neo-Kantian space proof for G's nonexistence

[Thelema]

1)space cannot be plural, for if it was then there would be

a)at least a second space not of our space, which we could only identify by placing both spaces against a 3rd "absolute" space with which to juxtapose them, meaning that both spaces would in fact be residential in a greater single space.

b)no possibility of interaction between "our" space and another, for interaction between spaces contradicts the notion that the spaces are seperate.

2)therefore if God inhabits a space that is not our space then this is either contradictory,or, a forteiri, a useless place for a God.

a)therefore if God exists it must inhabit our space.

3)God, being "the being of which that no greater can be conceived", can therefore be no less than the limits of our space, and from 1 and 2, cannot be greater than our space. Therefore if God exists, it must be co-extensive with space.

4)Thus there is no conceptual argument for introducing the idea of God: the concept of God brings nothing to the arena which otherwise could not be discussed. "I have no need of that hypothesis"

COUNTER

1)just because something is theoretically superfluous (and useless)is no argument for its non-existence

*really? what then to stop us inundating our world with a plethora of superfluous ontology? you have a good reason however for introducing this single errant element? what then is that reason?*

2)space is not all there is. the idea of God may physically(spatio-temporally) be superfluous (and/or contradictory), but the concept is not spiritually superfluous. We import God to make sense of our spiritual side, not to understand the physical world.

*this might be so, that God is useful as a psychological concept. The historical development of the idea of God notwithstanding. But let us not confuse the issue...it is one thing to use something as a psychological concept, and another thing entirely to then go on and attribute physical existence in some way. Maybe I might concede the point; but this does not address MY point. What IS the idea of God with physical existence removed? - is it still an important concept, or does it lose a lot of its force?*

3)Maybe there is no black/white distinction between what is psychological reality for us and what is physical reality. For instance, look at the concept of "order" inherent in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Order is a psychological concept.(don't belive me? try to define order physically then). It is obvious, and modern thought seems to concur with this, that the 2 are intermeshed.

*ah, so it seems then we are back in the realm of intersubjectivity. But language is the bridge between 2 subjects. What would be a good test to find out if something was more psychological than physical? Everything is perceived against the backdrop of theory, probably so much so that we cannot "perceive untainted". Through a glass darkly, my friend, our own ideas darken the purity of perceiving.*

This last is not really a counter, more really shows where the limit of the neo-Kantian argument is, and where its main weakness lies.

[gomaos]

I've read it a couple of times.

To things stick with me:

"Space is not all there is."

Of course. If you define space in a physical sense, then you must be talking of "outer space".

Of course there is also "inner space", that which exists inside every single one of us, and in all of us together... at least I did like to believe this... I seemed to have proof for it in the past, but now I am not so sure anymore.

What happens on dmt? Is it a drug-induced hallucination, or does one truely access the "group-(un)conscious?"

2. "order is a psychological concept."

Definitely. If your psyche is messed up, it's very hard to keep order, in the outside world, as well as inside your head.

[Thelema]

yes yes gom:

2 things worth thinking about:

1)inner-space: does it have "extension"? If not, then it is not a space. Ill have to think more about that one. Originally descartes proclaimed that res cogitans (the arena of the mind)lacked the extensional aspect of res extensa, the "outer arena". Ill have to go and read him again.

2)order as a psychological concept: the point which raises its head is: when the mentally deranged person fails to put the world into order, does that mean there IS no order in the world, or just that he fails to realize some order that IS in fact, there?

Maybe order is something we as a group of communicators invent for ourselves with the legitimizing discourse of science. If we were all mentally deranged...does order in the world DEPEND on the orderer? does it make sense to think of a pre-order before coming across an orderer?

[ramon]

1)space cannot be plural, for if it was then there would be

a)at least a second space not of our space, which we could only identify by placing both spaces against a 3rd "absolute" space with which to juxtapose them, meaning that both spaces would in fact be residential in a greater single space.

b)no possibility of interaction between "our" space and another, for interaction between spaces contradicts the notion that the spaces are seperate.

Space can actually be singular and still have regions which cannot interact.

If you accept that something with mass cannot travel faster then the speed of light

2)therefore if God inhabits a space that is not our space then this is either contradictory,or, a forteiri, a useless place for a God.

a)therefore if God exists it must inhabit our space.

