Fundamentally, is there only ‘spacetime’?

[StrictlyLogical]

2 minutes ago, Grames said:

Space-time is not merely a relationship, it is an existent in itself.  For all we know it may even be compound existent, made of more fundamental existents.   Wikipedia can provide an introduction to the topic with the article Zero-point Energy .

The article seems to state that energy “exists” (I’ll use the term loosely) every where.  That implies energy or matter fields or something existing everywhere.  

The energy, those fields or that something which are everywhere, are not the “wheres” at which they are.  

E(x,y,z,t) M(x,y,z,t) or any quantity Q(x,y,z,t) at any location in spacetime (x,y,z,t) IS not the location of (x,y,z,t)… it is something AT the location (x,y,z,t)

[Grames]

10 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

E(x,y,z,t) M(x,y,z,t) or any quantity Q(x,y,z,t) at any location in spacetime (x,y,z,t) IS not the location of (x,y,z,t)… it is something AT the location (x,y,z,t)

Location (x,y,z,t) only exists because of whatever is there.

[StrictlyLogical]

26 minutes ago, Grames said:

Location (x,y,z,t) only exists because of whatever is there.

Now space is a conditional existent?  In any case the “there” is not the “what” that is there… A is A.  Moreover for the “Location (x,y,z,t)” to exist, and exist BECAUSE of “whatever is there” it cannot BE the “whatever is there”  anymore than it can be the cause of its own existence.   A is A

Imho rather than a conditional existent, it is an absolute and relational existent.

 

If we disagree at this point I see no way to reach agreement, which is unfortunate because I usually agree with you.

Anyway, it was fun!

[Eiuol]

6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What would a measurement of a “there” consist in? 

You were basically saying that all things that exist have a location, but not all locations have things. (“Thing” stated loosely):

“BUT it is not true that every “there” needs to be occupied.”

What I don’t get is your claim that there could be locations without things. If that were true, you would need to consider spacetime as something conceptual or representational (i.e., is a construct). 
 

[StrictlyLogical]

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You were basically saying that all things that exist have a location, but not all locations have things. (“Thing” stated loosely):

“BUT it is not true that every “there” needs to be occupied.”

What I don’t get is your claim that there could be locations without things. If that were true, you would need to consider spacetime as something conceptual or representational (i.e., is a construct). 
 

I was not going to do this but just one more.  

If there were only two entities, I would say the distances between them are a relationship… it is a specific distance at any one time but we also know at various times they can be at other distances and in general they could be at any distance but there must exist some distance relationship between them.  That relationship is absolute in its existence but can potentially be any number of possibilities.  

What we happen to define and conceive of as space includes the particular relationships as well as all the possible ones.

In other words, the way we think about space includes both the absolute particular relationship of the now: the distance they have between them now, and the potential distance relationships they could have in future as well as the previous distance relationships they had in the past.  It should be noted that the distance between these two entities is a single relational existent which changes, not an infinity of relationship existents which rapidly pop into and out of existence.

Consider space to be just as much of a construct as our concept of time. [In fact space as a concept is all wrapped up with time because things move in space over time… spatial relationships change]

Things change and move and we conceive of time to understand and predict how these changes and movements occur.  Time is defined and conceived of as including the past, present, and future.  The events of the past existed … they do not exist… but things of the now have a causal relationship with the past, they are a direct result via causality or simply continuity … of things in the past… likewise things of the now have a relationship to things of the future … the events of which do not exist now, but for which potentialities do exist (because of the relationship of now to the future). 

The sliver of now exists, the past does not exist… it existed, the future does not exist now, it will exist… so does time exist?  Yes.    Does our concept of time include potentialities… and things that are no more? Yes.  

 

[MisterSwig]

I’m still considering your substantial replies, but I’ll try to address a few points.

On 5/16/2019 at 9:54 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

Your concept of “medium” cannot form the basis for the concept “space” if your concept “medium” already relies upon (perhaps subconsciously) your preconceived notions of space.

This seems right. I’m using “medium” analogously. Basically, I’m struck by how physical media can be measured from high density to low density (solids, liquids, and gases). Then there is a perfect vacuum of space, which has zero density. Of course it’s not a perfect vacuum anymore once material enters the space, and it’s not a medium if nothing is in it. So, yeah, I have to think about that some more.

