Thread: What is beyond space?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I find your post very sad, in fact, I find a great deal of the discourse here very sad. How could anyone go through school and not even know the basic principles of grammar enough to know they were talking non-sense. I realize the principles are not taught, Plato and others like him tried to preserve the notions, but to no avail.

One cannot predicate of a first principle, an element--all you can do is name them.

There are three primitive categories of names, The names of things, and the names of the two elements of a thing. We abstract these elements. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. One cannot abstract from an element, and thus, one cannot predicate of it.

This is called being a pretentious douche.

Originally Posted by LxANN

I didn't expect this forum to turn into such a conversation.
I just hate how my incorrect grammar has became such a huge deal, when I am quite sure if one has a mind they should understand what I am trying to say in the first post.
And to Mr Phil Sir, I'm going to be honest, I sure haven't learned or was ever told that "space" isn't a "thing". My sincere apologizes.
But it would have been much better presented on your part if you weren't so unreasonably critical about it.

I just stated simple facts. I did not do it in a fit of histaria. Nor did I simply call people names while saying absolutly nothing, like the genius below you.

What you read into, is your own affair, but please, don't complain that others have done to you what you only did to yourself.

The fact that you like uniformative name callers is commensurate with your whole reaction.

Originally Posted by LxANN

I'd like to introduce this thread for anyone to give any ideas on what is beyond outer space, how far does it go, what its made of, etc.

I've thought about it and if you look at the way the worlds features are made, mostly, they are individual cells combined with other cells that make up eventually form a living object. We are made of millions and millions of cells.

But what if the universe works the same way? It has been proven that we are within a spiral galaxy, and there is more than just our galaxy. What if all these galaxies around us combine to make this huge galaxy called the Super galaxy, and all the Super galaxies combine to make a Mega galaxy? And it just keeps continuing. Is that possible? There can be so any ways to look at it, the thing that is providing so much thought of it is we don't know everything that's out there, yet.

If anyone has ever thought about this, or anything closely related please feel free to share your theories

Awesome question, I've tried to imagine what could be beyond the boundaries of space we can see too. Well, your guesses were very close, galaxies, like cells, do form an emergent structure, they are called clusters. Galaxy clusters form super clusters and super clusters may form structures called filaments or "walls" spanning a billion light years across. What is beyond the space we know? The answer is we don't know lol. It's been speculated that our universe might be curved so that, like a globe, we loop back around to our original spot eventually, but we observe that our universe is probably flat and is accelerating from the "big bang". Theory aside, we honestly don't know how far out space goes beyond what we can see (about 13 billion light years away), if it is a smaller cell of a bigger pattern or if it is everything that is. If it is everything then the laws of physics and what stuff is made of looks like they'll be the same everywhere no matter how big it is, but if it is a closed system with an "outside" than our only tool for speculation is our imagination.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I find your post very sad, in fact, I find a great deal of the discourse here very sad. How could anyone go through school and not even know the basic principles of grammar enough to know they were talking non-sense. I realize the principles are not taught, Plato and others like him tried to preserve the notions, but to no avail.

One cannot predicate of a first principle, an element--all you can do is name them.

There are three primitive categories of names, The names of things, and the names of the two elements of a thing. We abstract these elements. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. One cannot abstract from an element, and thus, one cannot predicate of it.

lol... All I can say is... I find your post very sad, in fact, I find a great deal of the discourse here very sad. Stifling a brilliant curiosity with a bunch of literal non-sense, why did anyone like this?

I know now I was incorrect, thank you for vividly stating that.
But please, lets conclude the unnecessary arguing.

Wayf. I imagine that unlike you, there are some who actually understand the poverty of our educational systems--when one has to live with the product of same.

I'm no scientist yet, Sir. I wasn't aware of what you are targeting me for.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I just stated simple facts. I did not do it in a fit of histaria. Nor did I simply call people names while saying absolutly nothing, like the genius below you.

What you read into, is your own affair, but please, don't complain that others have done to you what you only did to yourself.

The fact that you like uniformative name callers is commensurate with your whole reaction.

This is called an extension of the douchery.

I do understand the aspects of poverty in education, one of them is discouraging curiosity. Honestly, none of your points made sense to me or reminded me of any sort of context that would relate to the original post.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I do understand the aspects of poverty in education, one of them is discouraging curiosity. Honestly, none of your points made sense to me or reminded me of any sort of context that would relate to the original post.

herein lies the point I'm making.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I do understand the aspects of poverty in education, one of them is discouraging curiosity. Honestly, none of your points made sense to me or reminded me of any sort of context that would relate to the original post.

Well then, Perhaps you ought to study Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid, instead of perhaps reading them and letting the words just float over your eyes. There is a real understanding there, and frankly, right in my sig is a link to a fuller explaination, if you can read. If not, most is in audioibook form.

Bitchin once is understandable, but continued whining is just plain childisih.

I'm absolutely sure that Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid all asked the same question.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I'm absolutely sure that Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid all asked the same question.

I have dedicated thousands of hours creating free educational material, I am glad to see that you at least lend your mouth to moving air.

stop this argument

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well then, Perhaps you ought to study Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid, instead of perhaps reading them and letting the words just float over your eyes. There is a real understanding there, and frankly, right in my sig is a link to a fuller explaination, if you can read. If not, most is in audioibook form.

