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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Example of one point stretching itself out so it can perceive itself...

It's called a holon... or something that is simultaneously a whole and a part... (ie. us, as the interconnected amalgamated self-aware universe)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...8/BigBang3.jpg

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...48/crybaby.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...48/crybaby.jpg

---

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)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...8/Universe.gif

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.

That is rather the point of what I'm saying...Distance doesn't exist...it is just a measurement of reaction that our bodies have evolved to view. Which technically negates the worry about there being an infinately small space.

You know, when an elementary particle decays, it can actually decay into a temporary form that has more energy than the first one. The new product then decays again into a less energetic form, stabilising the laws of physics. That is the incertainty principle. It's as if reality "turned a blind eye" to the event.

Being distance derivated from the speed of light, it is subject to that principle. A proton might be here and might be there - it's impossible to know. In fact, quantum physics defends that, in a very small scale, there are very small, new dimensions matter can have. "Distance", as a pure concept, relies of the concepts of "beginning" and "end", which are inexistant in reality. They're just a thing to make our lives easier.

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

=( Someone make my curiosity go away.

---

http://www.consciouscreation.com/blo...ystalskull.jpg

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

I don't just pull rabbits out of my hat.

---

http://images.jupiterimages.com/comm...3/22137354.jpg

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/image...jones7_500.jpg

There is something better than logic and I'm using it.

Nice one. :)

We have another one using the next level of logic... intuition...

Quote:

---

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!