On 5/16/2019 at 9:54 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

In a sense “A outside of B” and “A inside of B” are applicable only to existents A and B, and “outside” and “inside” are themselves spatial relationships. 

If space is an immaterial, boundless existent, maybe we can only be aware of it indirectly through its dimensional relationships with matter.

Also, when I say that an object is in space, I don’t mean to differentiate it with the impossibility of being outside space. I intend to contrast it with being in matter, such as a physical medium of solid, liquid, or gas. I’m describing an environmental condition, not a spatial relationship. It’s confusing, though, since I’m envisioning concurrent environmental conditions, where physical media exist simultaneously with and in space. Does that make sense?

On 5/16/2019 at 9:54 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

A square foot is a quantity in mathematics as is volume.  They are no more measurements of *stuff* or a quantity of stuff, than distance between any two things is a measure of a “length” of *stuff*.

I should’ve said cubic foot instead of square foot, since we don’t live in only two dimensions. I don’t think space is stuff. Certainly not material stuff. To me, “stuff” suggests individual things. I don’t mean a quantity of space things. A cubic foot of space would be a particular region of space. The region would have a spatial relationship to other regions or objects. I see the problem of spatial regions being relative to the position of material objects. But is that because space is a relationship, or because we can only know space through its relationships?

On 5/16/2019 at 9:54 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

Consider the imaginary case of two particles which can have a relationship distance… if they have attributes, like mass or electric charge, they will attract and maybe repulse each other…  these forces depend upon the distance, so the forces felt by them change as the distance changes…  nothing observed about these two particles requires the concept of some medium… distance fully suffices.

Does calling it an environment help? I imagine that your two particles would act differently in a physical medium versus a perfect vacuum. They would be affected by other particles in a physical medium, but not in the vacuum. Distance is not the only external factor involved in the particles’ interaction. Whether there is environmental resistance or other forces acting on them matters.   

[MisterSwig]

On 5/16/2019 at 10:29 AM, Eiuol said:

But even if there is no room to move as in your counterfactual example, couldn’t everything move together? Things could swap places, or momentum could transfer.

If everything moved together, collisions could not occur and momentum could not transfer. Also, we would have to assume that everything has been moving together throughout all of history, otherwise how did everything initially start moving? Swapping places is interesting, but doesn’t it imply permeability, which implies space? 

On 5/16/2019 at 12:43 PM, Eiuol said:

I’m saying that matter is not the only kind of physical thing. 

What would “physical” mean in this view? To me, physical refers to the body of matter, whereas material refers to the substance of matter. Physical focuses on the thing as a whole; material focuses on the thing as a composition. 

[MisterSwig]

On 5/17/2019 at 3:47 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

The events of the past existed … they do not exist… but things of the now have a causal relationship with the past, they are a direct result via causality or simply continuity … of things in the past… likewise things of the now have a relationship to things of the future … the events of which do not exist now, but for which potentialities do exist (because of the relationship of now to the future). 

The sliver of now exists, the past does not exist… it existed, the future does not exist now, it will exist… so does time exist?  Yes.    Does our concept of time include potentialities… and things that are no more? Yes.  

There is something here that does not match my view of time. Yes, things of the past and things of the future do not exist. There is only what is happening now. In a sense, past things caused things now, through a chain of actions. But we cannot likewise claim a causal relationship between things now and things in the future, because the future hasn’t happened; there is no effect that has been caused. The future is only a present idea in someone’s head. If anything, the effect is the present idea, which would make the cause past choices.

[Eiuol]

On 5/17/2019 at 6:47 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

What we happen to define and conceive of as space includes the particular relationships as well as all the possible ones.

I read all that, and that’s fine, but now I’m left wondering what you would say is in between an electron and a neutron. If spacetime is only a relationship, rather than some directly (albeit with tools) observable phenomena of something, then it seems like we have gaps of existence, i.e. nonexistence, throughout the universe. 

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

If everything moved together, collisions could not occur and momentum could not transfer.

It would be like a propagating wave. Or maybe stretching. But then at some point it probably gets absurd, the smaller scale you get. The article that Grames linked about zero point energy gives some idea of how a true vacuum is (plausibly and up for debate) literally impossible, without assuming some material medium. 

[Grames]

8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

What would “physical” mean in this view? 

