The Impossibility of Distance, Volume – and ultimately – Reality

[Casual Tactician]

First I’d like to state, that I’m not a theist or religious. Furthermore, I don’t believe anything anyone anywhere ever said – including famous physicists, living or dead. Also I don’t care for any ongoing debate between eg. religious and scientific minded people. In my view, the only benchmarks are logic and reason.


Here are some arguments, why there can’t be any distance:

• Anything we perceive, is neither in the past nor in the future. If what we perceive is only in the present, then nothing can be distant. The moon we see isn't distant, if it really were 356,400 km to 406,700 km apart from us - how could we see it in the present?
• Anything even 1 millimetre away can’t be present. Eg. a photon, that’s even a split second before arrival, isn’t perceived or even existent at all for the perceiver.
• The stars we see at night are in no way distant objects. At best they are the result of what radiation caused inside of us – in the present.

On volume:

• Volume needs distance. But if there is no distance, then there can’t be any volume.

On reality:

• Reality needs objects made of matter or entities with volume – otherwise there is no reality. Though if there is no volume or distance, then reality (= ‘thingly-ness’) isn’t possible.

Others:

• If you agree that the brain consists of cells and these cells consist of molecules and these molecules consist of atoms and these consist of elementary particles – how is it possible, that objects larger than elementary particles are even seen (as elementary particles are all that really is)? And can any one elementary particle perceive? Or can many of them (as in eg. a frog’s brain) do so, even if any single one can’t?

==========
==========


Possible question:

Q: You say there is no distance, volume or reality – but doesn’t you writing this, indicate or even prove, that you regard the TWC forum (and thus me/us/the world) to be real?
A: Please read the above.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Checks date. Not April First. Considers response.

Without empirical measurement and classification definition is meaningless. Without classification of variables logic is impossible. Ergo argument invalid.

[Casual Tactician]

Checks date. Not April First. Considers response.

Without empirical measurement and classification definition is meaningless. Without classification of variables logic is impossible. Ergo argument invalid.

What about referring to statements in my OP, rather than this?!?

[G-Megas-Doux]

The statement refers directly to your first post regarding your position on measurements and recording of speed, distance and time. Without setting a series of origin points and standard intervals at repeatable distances we can not quantify any of these three variables and without these or other variables we have no possible clauses in our logic statements that are relevant or consistent in usage.

[Casual Tactician]

The statement refers directly to your first post regarding your position on measurements and recording of speed, distance and time. Without setting a series of origin points and standard intervals at repeatable distances we can not quantify any of these three variables and without these or other variables we have no possible clauses in our logic statements that are relevant or consistent in usage.

To be blunt, you've simply missed the statement of the OP or you are to entangled in the usual ways of 'debate' here. Whatever the case - I've no position on measurements or the like, as they presuppose reality.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I got the original post entirely. It is nihilistic in its preposition. If all observations are subjective presumptions then reality cannot exist as I cannot perceive it with any greater or lesser ability regardless of scale.

The other observation is at what scale does consciousness exist inhabit matter? Does one brain cell act on its own or in conjunction with another or perhaps even on a smaller scale atomically?

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Without distance between things, everything would occupy the same amount of "space". Without volume everything has no measurable quantity, therefore everything consists of nothing. With only nothing there is no reality... Fine, now get this debate over to the philosophy section, I like nihilism less than any religion (bunch of philosophical emos).

[Casual Tactician]

I got the original post entirely. It is nihilistic in its preposition.

That's merely a point of view.

If all observations are subjective presumptions then reality cannot exist as I cannot perceive it with any greater or lesser ability regardless of scale.

Are you trying to prove or disapprove my OP?

The other observation is at what scale does consciousness exist inhabit matter? Does one brain cell act on its own or in conjunction with another or perhaps even on a smaller scale atomically?

From my point of view, it seems highly unlikely that any cell, molecule, atom or particle is able to perceive any neighbouring particle, atom, molecule or cell. Imo it's totally possible and even logic, that consciousness of things isn't based things.

Also just for the records - as already stated in the OP - I don't by any means, support religion, as that - imo - requires to believe, rather than to think on one's own.

[O'Hea]

The OP is completely incoherent. I keep starting to write about how light travels or how the whole concept of elementary particles is moot if you don't trust visual perception and so on, but it just feels pointless.

[Casual Tactician]

Without distance between things, everything would occupy the same amount of "space". Without volume everything has no measurable quantity, therefore everything consists of nothing. With only nothing there is no reality... Fine, now get this debate over to the philosophy section, I like nihilism less than any religion (bunch of philosophical emos).

There are so many illogically statements in your post, it's a total mess.

> Without distance between things, everything would occupy the same amount of "space" - I guess, this is clear. Without distance there aren't any things, or spaces.

> Without volume everything has no measurable quantity, therefore everything consists of nothing. - That statement is so obviously faulty/wrong, that I can't even be bortherd to disprove it.

