slapping its owners own face.

Just try to pretend he's that Sphinx guy from Mystery Men. The posts turn from irritating to comical.

Distance still exists regardless of whether you are there to perceive it or not. I'm not sure where your hang up on this is.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Distance still exists regardless of whether you are there to perceive it or not. I'm not sure where your hang up on this is.

My hang up is that we aren't actually seeing "distance" when we look at things, we're seeing reaction. We are seeing the light that comes to our eyes.

Of course then there are mirrors which negate the concept that the human mind is the only thing which can demand distance need exist, since a mirror is still a set distance away from you, even though it refracts light in such a way that it seems further away. X.X

In reality outside of the human perception...I can't comprehend distance existing, only energy reacting...=(. I don't know how to explain it any more than that.

It takes this variable amount of time for object a to reach space b...ok, so in theory all that is really happening is energy is being expent, and it is reacting.

>.< I'm sorry it is vastly more complicated in my head than I can get accross.

I thought of a better way to explain it...

It is like there is no "distance" to travel, only energy to expend to meet the need for such a thing to react.

Does that make any better sense?

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Just try to pretend he's that Sphinx guy from Mystery Men. The posts turn from irritating to comical.

I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines!

Originally Posted by Mark75

SolSkye, the sound of your posts is the sound of one hand slapping its owners own face.

Wow, that is the most beautiful description of SolSyke's posts I've heard here. Congrats.

But I agree. SolSyke, what you say often has tons of pseudo-philosophical buzzwords and buzzphrases but no legitimate substance. A point, as mentioned, cannot be larger than one dimension. Points do exist. (Have you ever taken high school freshman geometry?) Distance exists. This generally comes down with the "preconception" that we live in a three-dimensional world, and as such things exist in three-dimensions (before you jump down my throat, SolSyke, a point is a simplified description to mean, essentially, that something has an infinitely small height, width, and length and is a more theoretical concept than anything else). Therefore something can occupy a distinct point that is in a different location (that is, has either a different length, width, or height). Any point that has at least one of its dimensions occupied in a different location than the original point has a distance from the original point. That part is not very hard to grasp, as long as you understand we live in a world with dimensions. What you perhaps instead need to ask is why is there "space" (that is, why do "dimensions" exist).

Originally Posted by wasup

Wow, that is the most beautiful description of SolSyke's posts I've heard here. Congrats.

But I agree. SolSyke, what you say often has tons of pseudo-philosophical buzzwords and buzzphrases but no legitimate substance. A point, as mentioned, cannot be larger than one dimension. Points do exist. (Have you ever taken high school freshman geometry?) Distance exists. This generally comes down with the "preconception" that we live in a three-dimensional world, and as such things exist in three-dimensions (before you jump down my throat, SolSyke, a point is a simplified description to mean, essentially, that something has an infinitely small height, width, and length and is a more theoretical concept than anything else). Therefore something can occupy a distinct point that is in a different location (that is, has either a different length, width, or height). Any point that has at least one of its dimensions occupied in a different location than the original point has a distance from the original point. That part is not very hard to grasp, as long as you understand we live in a world with dimensions. What you perhaps instead need to ask is why is there "space" (that is, why do "dimensions" exist).

But that is the problem though. We are perceiving it as "distance" because that is how we view reaction via our perception.

Think about it. In order to get to X point you have to expend B energy right? Well doesn't that really just mean in order for X reaction to occur you have to expend B energy...

>.< I get that distance exists...but...my problem is that outside of the mind it doesn't really you know what I mean? Like...a tree exists outside of the mind...but the distance between the top of the tree and the bottom doesn't really, all it is is x energy reacting.

Keep in mind I'm not saying this is true...it is just something I'm having a hard time to not believe. So I want to speak to a physicist so I can put my curiosity to rest.

Originally Posted by Sandform

But that is the problem though. We are perceiving it as "distance" because that is how we view reaction via our perception.

Think about it. In order to get to X point you have to expend B energy right? Well doesn't that really just mean in order for X reaction to occur you have to expend B energy...

>.< I get that distance exists...but...my problem is that outside of the mind it doesn't really you know what I mean? Like...a tree exists outside of the mind...but the distance between the top of the tree and the bottom doesn't really, all it is is x energy reacting.

Keep in mind I'm not saying this is true...it is just something I'm having a hard time to not believe. So I want to speak to a physicist so I can put my curiosity to rest.

No offense or anything, but what you are saying here doesn't make any sense. I don't know what you are talking about with energy and reactions; those have nothing to do with distances. I don't know why you want to speak to a physicist and it seems as if you think (again no offense) that your question has an answer deeper than our universe as a three-dimensional entity. And regardless, this is something a philosopher would answer, not a physicist.


And solsyke - again, your post has no substance. For example "everything is connected." This comes down to your psuedo-philosophy and "woah man, you are so close-minded if you don't believe this stuff." Your posts are best taken with a grain of salt and a great toke of marijuana. I think then is the only time I can "appreciate" the "profundity."

Originally Posted by Mark75

Originally Posted by wasup

Any perceivable points that one claims to exist, and the distance between them are just illusory perceptions of division. The objective fact is they are only ever illusory inter-connected perceptions of our mind. "Actual" evidence of any "objects" existing separate to one another isn't available short of one's subjective perception, belief, or opinion of it being separate.

As I've said before, "The subject is the object of it's own subjection. And, The object is the subject of it's own objection."

In other words, any objects we perceive as existing are all parts of the same subject. One's denial of that fact, determines their boundaries which don't ever quantifiably exist short of their illusory perception of it. Ultimately, it all boils down to the choice of acceptance or denial of this fundamental truth.

