Thread: Distance

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 wasup

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.

This question has nothing to do with philosophy...

I think you are starting with the assumption that the dimensions length, with, and height, actually exist, because you "perceive" them too... But all that we really know is that things are composed of atoms and energy. I'm not saying that distance doesn't exist outside of the human mind, all I'm saying is I am confused as to how it can.

Distance exists, but it's not what we think it to be.

Wasup, Distance is not like "the distance between car A and car B is 30 metres". That is Newtonian physics. False, in other words. What the truth is, indeed, is that there's no limiar to when the car "starts", for real. At a place, there is only air, but a little bit to the side, there's a piece of the car. The clear distinction is inexistant, because as the car is made of matter, it has no defined "borders".

Take radioactivity for example. There's no clear distinction on where an atom "starts" and when it "ends". The position of the particles is only imaginative, they don't occupy and determinable place. And, for some sudden twist of fate, reality determines that two protons and two neutrons have "left" the barriers of the atom, and they become a free alpha particle. How that happens exactly is one of the most elusive misteries of science - it is not connected to matter (at least not matter we have knowledge of), and therefore can not be observed directly.

-------------------------------------

And Solskye, I don't mean to interupt you guys' love affair, but that "opening you mind" thing doesn't excuse faulty logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy <- a must-read for anyone who likes discussions.

When you construct a perfectly logical argument, and the other doesn't accept it, then, you may call them close-minded.

I know what logic is.

Logic is a construct of the mind just like anything else... To make sense of the senseless... to claim validity to the invalid... to make the unbelievable believable...

While my viewpoint may seem unfalsifiable to those without the expanded perspective to see where I'm coming from. Just know this universe is in itself unfalsifiable, yet we of course take it to be "true" only because we perceive it to be. One would only realize a dream as a dream when they wake from it, or gain enough lucidity to see it for what it is... a construct of your mind.

In my defense, as I stated earlier and you backed up, science is beginning to find that our intention or perception of the universe shapes the very idea of the essence of the universe we are in... If that's not a tell-tale sign that this universe is as much an extension of us as our arms and legs than I don't know what else to say...

=( Someone make my curiosity go away.

Nah. Logic is a set of mathematical implications about concepts. It's a deduction made based on previous information supplied, and if that deduction is not necessarily true, it is not logical.

Don't go and say logic is just something silly. You sound like those stupid stoners.

Nah. Logic is a set of mathematical implications about concepts. It's a deduction made based on previous information supplied, and if that deduction is not necessarily true, it is not logical.

I'm not logical. What are you going to do about it?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah. Logic is a set of mathematical implications about concepts. It's a deduction made based on previous information supplied, and if that deduction is not necessarily true, it is not logical.

Don't go and say logic is just something silly. You sound like those stupid stoners.

Yes, and my logic is actually backed up by the previous information supplied. I don't just pull rabbits out of my hat. Logic is an interpretation of "reality" as our understanding of "real" unfolds...

And, up until recently our societal precept from the western world was to think that "matter" or "material" was the end-all-be-all. Now, however, we are starting to see through the veil of "reality", and begin to see our implicit connection to it. We can also see those wrongly assumed lines drawn between the perceived "objects" of the essence of matter blur, as they reveal themselves as the one interweaving web which we are all a part and a whole...

Our definitions of logic change depending on what we are talking about and what proof we have, don't they?

The essence of reality is this inter-connected web of energy... Why draw lines between things that don't exist except as illusory concepts in our minds? Where's the logic in that?

Those are old modalities of thought...

Originally Posted by wasup

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."

That's fine. I just hope you realize that your persona on this site along with some others here that enjoy throwing insults at the drop of a hat have always been that of strict literalists who feverishly adhere to and bask in this idea of limited logical constructs of the ego from your limited cultural viewpoint, one that is constantly biting it's own tail at every corner... rather than opening yourself up and choosing to see the bigger tail being bit...

And, when your limited modality of thought gets challenged by some differing ideas or concepts that you can't or don't want to wrap your head around, you choose to become insulting or retreat into your illusory ego where you feel it's safe. It's ok, though, I schooled you many times before when you tried to incite some pseudo-debate in the Kakusei thread of mine. Remind me how many were there in your defense before? Oh well. I suppose you can't accept the possibility your viewpoint might be limited or wrong in certain regards, and you feel it comforting to bury your head in the sand about concepts above and beyond you.

Your loss.