> With only nothing there is no reality... Fine, now get this debate over to the philosophy section, I like nihilism less than any religion (bunch of philosophical emos). - Hmm.


PS: Please just participate in this discussion, if you actually have an interest in it.

[Battlefield]

Here are some arguments, why there can’t be any distance:

• Anything we perceive, is neither in the past nor in the future. If what we perceive is only in the present, then nothing can be distant. The moon we see isn't distant, if it really were 356,400 km to 406,700 km apart from us - how could we see it in the present?

Actually the past and the future exists "now." It is only our human perception that cause the concept of past, present, and future. In physics, they are all exists at the same moment and there is no such thing as past, present, and future. It's kind of difficult to explain it. But I will recommend the book "Fabrics of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. In one of its sections, it explained the reason behind that using distance. Therefore if time exists, then distance does too and vice versa.

[Casual Tactician]

The OP is completely incoherent. I keep starting to write about how light travels or how the whole concept of elementary particles is moot if you don't trust visual perception and so on, but it just feels pointless.

Ok, then for the moment just ingore the OP. And instead describe how perception functions on a sub-atomar level.

Or take any full statement of the OP and tell me what's wrong about it.

The odd thing is, I see many post disregarding the OP, but none qouting it in full.


PS: Again (as in the OP), I'm not religious, I don't believe in gods and I don't believe anything anyone says.

[G-Megas-Doux]

It seems to me that the OP is taking my statements in obtuse manner.

I made quite clear my opinion on the original post in my first post. I explained that I did understand what you were proposing and I ultimately stated that your logic was incorrect.

[Casual Tactician]

Does anyone here think, that my statements in the OP are wrong? Then please quote (in full) - and then let's discuss on that basis.

Here are some arguments, why there can’t be any distance:

• Anything we perceive, is neither in the past nor in the future. If what we perceive is only in the present, then nothing can be distant. The moon we see isn't distant, if it really were 356,400 km to 406,700 km apart from us - how could we see it in the present?
• Anything even 1 millimetre away can’t be present. Eg. a photon, that’s even a split second before arrival, isn’t perceived or even existent at all for the perceiver.
• The stars we see at night are in no way distant objects. At best they are the result of what radiation caused inside of us – in the present.

On volume:

• Volume needs distance. But if there is no distance, then there can’t be any volume.

On reality:

• Reality needs objects made of matter or entities with volume – otherwise there is no reality. Though if there is no volume or distance, then reality (= ‘thingly-ness’) isn’t possible.

Others:

• If you agree that the brain consists of cells and these cells consist of molecules and these molecules consist of atoms and these consist of elementary particles – how is it possible, that objects larger than elementary particles are even seen (as elementary particles are all that really is)? And can any one elementary particle perceive? Or can many of them (as in eg. a frog’s brain) do so, even if any single one can’t?

[Kyriakos]

Hi CT. I think your arguments are (or at any rate seem to be) problematic due to the way you appear to see the main notions in them (eg infinitesimal particles, or "reality"), but it should be noted that they do remind me of Eleatic arguments, HOWEVER you do not seem to be actually presenting the clear arguments of that sort (eg by Zeno) even despite the somewhat curious tie to his own view of how ideas such as the infinite and the infinitesimal are in clear contrast to the phenomena we view through our senses (eg volume, space, movement, etc).

So i am not sure how influenced you are by actual historic debate on this (the start of the 5th century BC in philosophy was entirely about this). The thread is about epistemology, but from your OP i tend to be of the view that you define the main notions there in an inherently problematic manner.

For what it is worth, the main ideas tied to a dismissal of phenomena which are senses-bound, are by now termed as part of 'Idealism'. I am very much interested in idealism, and primarily agree with the Eleans on that premise, but - again - it is not clear to me from your OP just what your own position elaborates to

[Casual Tactician]

Actually the past and the future exists "now." It is only our human perception that cause the concept of past, present, and future. In physics, they are all exists at the same moment and there is no such thing as past, present, and future. It's kind of difficult to explain it. But I will recommend the book "Fabrics of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. In one of its sections, it explained the reason behind that using distance. Therefore if time exists, then distance does too and vice versa.

If you can't even explain your point of view yourself, why did you even post here? Are we to assume that you are right, because you mention a physicist.

All I wan't to see, is that you are anyone else, disproves my OP. As simple as that.

I come to believe that people, that consider themselves sceptic (and right so), are simply lemmings of minds they consider greater than themselves.

I really don't give a penny for what anyone says. I suspect everyone to be wrong (that's my basic instinc). It's actually quite easy. to use only logic and reason. You don't need to believe anyone else.

[empr guy]

I don't understand your basis, when I look at my computer screen, I see how it was 1 billionth of a second ago or however long it took light to travel ~2 feet. If you want to get super technical that would mean I see my computer (and pretty much everything else) 1 billionth of a second in the past and in 1 billionth of a second I will see how it is now.