Physical ought to mean merely causal for the philosophically minded, or else one run’s the risk of committing oneself to dictating what the ontology of the universe is from a bedroom or porcelain throne based on a non-physicist understanding of physics.

[A.C.E]

Cleansing concepts around ‘spacetime’

 

Thank you class; MisterSwig, StrictlyLogical, Eiuol and Grames — good input.

 

Here I’m pegging a concluding thought (any follow-up remarks most welcome).

 

❦

 

So a range of slightly different models related to spacetime have been floating around over the last couple of weeks. I won’t attempt to summarize these different frameworks, I’d rather focus on what seems to be a major fault-line. I think the fracture has been conceptual, particularly for ‘space’ and ‘time’, which then goes on to affect a whole range of related concepts; medium, gaps, vacuums, location, information, matter and spacetime itself.

 

Here I’ll attempt a little spring-cleaning of just three key concepts; space , time , entity (prior to any subsequent tackling of  spacetime itself). 

Let me know if you think it harms/helps matters.

 

 

 

First stop The Oxford English Dictionary to survey standard meanings, thence to The Ayn Rand Lexicon for a little selective clarification, then my own jottings set out below. I think the resulting six concepts form an interesting integration…

 

 

Space ⁓

 

Dictionaries offer a wide assortment of definitions, ranging from typographic padding to being left undisturbed. However, for the core meaning they always give two distinct definitions relevant to the kind of space this topic addresses (OED)…

 

• A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

• The dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.

 

I think it is instructive to keep these two concepts in separate boxes when discussing ‘space’. To this end I propose a conceptual split into two different words:

⁓  Concept 1. Space

⁓  Concept 2. The Spatial

 

The first is a noun — apt for entity.

The second is a nominalized adjective — apt for attribute of an entity.

 

The Ayn Rand Lexicon hones in on space as the spatial —the relational concept —and does a good job, but I think it rather papers-over the first, more everyday usage of the term — e.g., I have space in my tummy for one more yummy digestive biscuit.

 

Expanding the difference between the two main definitions:

 

⁓  1. Space

‘Space–space’: a word for everyday usage ~ about volumetric things…

• An absolute existent* entity (with spatial and temporal attributes).
• It has dimension (in which a three dimensional coordinate system, with arbitrary origin, could map it exhaustively).
• It is volumetric; whether dense like a blackhole or ‘empty’ like an absolute vacuum — whatever its mass, its volume is always greater than zero.
• It is never ‘nothing’.
• It is a concrete, not an abstract.
• It is measurable, not a measurement.
• It is a part of a greater (potentially boundless) whole — the universe.

 

Example:

I have space at the end of this sentence to place a full-stop.

 

Antonym:

No-space (or boundless space as near antonym)

This can either be zero volume (effectively nothing), or by an already space-occupying volume.

 

⁓  2. The Spatial

A word for abstract usage ~ about the spatial relations of things…

• A relative existent* attribute (of entities).
• It is dimension (along with the temporal dimension).
• It is the relations of scale, position, distance, area, volume (but not the actualization of these relational attributes themselves into ‘space-occupying entities’).
• It is never ‘something’ (nor ‘nothing’ as attributes exist).
• It is an abstract, not a concrete.
• It is measurement, not measurable.
• Bounds or scales don’t apply — the spatial is a relational attribute of the universe (and all its potential parts).

 

Example:

The full-stop at the end of this sentence has spatial extension, but perhaps less so than a comma.

 

Antonym:

The temporal.

(Emphatically not fullness/emptiness)

The spatial can only be contrasted with the one other dimension (which mutually defines it).

 

 

* Existent = an existing entity or an attribute/action (of an existing entity).

In the case of the spatial and the temporal , they are existent attributes, not entities. Furthermore, no existent entity is without this duplet of attributes, everything has a spatial & temporal aspect..

This might tie-in to the gist of my original forum question — ‘could the universe be cashed out in terms of these two fundamental attributes?’

 

 

Time ⁓

OED…

• A point [or period] of time as measured (in hours and minutes past midnight or noon).

• [mass noun] the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.   

