Interesting thought, much similar to my own. I too, after many videos on youtube and some book I read when I was young, believed that the vastness of the cosmos must be taken into consideration before we act/react in/to reality. Thinking this way, according to some, puts things in [the right] perspective or so its claimed but then it doesn't take long for the state of mind thus achieved- advertised as sagacious equipoise - to be violently undone by the very things such a mindset proposes we ignore. Like you said:

Watch out for the predator, and grab the banana, that's how we survived this far. — Hippyhead

Jesus was in communion with God, no less but it took only 3 nails to kill him. Am I off topic? :grin:

A principle that may earn wide agreement is the notion that one's philosophy should be built upon observation of reality. Reality at every scale appears to be overwhelmingly dominated by the phenomena of space. And thus it seems reasonable to ask whether one's philosophy should be dominated by mental space, an absence of ideas. If our philosophy is to mirror reality, it seems it would be mostly silence, punctuated sparsely by a collection of bright stars.

It seems evolution has trained our minds to focus on things. Watch out for the predator, and grab the banana, that's how we survived this far. While our continued existence would seem to prove the usefulness of such a thing-centric focus, our existence is immeasurably small, a very local matter, in comparison to reality as a whole.

One wonders whether a focus on things is a form of bias which obstructs our view of reality. As example, astronomers seem to spend most of their time focused on things in space, instead of space itself. To the degree this is true, they are focused on tiny details instead of the big picture, a cosmos dominated by space.

Philosophy typically involves the construction of sophisticated mental concepts, an attempt to use logic to build a tower to the truth. What if all this conceptual construction is travel in the wrong direction? As our minds become clogged with mental "things" do they increasingly fail to mirror reality, which is dominated by space, emptiness, a void?

We philosopher types like to weave all kinds of theories about the nature of reality. Given our passion for that enterprise, is it useful to observe how relatively little interest we seem to have in the phenomena of space? Are we like the astronomers who get so wrapped up in the tiny details that we miss the big picture? — Hippyhead

Interesting perspective. When I was studying art in school, we were taught to focus as much on the negative space between objects as the objects themselves. A trained artist’s eye looks not at the ‘object’ but the lines, shapes and space as they appear to the artist in relation to each other. The accuracy of their rendering is dependent upon the artist’s understanding of the relational structure, rather than the ‘things’ themselves.

If there are objects and there is space then isn't space just a complementary object that we know less about? Isn't it just a matter of assigning some attributes to make space complete?

In what way is dark matter an object?

.












































.

@Hippyhead :rofl:

This Page Is Left Intentionally Blank














.

One wonders whether a focus on things is a form of bias which obstructs our view of reality. As example, astronomers seem to spend most of their time focused on things in space, instead of space itself. To the degree this is true, they are focused on tiny details instead of the big picture, a cosmos dominated by space. — Hippyhead

Rather than speculate in the abstract, do yourself a favor and google "philosophy of space." You'd be surprised at what scientists and philosophers have gotten up to in the last 300 years or so.

:up:

There is heaps written on the philosophy of space; Bachelard's The Poetics of Space, Lefebvre's The Social Production of Space, pretty much anything by Doreen Massey, David Morris' The Sense of Space, various writings by Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Ed Casey - the list goes on and on.

And of course there's heaps from the philosophy of physics side. Reviews and anthologies alone will probably fill a shelf or three, e.g. Tim Maudlin's entry on Space and Time in Prinston Foundations series, Dieks' The Ontology of Spacetime, etc.

A principle that may earn wide agreement is the notion that one's philosophy should be built upon observation of reality. — Hippyhead

Well duh, but yes.

do they increasingly fail to mirror reality, which is dominated by space, emptiness, a void? — Hippyhead

And now you are breaking your own principle. Space is not an empty void. It is full of particles, energy fields, etc. Countless numbers of matter anti-matter pairs pop into existence and then self annihilate.

It may not get the same attention as discoveries about new galaxies, but the nature of "space"is a subject of intense interest in the scientific community.

A principle that may earn wide agreement is the notion that one's philosophy should be built upon observation of reality. — Hippyhead

Couldn't agree more.

