From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 10:19:31 MDT
On 25 Jul 2002 at 13:16, Blunderov wrote:
> joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> <snip>
> However, 'everything (the universe) cannot be relative, for
> there is nothing outside the universe for it to be relative TO; it is
> all- encompassing and sui generis, and as such cannot be said to itself
> occupy a position relative to anything else, for there is nothing else
> (this
> is the meaning of 'universe - all).
> <snap>
>
> [Blunderov]
> Isn't this a bit like the mathematician who defined his sheep into the
> pen instead of opening the gate? Could I not just as truthfully say that
> there are places in the universe where time has not yet gone?
>
No, because the universe is spatiotemporal; there is no such thing as a
'spaceless time' or a 'timeless space' (cf. Einstein).
>
> Perhaps I can pre-empt the possible argument that any place where time
> has not yet gone is not a "place" by definition, by mentioning that if
> this is so, then necessarily the very early universe did not exist in
> space because time could not have existed in the same way as it does
> now?
>
Spatiotemporality is a single manifold; for matter-energy to have
existence, it must possess both durational and extentional aspects.
>
> Yours argumentatively
>
> Warm regards
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:49 MDT