 

Thus, as with space, a similar bifurcation into two different concepts is in order:

⁓  Concept 3. Time

⁓  Concept 4. The Temporal

 

The difference between the two main definitions:

 

⁓  3. Time

‘Time–time’: a word for everyday usage ~ about occurrences…

• An absolute existent event (with spatial and temporal attributes).
• It has dimension (in which a linear coordinate system, with arbitrary origin, could map it exhaustively).
• It is chronological; whether delineating past ages or future micro-seconds — whatever its span, its passing is always greater than zero.
• It is never ‘timeless’.
• It is a concrete, not an abstract.
• It is measurable, not a measurement.
• It is a part of a greater (potentially boundless) whole — universal time.

 

Example:

Noticing the full-stop at the end of this sentence will occur within the next second of time.

 

Antonym:

No-time (or timeless as near antonym).

In contrast to space, time is not exclusionary, lots of occurrences can happen at the same time.

 

⁓  4. The Temporal

A word for abstract usage ~ about the temporal relations of occurrences…

• A relative existent attribute (of events).
• It is dimension (along with the spatial dimension).
• It is the relational context for all things chronological (but not the actualization of these relations into its own ‘event’).
• It is never ‘an event’ (nor ‘non-event’ as attributes exist).
• It is an abstract, not a concrete.
• It is measurement, not measurable.
• Bounds or scales don’t apply — the temporal is a relational attribute of universal time (and all its potential sequences).

 

Example:

The full-stop at the end of this sentence has limited temporal extension into the past and future.

 

Antonym:

The spatial

(Emphatically not instantaneous/timelessness)

The temporal can only be contrasted with the one other dimension.

 

 

NB, I maintain that there are only two ‘essential’ relational existents: the spatial and the temporal. Moreover, the spatial defines the temporal; the temporal defines the spatial.

(Do they ‘require’ entities to exist or just differences between one another?) 

 

 

Before tackling ‘spacetime’ it might be worthwhile defining the next pair; entity , along with its rather neglected twin, event …

 

 

Entity ⁓

The OED gives one definition…

• A thing with distinct and independent existence.

 

However, as all things are also processes (given enough time), it might be conceptually correct to tease out the two distinctive aspects contained within ‘entity’. 

Thus: 

 

⁓   Concept 5. Entity

A word primarily regarding something ‘in space’.

 

Entity = a spatial difference that makes a difference (spatially/temporally).

 

I believe this get to the very essence of ‘entity’ (more so than through invocations of solidity, ostensibility, absoluteness, boundedness, etc.).

 

Entity means specifically a spatial difference. It entails a boundary between itself and the space that it does not occupy — whether another unique entity or ‘the rest of the universe’.

Crucially, it entails uniqueness of identity — yet identity comprises a relative as well as absolute aspect — entities are its attributes, attributes are both relational and absolute.

 

 

⁓   Concept 6. Event

A word primarily regarding something ‘in time’.

 

Event = a temporal difference that makes a difference (spatially/temporally).

 

Again, this get to the very essence of ‘event’ I think (more so than invocations of time-span, change, motion, causal chain, etc.).

 

Entity entails event, events entail entities.

All entities are undergoing some sort of processes (protraction often renders these transmutations imperceptible).

 

 

NB, Objectivism makes a convincing case for the epistemological primacy of entity (thus metaphysically primacy) — our knowledge of reality works by firstly separating-out the relatively stable aspects of any process, the thing undergoing change rather than the overall process/event itself. That is unless the event is the more salient feature — e.g., we think of a gun-shot as an event, in contrast to, say, the Alps (an interminable tectonic event). Events not only entail entities, they are built from entities. 

 

 

❦

 

 

A definition of Spacetime (and its integral curvaceousness)?

Has this disentangling of the three words ( space , time , entity ) into six concepts ( space** / spacial , time / temporal , entity / **event ) been positive for this discussion, or do you think that it’s been hopelessly flawed? Do give me hell if they are invalid — I’m here to learn!

 

Now, would anyone venture a definition of spacetime itself perchance? 

 

 

 

 

 

[StrictlyLogical]

Let us not revert to nominalism or psychology.

Can you state what you take to be true of reality as integrated from percepts and through application of noncontradictory identification?

[MisterSwig]

On 5/29/2019 at 7:00 AM, A.C.E. said:

Has this disentangling of the three words ( space , time ,  entity ) into six concepts ( space** / spacial , time / temporal , entity / **event ) been positive for this discussion, or do you think that it’s been hopelessly flawed? Do give me hell if they are invalid — I’m here to learn!