If you are arguing from some 'logical' point and ignoring physics then please expand on your thoughts, because the OP takes giant leaps of logic

e.g. " If what we perceive is only in the present, then nothing can be distant."


why?

[Casual Tactician]

Hi CT. I think your arguments are (or at any rate seem to be) problematic due to the way you appear to see the main notions in them (eg infinitesimal particles, or "reality"), but it should be noted that they do remind me of Eleatic arguments, HOWEVER you do not seem to be actually presenting the clear arguments of that sort (eg by Zeno) even despite the somewhat curious tie to his own view of how ideas such as the infinite and the infinitesimal are in clear contrast to the phenomena we view through our senses (eg volume, space, movement, etc).

So i am not sure how influenced you are by actual historic debate on this (the start of the 5th century BC in philosophy was entirely about this). The thread is about epistemology, but from your OP i tend to be of the view that you define the main notions there in an inherently problematic manner.

For what it is worth, the main ideas tied to a dismissal of phenomena which are senses-bound, are by now termed as part of 'Idealism'. I am very much interested in idealism, and primarily agree with the Eleans on that premise, but - again - it is not clear to me from your OP just what your own position elaborates to

To me the idea of idealism - which for most people seems to boil down to (egoistic) solipsism - is at best half-hearted. As it ignores what a possible subject - which can't be object - isn't. On a other note most physicists are inable to consider the fact, that a cell or atom or quark doesn't have awareness (be it one cell or a trillion).

But taking logic - and there's no need for complicated philosophical terms here - puts it all into shape quite easily. There is no future. There is no past. There is even no present, as that would need time and space.

Off topic (again) - Let's view the most basic enties there are. Accroding to the Kopenhagen school, particles don't have a volume but are mathimatical points without volume. Be it as it is, or may be - the issue is: it's impossible for particles to perceive other particles. Sure the can react, but not perceive.

[Kyriakos]

To me the idea of idealism - which for most people seems to boil down to (egoistic) solipsism - is at best half-hearted. As it ignores what a possible subject - which can't be object - isn't. On a other note most physicists are inable to consider the fact, that a cell or atom or quark doesn't have awareness (be it one cell or a trillion).

Solipsism is a rather tiny particle in the spectrum of Idealism. Solipsism is centered on the view that only the individual observer is actually conscious, or by extension 'real'. This is not at all a premise of all Idealism, in fact Idealism historically did not include this position, while its core thesis is that the senses are providing info which creates 'phenomena' (the term literally means 'appearences', and is juxtaposed to 'reality' and 'real objects').

But taking logic - and there's no need for complicated philosophical terms here - puts it all into shape quite easily. There is no future. There is no past. There is even no present, as that would need time and space.

This isn't really 'logic', cause you haven't elaborated on why you view that position as obviously being true. Instead you tied it all to a train of thought which extrapolated the lack of existence of those qualities (eg time), through a lack of existence of other qualities in your view (eg space). That is in part like being asked to solve a mathematical problem and then you write down symbols which are not known as something, and claim that they allude to some equation but it is not needed to clarify what it is.

Off topic (again) - Let's view the most basic enties there are. Accroding to the Kopenhagen school, particles don't have a volume but are mathimatical points without volume. Be it as it is, or may be - the issue is: it's impossible for particles to perceive other particles. Sure the can react, but not perceive.

There is no reason to think that particles are like math points, cause math points axiomatically are non-dimensional. If particles were non-dimensional then at least you would have needed to prove that they themselves do not divide to even smaller parts. It is highly likely the current particles divide to lesser parts, much like the atoms were previously regarded as being indivisible (which is why they were termed as "atoms", in honor of Democritus and his atomic theory of nondivisible particles), later on were examined to be breaking up due to nuclear phenomena.

[Casual Tactician]

I don't understand your basis, when I look at my computer screen, I see how it was 1 billionth of a second ago or however long it took light to travel ~2 feet. If you want to get super technical that would mean I see my computer (and pretty much everything else) 1 billionth of a second in the past and in 1 billionth of a second I will see how it is now.

If you are arguing from some 'logical' point and ignoring physics then please expand on your thoughts, because the OP takes giant leaps of logic

e.g. " If what we perceive is only in the present, then nothing can be distant."


why?

First: "If what we perceive is only in the present, then nothing can be distant." Isn't any leap, but plain logic. Take your monitor for example. Let's say it's 0.5 meters away from your eyes. What you see at this moment/now is not the monitor, as it's 0.5 meters away, right! Any other explanation isn't needed.

If you are arguing from some 'logical' point and ignoring physics then please expand on your thoughts, because the OP takes giant leaps of logic

Please quote these leaps of logic, so I can respond - lots of folks accuse me of that, but don't quote my OP in full.

Imo physics is the best that humanity has come around to. My grandfather was a physics professor and the more physics in moderns socitey the better. But even the best physicists, seem to simply ignore reason when it comes to consciousness. Just think about the eye and distant objects - and think about perception. Can it really work out?