Bitchin once is understandable, but continued whining is just plain childisih.

Well, it is someone's choice if they are interested in learning about Plato, Euclid, etc. But education does not preclude intelligence, and conceptual thinking has its limits that get in the way of true understanding. While conceptual thinking can be a tool, it can also cause great harm to oneself. If someone chooses to pursue their own interests instead of yours, that does not mean that you are smarter or wiser than them. If your audiobooks and writings are anything like they are on this forum, nobody will be interested. You may understand what you are talking about, but you are not a good teacher.

Bitchin once is understandable, but continued whining is just plain childisih.

Take your own advice. Most every post you make in every thread is this same whining about stuff that only you care about. And you whine that nobody else cares about it and that nobody else understands it. I read a few interesting posts you made, but they were still off-topic. Why don't you start your own thread on Plato, etc. And start off by defining "predicate", "first principle", etc. And let's see who is interested in responding and asking questions? I am only interested in these people for the contributions they made to geometry and music. I think that they were intelligent men, but not very wise. I think that Socrates was the wise one.

Back on topic:

What is beyond space? Either more space or it is a sphere in a higher dimension.

What is beyond space? Either more space or it is a sphere in a higher dimension.

What does that mean?

like an expanding bubble. But space is just the surface of the bubble, not the contents of the bubble. If we bump this up a dimension so that the surface of the bubble is three dimensional then the depth would be fourth dimensional. If we bump it up dimensions so the surface is 4th dimensional then the depth would represent the 5th dimension.
Anyway, I am not claiming this is true or anything, it is just a way that I can imagine it. Of course then we have the same problem in the higher dimension: "What is beyond space?" if we are talking about 4th or 5th dimensional space.

You speak bravely, I was born with a very high IQ, and I have spent decades in their study, however, I would not imagine that I studied to any purpose if I used language the way you just did.

A very high IQ compared to what? To aardvarks or to other humans? An advanced alien life form who is capaple of interstellar travel would laugh at your pride of your IQ. Did you take an IQ test when you were born? If your IQ is so high then why can't you stay on topic? I have been tested to have a high IQ as well, and I have studied for decades also but I don't let it get to my head. I know enough to know that I know very little. In fact, I think that there is no unit of intelligence to measure and that these IQ tests are biased. Intelligence is the ability to imagine and adapt. Not to understand philosophy. Philosophy =/= truth either. Philosophy is a fun distraction or diversion that gives the illusion of real knowledge. So you value your IQ and the concepts that you studied, but you have too much pride in that and are basically trolling. Please let your next post be on topic or else start your own thread. Or say what you have to say once, then post it in the next thread. You could even make a form letter type of post that is the same for every thread. It could go like this: "How appalling your understanding of basic principles is. One cannot predicate on first principles. Plato taught this ages ago. Grammar is the most important thing and your disregard for it disgusts me. Even Einstein didn't know about grammar." You could just put it in your signature. On your thread that you start, you could also start by describing what you mean by grammar. Because you obviously don't mean about verb conjugation, prepositions, subject, predicate, transitive verbs, intransitive verbs, past participles, etc... So use your own thread to make yourself understood.

So you prefer rants to reason, how special. I will say this, they do take considerably less work.

Thank you to all on topic.

Originally Posted by LxANN

Thank you to all on topic.

What I have said, I said because you, and I and everyone are simply the results of a mind. We all have the same definition. Being the last to evolve and having the longest maturation period of any other environmental acquisition system of this body we are part of means that we take a great deal of time learning--be that as it may, self-realization is not achieved by being more concerned with trivialities of protocol, or custom, but in learning what you are and why you are. It is the only way to come alive.

Everything we do, as us, what we are, is done through the artifice of language. It is not the cloths we wear, nor the friends we have, but in what we understand, have taken the time to abstract and use, for very specific reasons. Language, judgment, that is what we use and that is what we do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

What I have said, I said because you, and I and everyone are simply the results of a mind. We all have the same definition. Being the last to evolve and having the longest maturation period of any other environmental acquisition system of this body we are part of means that we take a great deal of time learning--be that as it may, self-realization is not achieved by being more concerned with trivialities of protocol, or custom, but in learning what you are and why you are. It is the only way to come alive.

So what are you saying I am? I'm 16, and you expect of me what I cannot help. If I could learn all the knowledge at this moment in my life, I surely would love to, I care about my knowledge and I would love to get far in life because of it. I feel a higher level of maturity for my age rather than the average level of maturity of others within my age group.

Originally Posted by LxANN

So what are you saying I am? I'm 16, and you expect of me what I cannot help. If I could learn all the knowledge at this moment in my life, I surely would love to, I care about my knowledge and I would love to get far in life because of it. I feel a higher level of maturity for my age rather than the average level of maturity of others within my age group.

I am not talking knowledge, I am talking what you do with it and how you do it. Langauge. If you search the Net for language theory, you will find at least a half dozen theories, every one of them wrong. Plato had it right, Aristotle got part of it right. Part of it right in the Elements. It is not taught yet, and all I have done is brief skecthes. I expected nothing from you but a civil response.

And what your definition of a civil response be on my part?
I'm trying to relate to your language, since it seems to be so correct.
I will look into Plato, and Aristotle.