At the subatomic level, reality behaves in accordance with the expectation of the observer, or the measurer-- the scientist. Why is that remarkable? Because everything in the universe is composed of these sub-atomic particles...

Even science has proved to us that everything is just a web of inter-connected vibrating energy. So, whether you decide to draw two points on a piece of paper in your imagination, or in this so-called "reality" we seemingly share, there is no "real" distance or points that ever exist, it's all relative to the perceiver's acceptance of that fact. Just because you decide to believe a dream you had to be "real" doesn't ever make it so, and just because you believe perceivable points to be separate from one another doesn't ever make them so, either.

All your denial shows me is how you've closed out the "reality" of the interconnectivity of this communal web we weave, and how strongly you've built up and bought into this illusory wall in your mind. (aka. the ego)



If you were to finally tear down that illusory wall and other illusory boundaries you've created, and truly take a step back through either meditation or with an entheogen...

You would find yourself, en - "into" or "with", theo - "God", gen - "generate" or "bring into existence"... in other words... generating the god within.

Distance is not a fundamental concept of the universe, but a derivated one. It's the speed of light multiplied by how long it takes light to go from two points.

Once you've dealt with physics a bit, you realise that it's inexact because of the incertainty principle. It's the infinitely-small problem.

For example, let's say the distance between A and B is 14 cm. But measurements are never exact. It's somewhere between 14.00 and 14.0000...01. There is no distinction. You may use the most powerful magnifier in the universe, but you won't find a clear distinction from when a point in the ruler is smaller than 14 and when it's bigger. Even elementary particles themselves. They have a very blurred "area" of where they could be - there's no distinction on where it starts and where it ends.

Take a 3D graphic maker, add a dot to it. Then approximate the view. Now matter how much you approximate, it'll still be a dot. You can't tell where the dot "starts" nor where it "ends". It is just there.

Distance is also deviated because it's not direct - it depends on the speed of light, and is therefore subject to the incertainty principle.

Finally, since fundamental particles don't have borders themselves, they don't touch each other - it only seems they touch because, after some point, the magnetic forces between them get so strong that they repeal each other mutually, avoiding contact.

Of course that's all advanced physics. For basic physics, distance is the way which takes less time for light two cross between to points.

Originally Posted by Sandform

It is like saying the universe is "orderly." No the universe isn't orderly, we just happen to have evolved to see it as orderly to function.

o_O since when is it a fact that we only see the universe as orderly? if there was no order than there is no science because science would have to say "theres nothing to study because everyday the rules of reality change"

as far as we know it, our UNDERSTANDING of the rules of reality change, but the rules of reality - even the ones we have yet to understand - aren't randomly changing, our I would float to the sky because gravity failed. there is order.

Originally Posted by juroara

o_O since when is it a fact that we only see the universe as orderly? if there was no order than there is no science because science would have to say "theres nothing to study because everyday the rules of reality change"

as far as we know it, our UNDERSTANDING of the rules of reality change, but the rules of reality - even the ones we have yet to understand - aren't randomly changing, our I would float to the sky because gravity failed. there is order.

I'm not using the word orderly like "doesn't prescribe to distinct guidelines."

I'm using it in the since that via our minds perception we view the human arm (just as an example) to be something that is calm and orderly...but in reality it is a massively large number of atoms with their swirling electrons running around in crazy little pathways...

Its acts can be determined...but it isn't as orderly as we would think.

Massively quick action is being taken every second...

Originally Posted by juroara

o_O since when is it a fact that we only see the universe as orderly? if there was no order than there is no science because science would have to say "theres nothing to study because everyday the rules of reality change"

as far as we know it, our UNDERSTANDING of the rules of reality change, but the rules of reality - even the ones we have yet to understand - aren't randomly changing, our I would float to the sky because gravity failed. there is order.

There is order, but it isn't strict order. Sometimes, when a quantum particle decays, it becomes a temporary product which actually contains more energy than the previous form. It then quickly swaps into another, stabilised form, which neutralises the amount ofenergy. It's as if reality "turned a blind eye" to it.

And if you think of it, atoms never touch each other: they only get so close that the electromagnetic force is strong enough to push them away fro meach other. Where, exactly, that happens, is practically impossible to determine, and it's as if the universe itself had now law ruling it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

There is order, but it isn't strict order. Sometimes, when a quantum particle decays, it becomes a temporary product which actually contains more energy than the previous form. It then quickly swaps into another, stabilised form, which neutralises the amount ofenergy. It's as if reality "turned a blind eye" to it.

And if you think of it, atoms never touch each other: they only get so close that the electromagnetic force is strong enough to push them away fro meach other. Where, exactly, that happens, is practically impossible to determine, and it's as if the universe itself had now law ruling it.

its really a human thing to think that order means strict I by no means mean strict order. even a crazy abstract painting has its own order.

for example: it is order that atoms actually never touch each other. would you not call that a "law"?

the problem isn't that the universe has no order. its just that the order that is in the universe is mind blowing, and defies our logic as a human being. as a human being we are basically born believing that there are solid objects. we touch our skin, compare it to water and we say. "were solid and water isn't"

then we take a deeper look at things and suddenly its like everything we knew is tossed out the window. I think science is on the verge of realizing, our entire understanding of the universe might be wrong.

It's all about one's magnification... How far you pull back or focus your perspective.

Let's not fool ourselves, though... all points of perception are delusion.

Translation: It is extremely difficult for us, who are possessed of blind passions, to free ourselves from the delusion of birth and death.

Man, you just call everything an illusion and delusion, implying they are not real. But they are real as they can be, everything you perceive to be an illusion is actually a concept of your imagination to understand this world, they are purely based on reality and nothing else. This world is real. Your illusions are not false illusions but imagination which serves the function of understanding. Even imagination based on imagination is eventually based on reality.