Object-space

Modern science tells us that space is energy. This makes sense with Einstein’s equation – E=mc2 – where mass and energy show a mutual and direct relationship. Since space seemingly “replaces” an object in a position it can be treated like an object. Further, nothing violates this. A “position” in space is either occupied by space-energy or object-mass. And multiple objects never occupy the same position. The proposition is, a position is occupied by either an object-mass or an object-space.

11 thoughts on “Object-space

    1. signature103 Post author

      The proposition is the process of this object.

      It has no mass or space other than being the process of this object which can only be inferred by its relationship and interactions with other objects.

      Reply
      1. signature103 Post author

        I am a complex object, one that has qualities of the processes of sensation, perception, conception.

        Propositions are conceptions. In regards to an earlier comment, I avoid “true” or “false” but opt for what “is” or “is not”.

        I have not come up with a satisfactory term for this object. But the old fashion “animate/inanimate objects” distinction is reasonable or adequate term for now.

        But if you are asking me about the self or a soul then I will answer that the self is an illusion created by the processes of this object. The soul is a concept again created by the processes of this object.

      2. landzek

        No. I am not asking into the soul.
        😁
        Is there a ‘greatest’ object? What would we call it?

        Even animate / inanimate implies something that the two of them together indicate.

        What kind of term could we use do you think?

      3. signature103 Post author

        No. There is no “greatest” object. Whatever, that is. BUT if the concept is “created” then you have the concept of it, not the reality of it.

      4. landzek

        Can you agree with asking this question, so far as the “no greatest “ goes:

        In what way are we able to relate any two things if there is not something within which that allows for the relation?

      5. signature103 Post author

        Real relationships exist. Perceptual and conceptual relationships are processes of an object. Those processes are in turn real relationships in the object (in the brain).

        Whether perceived or not, real relationships exist. But all you can perceive and conceive are real relationships.

        What we tend to forget (read: ignore) is that the processes in the brain are no different to the processes of macro-objects.

      6. signature103 Post author

        Reality. Or better to call it “matter”.

        There are problems though with the details of my argument. I separate direct observation of the physical reality to secondary data of the physical reality.

      7. landzek

        Your pun is not merely punny. Lol. Indeed, it is possible that the matter you are considering is the matter at hand.

        Indeed, I consider that everything is Philosophical material. That it’s all material.

        😄

Thanks for the comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s