I don't see why God could not exist in both spaces.

If you limit God so, then it isn't really God and therefore there is no need to continue with the proof

3)God, being "the being of which that no greater can be conceived", can therefore be no less than the limits of our space, and from 1 and 2, cannot be greater than our space. Therefore if God exists, it must be co-extensive with space.

I don't see that 1 and 2 actually limit God to being no greater then our space.

The fact that there is no interaction between the different spaces doesn't mean that they don't somehow add to to a coherent whole which is only understandable from outside the individual spaces i.e. God

[Thelema]

 

quote:

---

The fact that there is no interaction between the different spaces doesn't mean that they don't somehow add to to a coherent whole which is only understandable from outside the individual spaces

---

ahh that's the point though, "outside" of any n spatial regions is only conceivable in terms of being in a n+1 space which encompasses the other. It is contradictory to maintain that you can be "outside" of space, and look upon n space as a whole without being in n+1 space. Where are you looking from? - nowhere. When are you looking from - at no time.

 

quote:

---

Space can actually be singular and still have regions which cannot interact.

 

If you accept that something with mass cannot travel faster then the speed of light

---

This point is true. But it does not alter the fact that plural spaces cannot interact. The difference with non-interacting "cone"-spaces in singular spaces is that they are constrained by time; given enough time, all parts of this singular space may interact. But plural space is limited conceptually.

Interaction between spaces means that those spaces cannot be plural. It does not logically follow from this I am asserting that singular space interacts completely with itself.

 

quote:

---

2)therefore if God inhabits a space that is not our space then this is either contradictory,or, a forteiri, a useless place for a God.

 

a)therefore if God exists it must inhabit our space.

 

I don't see why God could not exist in both spaces.

---

God cannot exist in both spaces, because, as argued, it is contradictory for there to be anything BUT a singular space. Therefore a second space cannot exist. Therefore God cannot exist WITHIN it.

Thanks for your input Ramon.

[devance]

Here some other spaced out states for proving anything./

http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/sheld.html

http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/figu.html

Your brain on

http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/sheld.html

There are no obvious candidates for the morphic fields in the framework of the standard physics. In TGD context situation is however different. The members of the species correspond to spacetime sheets, 3-surfaces, which can be regarded as particles in a generalized sense. The generalization of a point particle to 3-surface means the introduction of zero modes characterizing the size and and shape as well as the classical K"ahler field (in many cases essentially electromagnetic field) associated with the spacetime surface in question. These zero modes are not encountered in quantum field theories and mean new physics.

[devance]

http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm

I can't seem to edit my above post so I'll just add a post. It would have been added to.

This is your brain on

There is this college mathematics student who has no brain and is supposedly functioning because of the above hypothesis.

On the other hand he might have his brain at home getting high and using the above hypothess to send his body to college.

The student in question was academically bright, had a reported

IQ of 126 and was expected to graduate. When he was examined by

CAT-scan, however, Lorber discovered that he had virtually no brain at all.

Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5

centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of

cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column.

They don't mention if he can get stoned which would bring up other questions if he could.

[ramon]

 

quote:

---

Ahh that's the point though, "outside" of any n spatial regions is only conceivable in terms of being in a n+1 space which encompasses the other. It is contradictory to maintain that you can be "outside" of space, and look upon n space as a whole without being in n+1 space. Where are you looking from? - nowhere. When are you looking from - at no time.

---

If n+1 space ecompasses the other then it can be said to interact and not be in individual space.

i.e. where are you looking from- there is some interaction obviously for you to be able to look from one to the other.

I get the point regarding the need for something greater then space to understand space if there is more then one space just don't think that it has to be thought of as space.

If there is no interaction at all between the different spaces then they can just be individual spaces which exist independently.

I think you are not allowing for the possibility of different dimensions

 

quote:

---

The difference with non-interacting "cone"-spaces in singular spaces is that they are constrained by time; given enough time, all parts of this singular space may interact. But plural space is limited conceptually.

 

---

Not actually talking about points that are far enough appart for light to take some time to reach as I think you are suggesting by "cone" spaces.

Was more talking about space which is so far appart that there will never be any interaction with another part of space because space is expanding faster then the speed of light.

i.e. greater then 15 billion light years from us.

I realize that this does not change that this is not plural space.