infinite, eternal universe

. I was going to provide an alternative to north, but by the looks of his last reply, he's just not patient enough to give me the time to feed the God of the books.
_____________________________________________________________________

Skarp

repeat 50 times, i'm not making sense!! assuming it is regained somewhat,

answer what i asked on this forum and the question, what came first, matter or conceptuallity?

these were not answered.

next an alternative to what?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">answer what i asked on this forum and the question, what came first, matter or conceptuallity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Well I've been saying that Existence is conceptual. That would include matter as being conceptual, but ,,,,,, and there is a but - Matter is not fundamental to existence. I.E We could have Existence without matter. In light of this - I would find it acceptable to say that matter comes in at a close second.

Now it's your turn north. I made this statement
"One will suffice if one is common to all that Exist."
_____________________________________________________________________


To which you replied with exclamation

---

ANS: it is not common!!

---

Then I asked -
Give me an example.

Well I'm waiting.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />Skarp,


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'd say that Tom's views are quite the opposite, i.e. non-faith based.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Is this statement not based on faith? <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How can it not continue forever in all directions? To my mind, visualizing an end to space is impossible, leading me to conclude there can be no such end.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Does this mean that I can say - How can it continue forever in all directions? To my mind visualizing no end to space is impossible, leading me to conclude there is an end.

If his statement is logical, so is mine.
Fact is both are assumptions without support.

His statements fall apart elswhere though.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Either space has a boundary, or it does not. (This dichotomy covers all possibilities.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> No problem here!<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If space has a boundary, then the boundary must separate space from non-space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> A little sketchy here but still no problem. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(A boundary that separated space from other space would not be a "boundary to space", by definition.) <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Whoa! Stop the presses! Where dat new space come from! I thought we were talking about how the boundry must seperate space from non-space, and then out of nowhere - poof! we have a boundry that seperated space from other space? The logical train of thought just crashed. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But existence means "occupying space", so non-space cannot exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This statement needs a bit more info, but it is an acceptable statement without the additional information.

Therefore, the premise that "space has a boundary" is excluded. And that proves that space has no boundary.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Say what?! Where dat come from? How can you come to this conclusion when you crash half way to it?

Skarp,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> We could have Existence without matter. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Don't think so, but it depends on what you define as matter. To me, matter represents all substances and forms in the Universe. Existence without substance, and thus without properties, is not a viable concept. Anyone?

Skarp

from you,"Matter is not fundamental to existence".HOW!!

i expect more than a statement this time, i want your thinking behind this statement,a FULL explaination!!

by the way your above statement is ridiculous.

Jan

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Don't think so, but it depends on what you define as matter. To me, matter represents all substances and forms in the Universe. Existence without substance, and thus without properties, is not a viable concept. Anyone?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Got to head off for work here shortly, but as you said {it depends on what is defined as matter}. Matter to me is the localization of the foci of photons. If for instance - these foci that make up matter become free ranging - no matter can be observed. If anything is fundamental to Existence - It is a photon, and a photon is not matter. A photon is a geometric representation of Non-Existence, and they can't be a representation of matter lest they become localized. I.E In some sort of orbital wherein there is resistance to being moved through self interaction.

Hey north - Wheres my example of anything, and I do mean anything without a one being common to it?