Liquid Space

New Scientist ^ | 03 November 2001 | Paul Davies

[pistola]

IS SPACE just space? Or is it filled with some sort of mysterious, intangible substance? The ancient Greeks believed so, and so did scientists in the 19th century. Yet by the early part of the 20th century, the idea had been discredited and seemed to have gone for good.

[FormerLurker]

What concept does the word space define?

In a intuitive sense, space IS the distance between objects, or distance that an object may travel.

Then again, what is distance?

It is just what we perceive. That which exists beyond what we perceive intuitively is great, and is the reason why Physics exists, to describe the nature of the Universe.

[lds23]

I respectfully beg to differ. "Dancing Wu-Li Masters" basic premise, similar to that of the original post, is the convergence of modern physics and ancient philosophy.

E.g., the philosophical questions "how do I know what I know?", and "Is reality objective or subjective", and "What is the role of the 'I'" are similar to questions approached by quantum theory, the uncertainty principle, the exclusion principle, etc.

It may be written for the layman, but I wouldn't dismiss it as "new-agey". But everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[TigersEye]

Yes for Buddhists.

Intellect is merely awareness of the vast expanse of uncreated primordial wisdom. All objects are created things. Obstructions to realization of the lack of self-existence.

[FormerLurker]

To get less esoteric, let me relate this. That which we perceive as space might just be Something that we can't see or feel. Just as a fish in water might not perceive the fact that it is in a medium that we call water, it is nonetheless in water. As fish in water, we might not perceive that which is something more than nothing, but we attach the word "space" to that medium.

[tet68]

When we are born we are only said to be created.
For buddhists existance is continuous.
Only our memory is faulty.

[Consort]

Nothing = NO THING.

That's what threw me off: "nothing" is not the same as "no thing". Space is "substance" but "substance" is the unmanifested and unconscious "no thing". It has no limits, parts, states, or dimensions, and contains "no thing".

[TigersEye]

Then again, what is distance? ... It is just what we perceive.

Aren't all things just what we perceive? Including scientific data and theory?

That which exists beyond what we perceive intuitively is great, and is the reason why Physics exists, to describe the nature of the Universe.

We can only know objectively what is first perceived intuitively for all of science, including Physics, must create a theory intuitively before it can be tested objectively. Physics cannot possibly describe what is beyond intuition because as soon as a concept is formed to describe something we formerly were unaware of intuition (our intellect) has grasped some thing. If it can be conceived of it has been intuited...at some point.

Can we intuit things beyond what we can conceive? Perhaps. I'd even say probably so. But no science can test or describe what is beyond conception. Can it?

[FormerLurker]

Space is "substance" but "substance" is the unmanifested and unconscious "no thing". It has no limits, parts, states, or dimensions, and contains "no thing".

Are you SURE about that? Think about it. Gravitational force is subject to distance between masses, but why? As in the article posted in this thread, there IS an interaction that we can't intuitively perceive between objects, and that interaction isn't plainly obvious in terms of manifested matter. There is no explanation for gravity, other than some invisible force created out of something that we don't yet quite understand. If you take the concept of space being something more that nothing, gravity becomes a force that is the result of the pressure exerted by space, electromagetism (and light) is simply a wave propagated through that medium, and the speed of light is simply the speed of propagation through that medium, such as the speed of sound is the speed of propagation through the medium of air...

[FormerLurker]

Can we intuit things beyond what we can conceive? Perhaps. I'd even say probably so. But no science can test or describe what is beyond conception. Can it?

Obviously not. BUT, science can describe that which we can't INTUITIVELY sense, such as gamma radiation, relativity, and a myraid number of things...

[longshadow]

For this reason, the discovery that Jupiter had orbiting moons was particularly devastating (they had no doubts that Jupiter moved).

No wonder the keepers of Ptolemaic Orthodoxy despised Galileo so much....

;-)

[TigersEye]

When we are born we are only said to be created. For buddhists existance is continuous. Only our memory is faulty.

When we are born Buddhists say our bodies and personalities are a result of causes and conditions. Only the mind (intellect) is continuous. Our memory is faulty in believing that we have self-existence, seperate from those causes and conditions, seperate from original mind.

[tet68]

Yes.

[TigersEye]

Obviously not. BUT, science can describe that which we can't INTUITIVELY sense, such as gamma radiation, relativity, and a myraid number of things...

YOU can't intuitively sense those things. (I can't either) But very accurate descriptions of atoms, sub-atomic particles and even more discrete substances yet to be proved by physics have been described as much as 2,500 hundred years ago.

No objective description can arise before an intuitive concept has been grasped.

[FormerLurker]

I doubt the ancient Sanskrit texts relate Relativity.. :)

No objective description can arise before an intuitive concept has been grasped.

You are quite correct. BUT, the intuitive nature of Aether HAS been grasped, hence it can be described...

[Consort]

Are you SURE about that?

I read a book once that described space as no thing on the one hand, and as substance more dense than matter on the other hand. It also described the bodies in space as moving through dense matter as a fish moves through water.

[FormerLurker]

Out of curiosity, what was the title of that book?

[TigersEye]

re #64. OK, I'll let you off the esoteric hook. ; )
Space may indeed have properties yet to be discovered and those properties might be subject to manipulation. Reality exists whether humans contemplate its qualities or not. But what that reality is is far different than our perceptions lead us to believe. New concepts derived outside our popular perception of things are the 'leaps' in understanding that occur now and then.

Working within the system is good legally and politically in constitutional republics (wish we still had one) but it's a slow and plodding thing in science that rarely leaps ahead.

[TigersEye]

: )

[Consort]

...what was the title of that book?

I'm not sure. It might have been Thinking and Destiny.

[FormerLurker]

re #64. OK, I'll let you off the esoteric hook. ; )

As is any other "fish" so blessed, I thank you..

What I find amazing is that the more we understand of the Universe, the more we see that ancient concepts are indeed correct. Why would that be true I wonder...