Discovery of Distance/Space?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

How was Distance/Space discovered from No Space/Distance?

When this universe would have come into existence was there SPACE or of Distance present?

[LudovicoVan]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:73537cc7-18a3-4930...@googlegroups.com...

> How was Distance/Space discovered from No Space/Distance?
>
> When this universe would have come into existence was there SPACE or of
> Distance present?

If the Universe ever came to existence, there and then space would begin.

-LV

[Doug Freyburger]

LudovicoVan wrote:
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote>
>

>> How was Distance/Space discovered from No Space/Distance?

It exists now so the discovery was by observation going back as far as
any thinking being. Depending on how you define "thinking" that's a lot
longer ago than humans have existed.

>> When this universe would have come into existence was there SPACE or of
>> Distance present?
>
> If the Universe ever came to existence, there and then space would begin.

Maybe. Time as currently measured began at one point in space-time.
Mathematical models that describe the universe with variable time exist.
Mathematical models that work with time at zero should be possible to
discover.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Only 2 rational possibilities are present.
1. Consciousness is infinitely present.
2. An expanding matter exists infinitely and then Consciousness begins from it. Also to conceive matter senses are a must.

Assuming Option 2 looks to be impossible as Consciousness beginning from matter never noticed. While Option 1 seems to be possible as hypnotically the entire universe can be assumed. So, it is Consciousness that is infinitely present. Only Option 1 can happen rationally.

If it is option 1, there is no space, everything is an assumption. Unless there is another better rational explanation.

[LudovicoVan]

"Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k4hfp0$tui$1...@dont-email.me...

> LudovicoVan wrote:
>> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote>
>>
>>> How was Distance/Space discovered from No Space/Distance?
>
> It exists now so the discovery was by observation going back as far as
> any thinking being. Depending on how you define "thinking" that's a lot
> longer ago than humans have existed.
>
>>> When this universe would have come into existence was there SPACE or of
>>> Distance present?
>>
>> If the Universe ever came to existence, there and then space would begin.
>
> Maybe.

No, necessarily.

> Time as currently measured began at one point in space-time.
> Mathematical models that describe the universe with variable time exist.
> Mathematical models that work with time at zero should be possible to
> discover.

Put simply, that is not even wrong...

-LV

[LudovicoVan]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b7253e84-8dc8-4733...@googlegroups.com...

Right, those options don't make any sense.

-LV

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 4:37:04 PM UTC+5:30, LudovicoVan wrote:
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b7253e84-8dc8-4733...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 4:49:21 PM UTC+5:30, LudovicoVan wrote:
>
> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:73537cc7-18a3-4930...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>
>
> >> > How was Distance/Space discovered from No Space/Distance?
>
> >>
>
> >> > When this universe would have come into existence was there SPACE or of
>
> >>
>
> >> > Distance present?
>
> >>
>
> >> If the Universe ever came to existence, there and then space would begin.
>
> >
>
> > Only 2 rational possibilities are present.
>
> > 1. Consciousness is infinitely present.
>
> > 2. An expanding matter exists infinitely and then Consciousness begins
>
> > from it. Also to conceive matter senses are a must.
>
> >
>
> > Assuming Option 2 looks to be impossible as Consciousness beginning from
>
> > matter never noticed. While Option 1 seems to be possible as hypnotically
>
> > the entire universe can be assumed. So, it is Consciousness that is
>
> > infinitely present. Only Option 1 can happen rationally.
>
> >
>
> > If it is option 1, there is no space, everything is an assumption. Unless
>
> > there is another better rational explanation.
>
>
>
> Right, those options don't make any sense.
>
>
>
> -LV

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 4:37:04 PM UTC+5:30, LudovicoVan wrote:
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b7253e84-8dc8-4733...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 4:49:21 PM UTC+5:30, LudovicoVan wrote:
>
> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:73537cc7-18a3-4930...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>
>
> >> > How was Distance/Space discovered from No Space/Distance?
>
> >>
>
> >> > When this universe would have come into existence was there SPACE or of
>
> >>
>
> >> > Distance present?
>
> >>
>
> >> If the Universe ever came to existence, there and then space would begin.
>
> >
>
> > Only 2 rational possibilities are present.
>
> > 1. Consciousness is infinitely present.
>
> > 2. An expanding matter exists infinitely and then Consciousness begins
>
> > from it. Also to conceive matter senses are a must.
>
> >
>
> > Assuming Option 2 looks to be impossible as Consciousness beginning from
>
> > matter never noticed. While Option 1 seems to be possible as hypnotically
>
> > the entire universe can be assumed. So, it is Consciousness that is
>
> > infinitely present. Only Option 1 can happen rationally.
>
> >
>
> > If it is option 1, there is no space, everything is an assumption. Unless
>
> > there is another better rational explanation.
>
>
>
> Right, those options don't make any sense.