I don’t know about “hopelessly,” but I think your concept of time is flawed. Before getting into it, maybe you could address Peikoff’s view in the Lexicon entry. I note that you say time is not a measurement, whereas Peikoff has it as the genus of the definition.

[StrictlyLogical]

22 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

There is a divide between QM and Spacetime. QM existed before the big bang: https://phys.org/news/2019-05-stabilizing-no-boundary-universe-quantum.html

“Before time” is self contradictory.  The term “before” means a relationship in time where one time is later than another.  The implication of “before time” is that there was a time prior to time’s start… but that is a clear contradiction.  

So, time and the universe (in whatever form it took) existed prior to the big bang event.

[A.C.E]

Here I’ll reply to StrictlyLogical and MisterSwig (the paper that pittsburghjoe advances is a wee bit beyond my ken: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.06757.pdf).

 

I’ll address the disparity between my definitions of Space and Time and The Lexicon.

Then I’ll attempt to state what I take to be true of reality as integrated from percepts and through the application of noncontradictory identification.

 

 

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: entries for Time and Space

Time 

Space 

 

I agree with these explications.

However, my point is that they are explications that I would prefer to call ‘the temporal’ and ‘the spatial’ rather than ‘space’ and ‘time’. 

 

This might be best illustrated by imagining that I had been handed the job of re-editing The Lexicon (ho ho!). I would retain entries for Space and Time (as they are the more commonly used terms), but parse each of them out, something like this…

 

Space ⁓

⁓  Space

(noun — apt for entity)

An anti-concept*: used as approximate substitute for a specific volumetric entity. E.g.; space in my case, outer-space, space-filling object, a vacuum, etc.

 

⁓  The Spatial

(nominalized adjective — apt for existent relational attribute)

“The Spatial,” like “the temporal,” is a relational concept. It does not designate an entity, but a relationship, which exists only within the universe. The universe is not in the spatial any more than it is in the temporal… 

[Peikoff’s definition continues in this way…]

 

Time ⁓

⁓  Time

(noun — apt for event)

An anti-concept*: used as approximate substitute for a specific chronological event. E.g.; now, 1984, five-to-seven, the Pleistocene, next week, etc.

 

⁓  The Temporal

(nominalized adjective — apt for existent relational attribute)

The temporal is a measurement of motion; as such, it is a type of relationship. The temporal applies only within the universe…

[continuation of Peikoff’s definition…]

 

 

* I’ve termed space and time anti-concepts, which might be too harsh — I’m being a tad provocative here. I think they are still useful in common speech, indispensable even, as long as we treat them as the place-holders that they are. 

 

By adopting the spatial/temporal I’m trying to promote the relational meaning couched within space and time, the sense that Peikoff is getting at. I’m concerned that the terms  ‘space’ and ‘time’ tend to be illusive substitutes for actual specific things/events.

 

I don’t know about you, but I’ll let you into the secret machinations of my mind. When I hear ‘space’ I immediately picture a cubic volume of air; when I read ‘time’ I picture an egg-timer running out at four minutes ~ specific concretes rather than abstract relationships, I can’t help it. That’s the issue that I wanted to help resolve by employing an adjective rather than an entity-implying noun.

 

To address MisterSwig’s specific query about time:

On 5/31/2019 at 6:28 PM, MisterSwig said:

I note that you say time is not a measurement, whereas Peikoff has it as the genus of the definition.

 

As indicated above, I don’t immediately view the term ‘time’ as representing measurement — that requires extra effort. The term ‘the temporal’ more suitably fulfills that role because the relatival is implicit: adjectives name relational attributes, nouns do not.

So, other than that grammatical quibble, I’m on board with Peikoff ~ the temporal is measurement. 

 

 

 

 

Is the spatial truer of reality than ‘space’? Is the temporal truer of reality than ‘time’?

This comes from StrictlyLogical’s very exacting question:

On 5/31/2019 at 4:24 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Can you state what you take to be true of reality as integrated from percepts and through application of noncontradictory identification?

 

Perception affords us percepts which can be compared,  contrasted and isolated from other percepts, giving us entities, to be named/conceptualized.

The Spatial is a concept abstracted in reality from entities — it is not abstracted from ‘space’.

