13 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles[/i]Sorry for the delay in responding: I lost the connection and couldn’t get back on. 🙁
What does it mean to be bounded by time-space dimensionality?
For example, theists often claim that "God is outside of time," but I have never once encountered one who could actually articulate the propositional content (or prepositional, for that matter) of that claim to me. Its close kin are the unlikely siblings "God is everywhere," and [i]als on their propositional content; that is, what precisely are they claiming to be the case?
______________________________________
Good question.
To be bounded by time-space dimensionality is to have the kinds of boundaries that enable us to identitfy and entity as an entity. Even conceptually, I don't know how to think of an entity that has no boundaries.
The statement “God is everywhere” might be a colloquial version—but what kind of “where” would we be talking about? That itself is a “dimensional” statement. As is to say that God exists “outside” of time and space—i.e., outside dimensionality as we conceive it. In a sense, a being who is “everywhere” is a being who is “nowhere”—how can it be meaningfully thought of as a being?
If I have no dimensional boundaries, then I have no definable identity—I only can say that I am “I” vis-a-vis other entities. A figure only has identity because of its boundaries vis-a-vis other figure or a background. I can identify this thought as a thought only in relationship to other thoughts, or other mental content.
To say that an entity has no such dimensional boundaries is to deny its “entity-ness.”
This kind of dimensionality (time, space, figure-ground) is part of the architecture (or “grammar” ) of our consciousness, and cannot, I think be avoided conceptually.
I don’t know what it means to say that God is an entity (or a being) who is not bounded dimensionally—or “exists beyond time and space.” I don’t think anybody else does either—which is my point. I think it is incoherent. The reduction was an attempt to demonstrate that.
_________________________________
I’ll try to catch up as best I can.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by vistesdI remember having a similar discussion with knightmeister when he was talking about Something from Nothing and saying that the Nothing in question was dimensionless. If something does not have a position in a given dimension then it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. To say the nothing came 'before' the universe actually instantiates a dimension upon which the nothing and the universe can be placed.
To be bounded by time-space dimensionality is to have the kinds of boundaries that enable us to identitfy and entity as an entity. Even conceptually, I don't know how to think of an entity that has no boundaries.
It is my belief that all known dimensions are perpendicular to each other and that everything in existence must have an exact position in each and every one of those dimensions or be a collection of sub entities which have positions in each and every dimension.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSorry darling, but when you say "sight is a sense, not a dimension" you are evading the analogy.
I did, but it's rubbish. Sorry. Sighted people are not extra-dimensional beings to the blind.
I can't follow string theory. However, such discussions are still bounded by a certain number of dimensions. It would be incoherent for them to talk about objects outside the (10) dimensions which form their frame of reference. Unless they extend the set ...[text shortened]... nsion" that simply doesn't seem apposite here. Maybe you could come up with a better one.
An analogy A relates some elements of an entity m in conceptual framework M to some elements of n in N such that
(1) A(m) = n
The analogy then infers something about a function, attribute or relation f(m) from some g(n) such that
(2) A(f) = g
Criticism of an analogy would show that one of (1) or (2) above is false; pointing out that m = n is false is just evasion (we already know that).
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you see a difference between 'definition' and 'description'?
No I can't because anything I say about them will be a partial definition. If I do give a partial definition then that becomes the object of discussion. For example if I tell you that they are red then we can discuss the existence of red things but not the existence of Guigs.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by vistesdConceptually, the mathematical notion of infinity (and higher-order infinities) have no bounds either but mathematicians have no problems working with them.
[/i]Sorry for the delay in responding: I lost the connection and couldn’t get back on. 🙁
______________________________________
Good question.
To be bounded by time-space dimensionality is to have the kinds of boundaries that enable us to identitfy and entity as an entity. Even conceptually, I don't know how to think of an entity that has no b ...[text shortened]... o demonstrate that.
_________________________________
I’ll try to catch up as best I can.
I think you're trying to conflate the questions of existence and essence - whether something (e.g. God) is and what it is.
Also, that God is not "bounded" (and we still need to clarify what that means) by space-time does not mean God cannot interact with entities that are.
13 Jul 07
Let me try to clarify my use of the terms “identify” and “definable.”
By “identify” here, I mean first being able to know that something is, regardless of any further identification of [/i]what[/i] that something is. In this case, that there is an entity.
I am positing the necessity of dimensional boundaries in order to recognize that “a something” exists. I am suggesting that the kind of dimensionality that we know (time and space) goes to the very foundation of how we can conceive of things at all—in the same way that they go to the fundamental structure of the cosmos, or of our consciousness, or both.