You got a reason why they do not make any sense?

[LudovicoVan]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c9453269-6f97-4d0b...@googlegroups.com...

You have pretty much illustrated it yourself, that's what I meant by
"right". Otherwise, please try and explain how from my statement you get to
your "only 2 rational possibilities present", and those two in particular.

-LV

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

If the Universe if an imagination would that require physical space?

[LudovicoVan]

"LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote in message
news:k4jqfa$3ua$1...@dont-email.me...

I mean: one thing is mathematics, another is physics. And another is logic,
and yet another is philosophy. If you mean that we could model a "time
before the time", or any such "imaginary" convolutions: yes, sure. But we
were talking about a universe that "comes into existence" and what that
belief (actually) entails in terms (to begin with) of ontology.

-LV

[LudovicoVan]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:09391aea-6d37-43cd...@googlegroups.com...

> If the Universe if an imagination would that require physical space?

That depends on the requirements of said imagination, to be coherent...

-LV

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

What requirements?

[LudovicoVan]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e67cccad-160a-456d...@googlegroups.com...

The requirements you impose: the conventional base is coherence. In fact,
words out of context mean anything and everything: there is no point of
conversation unless you spell out what you are talking about, and explain
your reasoning when asked.

-LV

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 5:40:08 PM UTC+5:30, LudovicoVan wrote:
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e67cccad-160a-456d...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2012 5:27:07 PM UTC+5:30, LudovicoVan wrote:
>
> >> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:09391aea-6d37-43cd...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>
>
> >> > If the Universe if an imagination would that require physical space?
>
> >>
>
> >> That depends on the requirements of said imagination, to be coherent...
>
> >
>
> > What requirements?
>
>
>
> The requirements you impose: the conventional base is coherence. In fact,
>
> words out of context mean anything and everything: there is no point of
>
> conversation unless you spell out what you are talking about, and explain
>
> your reasoning when asked.
>

I don't get what you did not follow. Only if consciousness is present infinitely, the materialistic universe can be born out of it. The other-way around if the materialistic universe is present infinitely we do not see another life forming from non living matter or energy. Only life is able to give another life. Have you seen a inanimate stone getting life?

[Zerkon]

In article <73537cc7-18a3-4930...@googlegroups.com>,
ganeshj...@gmail.com says...

>
> How was Distance/Space discovered from No Space/Distance?
>
> When this universe would have come into existence was there SPACE or of Distance present?

Did the universe first bang within a space?
Does distance exist without objects including the imaginary point?
Does sequenced causality present a false bias?
Does duality exist other than as perspective?
Is existence made up of separate events?


--
"The space ship hung in the air
exactly like
a brick does not"

Thus spaketh The Adams

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:37:46 PM UTC+5:30, Zerkon wrote:
> In article <73537cc7-18a3-4930...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> ganeshj...@gmail.com says...
>
> >
>
> > How was Distance/Space discovered from No Space/Distance?
>
> >
>
> > When this universe would have come into existence was there SPACE or of Distance present?
>
>
>
> Did the universe first bang within a space?
>

How can an empty space expand, with nothing in it?
The big bang cannot be the starting point. There should be a time much beyond it, when there was noting in the universe?

[Doug Freyburger]

LudovicoVan wrote:

> "Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> LudovicoVan wrote:
>>> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote>
>

>>>> When this universe would have come into existence was there SPACE or of
>>>> Distance present?
>
>>> If the Universe ever came to existence, there and then space would begin.
>
>> Maybe.
>
> No, necessarily.

Thanks for the correction on my wording - The entire if clause is
neccessary. This is the maybe part - "The Universe ever came into
existence". Maybe there's a start. Maybe not. Existence does not
imply creation.

What we observe is a starting point for time, at which point everything
of matter existed. As the volume of space and length of time expands
calculating the total amount of energy is less straight forward but
energy also existed when time started.

>> Time as currently measured began at one point in space-time.
>> Mathematical models that describe the universe with variable time exist.
>> Mathematical models that work with time at zero should be possible to
>> discover.
>
> Put simply, that is not even wrong...

The big bang shows the point where extrapolations of time reach a zero
point. Thus time as currently measured did indeed begin at that point.
Whether new measurements will render that incorrect is a matter of
speculation.

Both special and general relativity show time to be variable. Both are
mathematical models.

Major advances in science come in the form of new mathematical models to
describe reality.

"Not even wrong" is used to describe models that do not make predictions
that can be tested either by checking historical data or by devising new
experiments. The idea that science progresses with new mathematical
models can and does match the history. It gives the descriptive model
for the form of future advances. Testing is as simple as waiting
several millennia and seeing what new models emerge.