It isolates one of two essential relational aspects of an entity: (non-temporal) relationships; relative position, length, volume, etc.

 

Ditto The Temporal … 

 

I know I’m being controversial — effectively taking Rand’s Razor to ‘space’ and ‘time’ for what I consider to be a more fitting definition. 

I don’t think that this proposal is reverting to nominalism or psychological obfuscation — is it?

I currently view it as an attempt to clarify concepts, to ensure that they better map reality, are more precise, are objective.

 

I hope this post has been a bit clearer than my last?

 

 

 

So then, where might I be going horribly wrong?

 

[StrictlyLogical]

1 hour ago, A.C.E. said:

Here I’ll reply to StrictlyLogical and MisterSwig (the paper that pittsburghjoe advances is a wee bit beyond my ken: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.06757.pdf).

 

I’ll address the disparity between my definitions of Space and Time and The Lexicon.

Then I’ll attempt to state what I take to be true of reality as integrated from percepts and through the application of noncontradictory identification.

 

 

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: entries for Time and Space

Time 

Space 

 

I agree with these explications.

However, my point is that they are explications that I would prefer to call ‘the temporal’ and ‘the spatial’ rather than ‘space’ and ‘time’. 

 

This might be best illustrated by imagining that I had been handed the job of re-editing The Lexicon (ho ho!). I would retain entries for Space and Time (as they are the more commonly used terms), but parse each of them out, something like this…

 

Space ⁓

⁓  Space

(noun — apt for entity)

An anti-concept*: used as approximate substitute for a specific volumetric entity. E.g.; space in my case, outer-space, space-filling object, a vacuum, etc.

 

⁓  The Spatial

(nominalized adjective — apt for existent relational attribute)

“The Spatial,” like “the temporal,” is a relational concept. It does not designate an entity, but a relationship, which exists only within the universe. The universe is not in the spatial any more than it is in the temporal… 

[Peikoff’s definition continues in this way…]

 

Time ⁓

⁓  Time

(noun — apt for event)

An anti-concept*: used as approximate substitute for a specific chronological event. E.g.; now, 1984, five-to-seven, the Pleistocene, next week, etc.

 

⁓  The Temporal

(nominalized adjective — apt for existent relational attribute)

The temporal is a measurement of motion; as such, it is a type of relationship. The temporal applies only within the universe…

[continuation of Peikoff’s definition…]

 

 

* I’ve termed space and time anti-concepts, which might be too harsh — I’m being a tad provocative here. I think they are still useful in common speech, indispensable even, as long as we treat them as the place-holders that they are. 

 

By adopting the spatial/temporal I’m trying to promote the relational meaning couched within space and time, the sense that Peikoff is getting at. I’m concerned that the terms  ‘space’ and ‘time’ tend to be illusive substitutes for actual specific things/events.

 

I don’t know about you, but I’ll let you into the secret machinations of my mind. When I hear ‘space’ I immediately picture a cubic volume of air; when I read ‘time’ I picture an egg-timer running out at four minutes ~ specific concretes rather than abstract relationships, I can’t help it. That’s the issue that I wanted to help resolve by employing an adjective rather than an entity-implying noun.

 

To address MisterSwig’s specific query about time:

 

As indicated above, I don’t immediately view the term ‘time’ as representing measurement — that requires extra effort. The term ‘the temporal’ more suitably fulfills that role because the relatival is implicit: adjectives name relational attributes, nouns do not.

So, other than that grammatical quibble, I’m on board with Peikoff ~ the temporal is measurement. 

 

 

 

 

Is the spatial truer of reality than ‘space’? Is the temporal truer of reality than ‘time’?

This comes from StrictlyLogical’s very exacting question:

 

Perception affords us percepts which can be compared,  contrasted and isolated from other percepts, giving us entities, to be named/conceptualized.

The Spatial is a concept abstracted in reality from entities — it is not abstracted from ‘space’.

It isolates one of two essential relational aspects of an entity: (non-temporal) relationships; relative position, length, volume, etc.

 

Ditto The Temporal … 

 

I know I’m being controversial — effectively taking Rand’s Razor to ‘space’ and ‘time’ for what I consider to be a more fitting definition. 

I don’t think that this proposal is reverting to nominalism or psychological obfuscation — is it?

I currently view it as an attempt to clarify concepts, to ensure that they better map reality, are more precise, are objective.