By “definable” I mean something like conceptually circumscribable—having the kind of definition that permits one entity to be identified as an entity. I do not necessarily mean a verbal definition; I am not talking about dictionary standards. However, a verbal definition needs to be coherent, or I don’t know what you’re talking about. Simply putting together a sentence with familiar words in proper grammatical form isn’t it—viz. “A dardyvart is a lettucing rain brick.”
If someone can give me a coherent definition of, say, a dimensionally unbounded (or dimensionless?) entity, I’ll reconsider.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'll play catch as catch can for a bit--give me a chance to double-back to your "second pass" when I can?
Does he need to?
Does a mathematician need to be able to visualise a 4-dimensional cube to talk coherently about it?
I didn't say visualize; I said "conceive." Also, I am asking--I'm not a mathemetician.
A 4-dimensional cube is--dimensional.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerPlease elaborate as I don't know what you are trying to say.
Do you see a difference between 'definition' and 'description'?
To me, a definition is a special type of description used to categorize anything that matches that description. So when you talk about something based on its definition you are talking about the whole category of things that match that description. You cannot talk about anything coherently until you give it a definition (description) because otherwise you simply will not know what you are talking about.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerCan you conceive of dimensionlessness? Can you articulate such a concept coherently?
Conceptually, the mathematical notion of infinity (and higher-order infinities) have no bounds either but mathematicians have no problems working with them.
I think you're trying to conflate the questions of existence and essence - whether something (e.g. God) is and what it is.
Also, that God is not "bounded" (and we still need to clarify what that means) by space-time does not mean God cannot interact with entities that are.
Could it make any sense to speak of “dimensionless space”?
What kind of dimensions do you consider that God might be bounded by, that enable considering God to be an entity having identity to be coherent?
Unboundedness and infinity are, to my understanding, not the same thing.
Is there any sense in which you think the definition in my reductio is coherent? If so, how would you coherently explain it? If not—well, then we agree.
__________________________
NOTE: Although speaking in physical terms, I am referring to how we are able to conceptualize matters. Hence— I welcome coherent consideration of whatever other dimensions are potentially within human cognition. A weaker version of the reductio might drop the time-space specification—I’m not sure. (Why I brought in thoughts.)
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think you're trying to conflate the questions of existence and essence - whether something (e.g. God) is and what it is.
Conceptually, the mathematical notion of infinity (and higher-order infinities) have no bounds either but mathematicians have no problems working with them.
I think you're trying to conflate the questions of existence and essence - whether something (e.g. God) is and what it is.
Also, that God is not "bounded" (and we still need to clarify what that means) by space-time does not mean God cannot interact with entities that are.
Where do you see the conflation in the reductio? I am claiming that a certain definition of God is incoherent.
My wording about dimensional boundedness was an attempt to see if I could get beyond the obvious linguistic absurdities of saying that “God exists outside time and space”, or “God is everywhere”, or—for my money—“God is a limitless being” (note the article).
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf something does not have a position in a given dimension then it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere.
I remember having a similar discussion with knightmeister when he was talking about Something from Nothing and saying that the Nothing in question was dimensionless. If something does not have a position in a given dimension then it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. To say the nothing came 'before' the universe actually instantiates a dimension up ...[text shortened]... imensions or be a collection of sub entities which have positions in each and every dimension.
Yes. The question is, does it make any sense to speak of such a “something” a—a something? This seems very close to what I was getting at with my definitional premise.
“x is an entity that does not have a position in a given dimension, and there fore is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere” seems to me to be an incoherent statement. I would say that at that moment such an “entity” has no conceivable “identity” and that that entails a contradiction. I don’t think it can be said that such an entity—is. Which seems to be what you're getting at as well.
_________________________________
The thing with “nothingness” is that we tend to think of it as a kind of “somethingness.” Which again shows the limits of our conceptual capacity.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's the point I'm making - knowing that X exists is a different question to knowing what X is.
Perhaps not with regards to the details; but I can certainly discuss the existence of normal colour with that person.
That's the point I'm making - knowing that X exists is a different question to knowing what X is.
So? The only “whats” I am specifying are: (1) an individual entity (to be redundant); and (2) the attribute of having no dimensional boundaries.
X here is simply: “an entity.” If that definition is incoherent, we can’t even get to questions of existence, because we don’t have a coherent “wot” wot to deal with.