Rather than speculate in the abstract, do yourself a favor and google "philosophy of space." You'd be surprised at what scientists and philosophers have gotten up to in the last 300 years or so. — SophistiCat

Rather than post anything at all, because whatever is posted will inevitably generate yet another gotcha dance, I could continue posting empty spaces. Which would then themselves become yet another gotcha dance! :-)

It may not get the same attention as discoveries about new galaxies, but the nature of "space"is a subject of intense interest in the scientific community. — EricH

Could I please go on record as stating that I already know all this, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over? :-)

When I was studying art in school, we were taught to focus as much on the negative space between objects as the objects themselves — Possibility

I too, in Architecture school, did exercises in visualizing negative space. We learned to view Empty Space not as mere nothingness, but as a potential place for something. Today, some scientists also imagine outer space, not as a Vacuum void of things --- as it appears to the physical eye --- but as a Plenum with the potential for "plenty" --- as it seems to a creative eye. That same notion of positive Potential in negative Space is essential to my philosophical worldview. But, since the "trigger" for converting Potential to Actual is Intention or Impulse, we should look carefully at the source of that outside force. :smile:

Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert until actualized by some trigger, an outside force, an intention.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Zero Point Energy : Many physicists believe that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

We learned to view Empty Space not as mere nothingness, but as a potential place for something. — Gnomon

I like the reports from art and architecture school, thanks for that. It's interesting to see how different disciplines relate to the subject of space.

The idea that space is a potential place for something would seem to assume that it is the "somethings" which have the value we seek. Is this the bias for "things" expressing itself?

I'm quite interested in our relationship with reality, which is probably why I spend so much time in religion threads. What I'm trying to explore is this. Almost all of reality is space. What is our relationship with space? Do we see it is a means to some other end? Are we willing to embrace it for itself? There is the question "what is space" (physics) and the question "whatever space is, what is our relationship with it?" (religion and philosophy)"

If we feel that space has little value, that would seem to imply a somewhat dark relationship with reality. If we feel space is glorious beyond description, that implies a different relationship. It seems the scale of space alone demands an investigation in to such questions.

To what degree should our philosophy reflect the nature of a reality dominated by space? Should I stop typing now and just sit quietly? Would that be better philosophy than all my so many ideas on such subjects? Or is philosophy inevitably in the business of creating "things" so I should accept that and charge ahead?

Such questions arise from personal experience. I'm an avid hiker and sometimes when I'm in the woods doing pretty much nothing all day long I get a sense of The Truth. Not truth as an answer or conclusion, but more a sense that reality itself is the truth that we seek. Finding that experience typically involves letting go of all this talk I'm doing about truth.

And so I wonder, is philosophy a path towards truth, or a path away?

Is space occupied by an object space?

When you stop typing and just sit quietly, is that ‘space’ really empty, though? Or is it a meeting point for ideas, thoughts, experiences, etc? Is it a gap in our understanding? Is it what we cannot subsume under concepts? The idea isn’t necessarily to try and empty the space by force, but to recognise what possibilities exist within it, despite anything ‘being’ there. To understand that a void has as much possibility of meaning as a ‘thing’.

What I'm trying to explore is this. Almost all of reality is space. What is our relationship with space? Do we see it is a means to some other end? Are we willing to embrace it for itself? — Hippyhead

Space-Time is a complex issue since Einstein muddied the waters. Until then, our relationship with space was taken for granted, as that which is necessary for motion and change in location. That's a physical relationship. But there may also be meta-physical relationships that philosophers can debate.

For example, according to my own Enformationism worldview. space could be viewed as a physical example of not-yet-real statistical Potential (the power to be). And Potential (otherwise known as Possibility) is indeed a means to desired Ends. If you don't have the potential in you, you will never reach your goals. "Potential" bridges the gap (space) between Desire & Object, between Cause & Effect. As a form of Energy, it is Causal Power : the ability to Realize and Actualize.