 

I hope this post has been a bit clearer than my last?

 

 

 

So then, where might I be going horribly wrong?

 

I agree generally, but I would counsel less caution regarding quantification or measurement of relationships. Time and space even as completely relational are subject to measurement and quantification.  Quantity does not necessarily imply substance or entity.  That said I am empathetic to your warnings regarding conceptual sloppiness normally associated with the common terms “time” and “space”.

[MisterSwig]

4 hours ago, A.C.E. said:

…adjectives name relational attributes, nouns do not.

That isn’t true. Nouns name things. Relational attributes are things, and so nouns name them. For example, my brother is a male related to me by the same parentage. Brother is a noun, yet it refers to a relational attribute of a person.

Also, adjectives modify nouns, they don’t replace them. Fraternal doesn’t mean a male sibling. It modifies some noun, such as bond or society, to give it a characteristic(s) of male siblings. The modification could be of a literal or figurative nature, depending on the provided context.

I would rank your “grammatical quibble” as the #1 issue here. It’s more of a conceptual clash, in my view. But I’ll try to move on.

Regarding the word time, I use it to name a thing. It is a measurement of motion. It is a year, which is one Earth orbit around the Sun. It is a day, or one Earth rotation around its axis. It’s also an hour, 1/24th of an Earth rotation. Your egg timer measures the rotation of the Earth–in minutes. If it were slow or fast, you would recalibrate it according to the standard of Earth’s rotation. You wouldn’t take the egg timer as the standard and redefine a “minute” based on its slow or fast movement. You’d find a clock that accurately measures an Earth rotation in minutes, and you’d compare it to that.

6 hours ago, A.C.E. said:

By adopting the spatial/temporal I’m trying to promote the relational meaning couched within space and time, the sense that Peikoff is getting at. I’m concerned that the terms  ‘space’ and ‘time’ tend to be illusive substitutes for actual specific things/events.

The problem is that by promoting the relational, you’re demoting the actual thing which is relational. Relationships are not primary existents.

I don’t understand your concern about “space” and “time” being “illusive substitutes for actual specific things/events.” Words don’t substitute for reality. They refer to it. This is one difference between a subjective and objective orientation: either words take the place of reality or they represent it.

7 hours ago, A.C.E. said:

As indicated above, I don’t immediately view the term ‘time’ as representing measurement — that requires extra effort.

Is effort your standard for meaning? If a meaning comes more easily to mind, then is it more accurate than one that requires extra effort? 

[Grames]

12 hours ago, A.C.E. said:

…snip

 

So.  Is it a fair understanding of your statement that the concepts space and time are reifications, but the attributes spatial and temporal are not?

[A.C.E]

Grames…

On 6/3/2019 at 4:56 AM, Grames said:

Is it a fair understanding of your statement that the concepts space and time are reifications, but the attributes spatial and temporal are not?

 

That’s a brilliantly succinct summary of my position — I wish I had been as clear.

 

Yes.

But I would put it no stronger than this:

I think the concept-words ‘space’ and ‘time’ drift towards entity/event reification — simply because the words denoting the concepts are common (abstract) nouns. As we are describing relational attributes rather than entity/event, ‘ the spatial ’ and ‘ the temporal ’ would be a much more suitable word choices — truer to objective reality.

 

(Love the “…snip” by the way) 

 

 

 

StrictlyLogical…

I heed Strictly’s caution about relations being open to measurement, and that a specific quantification doesn’t implicate entity/event. That would be throwing our relations-exist-cognisant-baby out with the reification-of-relations-bathwater (to stretch an idiomatic expression well beyond breaking-point!).

Anyway, it looks like SL deciphered my overall intention pretty well.

 

 

 

MisterSwig…

On 6/3/2019 at 12:22 AM, MisterSwig said:

Nouns name things. Relational attributes are things, and so nouns name them.

 

I’m taking ‘things’ to mean entities.

I don’t think relational attributes are entities. ‘Space’ and ‘time’ are existents yes, but not entities.

Cf. The Lexicon entry for Space:

“Space,” like “time,” is a relational concept. It does not designate an entity, but a relationship, which exists […]

 

 

I do agree with MisterSwig that adjectives always refer to a noun. However, the spacial and the temporal are nominalized adjectives, i.e., adjectives used as a noun.