As for "embracing" space, that would be like "catching the wind in a net". But, I suppose you had some other metaphor in mind. :joke:

Possibility : As nouns the difference between "Potential" and "Possibility"
is that Potential is currently unrealized ability (with the most common adposition being to ) while Possibility is the quality of being possible.
https://wikidiff.com/potential/possibility

BEING : Actual & Potential existence; infinite Possibility
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

And so I wonder, is philosophy a path towards truth, or a path away? — Hippyhead

There is no path forward. Philosophy is a heuristic search pattern into the unknown. In retrospect though, the trodden "path" looks like Hegel's zig-zag dialectic. :smile:

As example, astronomers seem to spend most of their time focused on things in space, instead of space itself. — Hippyhead

It may not get the same attention as discoveries about new galaxies, but the nature of "space"is a subject of intense interest in the scientific community. — EricH

Could I please go on record as stating that I already know all this, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over? — Hippyhead

As long as you're at it, would you also please go on record acknowledging that you are contradicting yourself, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over?

As long as you're at it, would you also please go on record acknowledging that you are contradicting yourself, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over? — EricH

I'm inferior to your great mind in every way possible. That should cover anything you may wish to burp about.

When you stop typing and just sit quietly, is that ‘space’ really empty, though? Or is it a meeting point for ideas, thoughts, experiences, etc? Is it a gap in our understanding? Is it what we cannot subsume under concepts? The idea isn’t necessarily to try and empty the space by force, but to recognise what possibilities exist within it, despite anything ‘being’ there. To understand that a void has as much possibility of meaning as a ‘thing’. — Possibility

Good questions.

In return I would ask, could it be that space, silence, emptiness etc has a value of it's own which is not dependent upon or related to our ideas, thoughts, experiences, understandings, meanings etc? Can we, should we, value space for itself without having to make it in to a means to some other end?

I keep coming back to the notion that the overwhelming vast majority of reality at every scale is space. So whatever our relationship with space might be, that is most of our relationship with reality.

As example, if we think of space as a pile of empty nothing, then our relationship with reality could be that we are tiny fragile creatures lost in a vast empty nothing. If we were to think of space much as some people relate to their god, then that would be a quite different relationship with reality.

I'm not selling any particular relationship with space, just suggesting we inquire in to what our relationship with space might be. I'm attempting to shift some focus from the tiny details of reality (ie. things) to the dominant property of reality, space.

Things might seem empty, but it just might be something we do not perceive. As yet.

What you refer to as ‘space’ in this overarching sense I see as the relational structure of reality itself. Its existence transcends any notion of value or meaning. We don’t have to make it into a means to some end, but this is how we value it.

The question is, how do we relate to space in itself without assigning value? How do we relate to zero?

is it useful to observe how relatively little interest we seem to have in the phenomena of space? — Hippyhead

Stanford search on space:

Space gets some considerable attention.

What you refer to as ‘space’ in this overarching sense I see as the relational structure of reality itself. — Possibility

It's relational in regards to the positioning of things. Things do exist, but are so small in comparison to space I wonder if it makes sense to define space by such tiny details? Would that be like defining me by the nature of one of my toe nails?

Its existence transcends any notion of value or meaning. — Possibility

Sounds good, yes, value and meaning exist only in our tiny little minds.

We don’t have to make it into a means to some end, but this is how we value it. — Possibility

It does seem we relate to space as if it were just another thing, and then we calculate it's value based on it's relationship to our needs, just as we do with all things. Predator=bad, banana=good, space=?? We could now proceed to examine and debate the value of space, but if space is not a thing after all, what happens to our evaluation?

The question is, how do we relate to space in itself without assigning value? How do we relate to zero? — Possibility

Thank you, yes, that's a great way to put it. Very helpful.

One answer I'm floating for examination is...

1) The appropriate way to relate to real world things is with mental things, ie. philosophy.

2) The appropriate way to relate to real world zero is with mental zero, ie. meditation.

3) The vast majority of reality is not things, but zero.

So if we accept the premise that our philosophy should align itself with the real world, our philosophy would be mostly silence, with a few bright stars sprinkled here and there throughout.

A quick story which may be relevant. When I was a young hippy I once went to lecture by a guru passing through town, during the guru era of the 1970's. I wasn't in to gurus, I was in to hippy chicks, who could often be found in volume at guru talks. :-)

So we're sitting there for awhile chatting amongst ourselves waiting for the guru to come on stage and put on some kind of show. Pass the popcorn please.

Finally he arrives and takes his place behind the microphone. We quiet and wait for him to start speaking. We wait. We wait some more. We're still waiting. Nothing is happening, the guru is just sitting there. I want my money back! :-)

And then, after awhile, this very tangible sense of peace infuses the entire auditorium. It was like a physical cloud of peace that you could feel but not see. It didn't require belief. I didn't believe, I was just a supposedly intellectual little skeptical college boy looking to get laid. But there was this peace cloud which I couldn't deny.

Sooner or later the guru began speaking, and I don't remember a word of it. Nor did I get laid, argh. :-)
All I remember is the silence and the peace. Fifty years ago. Still remember it.

I have no theory or conclusion to report here. Don't ask me what this means or proves or anything, as I have no idea. I was there. It happened. All I can tell you.

A few years later this guru, who was very popular at the time, got kicked out of his own ashram for having sex with one of his disciples and then lying about it. Best I could tell, he was actually a good guy. But who can resist hordes of emotional devotional hippy chicks throwing themselves at you?? :-) Sounds like a Peter Principle event to me.....

What you refer to as ‘space’ in this overarching sense I see as the relational structure of reality itself.
— Possibility

It's relational in regards to the positioning of things. Things do exist, but are so small in comparison to space I wonder if it makes sense to define space by such tiny details? Would that be like defining me by the nature of one of my toe nails? — Hippyhead

Nothing to do with ‘things’ - they’re heuristic devices only. How should you be defined? By all the cells in your body? By all your bodily functions? Your actions? Thoughts? Words? Or should you be defined by what you’re capable of? By what you could be at your best? Or by the relative ‘space’ between the worst and best of your potential?

Its existence transcends any notion of value or meaning.
— Possibility

Sounds good, yes, value and meaning exist only in our tiny little minds. — Hippyhead

That’s not what I said. Value and meaning exist as much beyond my mind as within it. I do not have a monopoly on either.

It does seem we relate to space as if it were just another thing, and then we calculate it's value based on it's relationship to our needs, just as we do with all things. Predator=bad, banana=good, space=?? We could now proceed to examine and debate the value of space, but if space is not a thing after all, what happens to our evaluation? — Hippyhead

Exactly. The challenge is to venture beyond value. What has meaning without value? If it has no relationship to our own needs, then what is it to us? For example, if someone important to me is passionate about something that I have zero interest in at all, then what is my relationship to that?

One answer I'm floating for examination is...

1) The appropriate way to relate to real world things is with mental things, ie. philosophy.

2) The appropriate way to relate to real world zero is with mental zero, ie. meditation.

3) The vast majority of reality is not things, but zero.

So if we accept the premise that our philosophy should align itself with the real world, our philosophy would be mostly silence, with a few bright stars sprinkled here and there throughout. — Hippyhead

This makes sense to me only metaphorically. We try to align our philosophy with what we think the real world is, but we fail to recognise that we are the missing connection.

What do you believe ‘real world zero’ refers to? Philosophy and metaphysics in my view do not equate to ‘mental’ as distinct from ‘real world’. What we believe to be ‘real world things’ are just as much ‘mental things’ - five and six-dimensional relations - that we’re able to render as four, three, two and one-dimensional information for sharing. The way I understand metaphysical dualism, zero refers to the relative position of ‘I’ between ‘mental’ and ‘real world’ things.

Objectively speaking, therefore, reality is not so much mostly zero as all zero - referring to its infinite quality. This philosophy can be equally understood as silence and/or noise, from which one derives what meaning one can, and from there manifests and shares what information one has.

“Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”

― Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

I apologize for the sarcasm - it was gratuitous and uncalled for. But dude? Do you see that you're contradicting yourself?

Now if you want to go Walt Whitman, that's OK. If you were to say something like "Yes, I know what I'm saying sounds contradictory, but please work with me and let's see where this goes"? There are folks out here who would take you up on it.

I apologize for the sarcasm - it was gratuitous and uncalled for. — EricH

No worries, just another day in forum land. :-)

Do you see that you're contradicting yourself? — EricH

I have no idea what you're referring to actually, must have missed it. Make the case if you wish.

You claimed that astronomers spend most of their attention to objects and don't pay sufficient attention to space. Call that statement A.

Several people besides myself pointed out that this is not the case. Call that ¬A.

You acknowledged that ¬A is correct.

So you are saying both A and ¬A.

I can't make it any clearer.