 

The words ‘ the spatial ’ and ‘ the temporal ’ are presented as if they were any other existent (just like the nouns space/time) but, because their identity is adjectival, they come prefigured as being essentially relational. This nips in the bud any instinctive ‘solidification’ of relational existents into reified ‘things’.

 

 

On 6/3/2019 at 12:22 AM, MisterSwig said:

The problem is that by promoting the relational, you’re demoting the actual thing which is relational. Relationships are not primary existents.

 

No, I don’t intend to demote that which is being related.

Entities/Events are ‘primary’ existents in that they define the existent spatial/temporal relations.

NB, I’d caution against taking ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ too literally — no existent has more/less primacy than another — no matter that we can distinguish ‘primary sense entities’ (like my trusty pipe) from a gradation of entities with fuzzier bounds (those puffs of bluish smoke arising from it, plus any existent Brownian measurement betwixt those molecules in motion). 

 

 

On 6/3/2019 at 12:22 AM, MisterSwig said:

I don’t understand your concern about “space” and “time” being “illusive substitutes for actual specific things/events.” Words don’t substitute for reality. They refer to it.

 

Fine, but I was trying to draw attention to this: whenever we say “space” or “time” in common parlance we are usually referring to a specific part of space or slice of time rather than the unbounded, non-scale, dimensional concept of relationships.

We might hear or say: 

“The Earth has been spinning around the Sun for a long time…”

“There is a considerable amount of space between our sun and the centre of our galaxy…”

 

These utterances represent specific ready-bounded parts/slices for “space” and “time”. We are so accustomed to experiencing parts/slices as belonging to limited wholes — inductive reasoning. Thus, from the above sentences, as well as a lifetime of similar reinforcing phrases, it’s an extra step to grasp what “space” and “time” ought to really signify. It takes some concerted focus to think of space and time as having no intrinsic bounds, no intrinsic scale, as standing for utterly relational existents.

 

 

This brings me to MisterSwig’s last objection…

 

On 6/3/2019 at 12:22 AM, MisterSwig said:

Is effort your standard for meaning?

 

 

No, not at all.

Best fit with objective reality would be my standard.

I’m arguing that the spatial / the temporal is more precise, truer.

 

NB, effort and language: like water, a good language adapts to new knowledge, and should be allowed to flow naturally along any newly etched channels. The effort of maintaining redundant linguistic formulations, artificial dams that preserve surpassed knowledge, is not a virtue (except for studying old texts). I see the words ‘space’ and ‘time’ as potentially damming objective thinking.

 

 

Now I certainly don’t expect everyone to immediately drop ‘space’ and ‘time’ in metaphysical discussions any ‘time’ soon. I’ll sit back and wait and see whether or not people start adopting it for clarification in metaphysical discussions…

“…space (i.e., the spacial)…”

…until it becomes obvious that the nominalized adjective is actually the more appropriate term and can even be used on its own. It’s a handy grammatical tool, why not select the right tool for the job?

 

 

 

 

Right then. Any major disagreements in this post or should we end it here?

 

 

P.S.

Of course I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in my last post when I suggested re-editing The Lexicon. However, I do think it’s high time for a more precise and detailed version — less of a scrapbook of Galt quotes and lecture clippings; more an Objectivist glossary for keywords.

Perhaps a special epistemology forum thread to kick that project off?

[StrictlyLogical]

4 minutes ago, A.C.E. said:

That would be throwing our relations-exist-cognisant-baby out with the reification-of-relations-bathwater

Love it.

 

As for your gravitation toward cleaning up language, I believe the better approach is to clean up the conceptual referent of the language.  Words cannot work out the concepts for anyone, parrots do not think, … so for the humans, once one has worked out the concepts the term used is not crucial.

Rand’s use of the term the “moral” is a perfect example.  Rather than capitulate the term to the anti-concept(s) it included as much of its referent territory, she generalized and clarified what valid concepts the term had within its purview and cleaned up the conceptual scope to which it applied, generating a proper word-concept.

The same is likely the best approach to the terms space and time… there’s unnecessary baggage but it easily can be left behind (by anyone who is not a parrot).  Any statement about positions or points in time or quantities of space or time, are relational, quantifiable, and existential, but simply do not constitute entities… no problem once you’ve worked it out.