What is that which is spatiotemporal?

What is that which is spatiotemporal?

What is that which is both spatial and intemporal?

I already have my answers, but am curious as to what this board might blurt out.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spatio
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

>What is that which is spatiotemporal?
everything we can perceive

>What is that which is both spatial and intemporal?
there's no such thing

This is a trick question, isn't it?

pleb

where I'm wrong user-chan, Schopenhauer says in his world as will and representation that there's no space without time and vice versa when it comes to perceiving things so at least my second answer is correct by his standards
and knowing he accepts a prioriness of space and time as forms that determine our intellect (so perceiving of world as representation too) correct answer to the first answer would be "world as representation"

to the first question*

In a sense, nothing and everything.

We cannot have a sensible intuition of the manifold of appearance without the intuition of space and time.

But we also cannot just have an experience of space and time. That would lead to an absurdity (a space within some other space, a time within some other time-type business).

So all appearances exist in space and time, we empirically validate the existence of space and time through this reality, but we can only ever come up with a transcedental ideality of space and time (which invites skepticism/never really answers Humes charge).

What was Hume's charge?

I always was and will always be what's spatiotemporal.

My will always was and will always be what's both spatial and intemporal.

Why did you post a picture of Kant?
According to him neither "I" nor "my will" is spatial.

Kant is the original apriori time and space dude.

CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE TRANSCENDENTAL SYNTHESIS OF THE MANIFOLDA
A
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

>a time within some other time
What is memory?

>My will always was and will always be what's both spatial and intemporal.
since space and times are transcendental and subjective a priori forms will by definition, being something beyond space and time cannot be spatial.
Also for Kant and Schopenhauer, "I" was not only spatiotemporal, for Kant "I" was also thing-in-itself and for Schopenhauer "I" was also the Will. So you're wrong both ways

Space and time are a priori forms of sensibility

>Absolutely everything is spatiotemporal

You're wrong.
What are Plato's Ideas.

...

we are talking in the framework of Kant's and Schopenhauer's philosophy
They didn't say that everything is spatiotemporal, Kant said there is noumenal world, Schopenhauer said that there is will. Please avoid threads on thinkers you haven't even read wikipedia about

The will is not spatiotemporal.
The will is both spatial and intemporal.

What's wrong with that?

it's a contradiction

the will is not spatial and not temporal
the will is spatial and not temporal
the will is spatial and not spatial

see?

This.

>an absurdity (a space within some other space
What is imagination.

>a space within some other space

what are concentric circlezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

WHERE ARE YOUR ORGANS

Okay how about this:

The will is not spatiotemporal.
The will is spatio-intemporal.

You guys are no better than religionfags.
The ideas you're presenting are intriguing and can give us much to talk about.
It's good old fun when all is said and done.

Just that. Fun.

As opposed to...?

how about this:

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spatio

the will is not 'spatio'
the will is 'spatio'
the will is 'spatio' and is not 'spatio'

You're not looking at the bigger picture here.
Spatio-intemporal is more than just "spatial".

The will is not spatial in the first place.

That doesn't say anything.

Hmm.

Where does Schopenhauer claim that will is spatial? Give me a page number, I have the Cambridge edition of WWR right on front of me.

this guy gets it.
nowhere does Schopenhauer say that Will is spatial, or temporal.
spatio-temporal phenomena are merely the forms the Will takes.

To something real, which we could be discussing instead of having said fun.

wouldn't geometric shapes (triangles, circles) count a spatial but non temporal?

Such as..?

I don't know man.
My point is, everywhere I look everything just seems to be pointless bs.
For instance, something that shocked me the other day was Buddhism.

I, like most only had a vague idea of what it really is like, so I went on a little research adventure.
And it really blew my mind how something I always thought was a "decent" religion is just as shitty as all the rest, if not worse in certain aspects.

That's just one little observation.
Among other things I've immersed myself in, as always it just lead to speculative horseshit masquerading as facts and hard truth.

Lastly, this is not a "religion" thing, this can line of thought takes me all over the place.

yes, but triangles and circles not real are they?

You realize Kant OF ALL THINKERS is most concerned with trying to discern what can be spoken about as facts and hard truth.
Whether he succeeded or not is another matter (and one for those well versed) but there is a great irony in your frustration here

*yes, but triangles and circles don't really exist, do they?

i don't know what happened there

Real in what sense

in the ontological sense

Nonsensical expression. How are abstract shapes not real ontologically?

without looking at rest of thread or google

spatiotemporal is synonymous with phenomena?

What is nominalism?

Kantian metaphysics is nonsense.

Referring to a name for a position is not a defence of a position

they are objects of possible experience surely, within the transcendental unity of apperception

this post should have been /thread
nobody even mentioned a black hole, which afaik is the only legitimate objection

that's a form/noumenon/thing-in-itself, it has no real spatial quality.

I think the burden of proof is on you. Seems to me totally unecessary to postulate the existence of abstract shapes when the empirical world gives us no indication of their existence.

Empricism ending in skepticism.

An obvious result of imagination, which itself is temporal. We ALWAYS represent things as temporal. I know you nor the other guy below your comment have never read Kant because he literally features both memory and imagination in his discussion of this. It's not that hard to google, faggots.

Now this is where things get interestinf. According to Kant, all math is synthetic. I would imagine he'd say concentric circles are just abstractions off space, which is still subject to the categories. This is highly debatable, needless to say.

lol deleuze

*ever
Fuck mobile

>who is saul kripke
Oh shut the fuck up. You use abstract objects all the time without realizing it because you are essentially unphilosophically minded. Go take an elementary logic class, faggot.

>science
wew

mah nigga

>Seems to me totally unecessary to postulate the existence of abstract shapes

lol try tell a fucking four year old that circles don't exist.

I hope you're not because that would be pretty lel.

>merely thinking of something is good reason for believing it's real

I use abstract object because they fill a theoretical need, it's a shortcut to make life easy. But that doesn't mean they really exist.

So name some things that actually exist then

Not that guy, or the guy above me
>what is intuition
But like the poster above, i want you to give me an account of existence and reference. Kant and Kripke manage to in a convincing way.

concrete things

Just concrete or does marble also exist?
How about glass? I guess that only half exists because you can see through it

...

How do you account for concrete things? Also, what do you mean exactely by concrete?

My man its time to stop talking with this imbecile, while entertaining you have better things to do

and i'm sick of explaining basic fucking distinctions to high school kids. maybe if you cut down on the cringy edgyness together with your unnecessary entities i'll see you tomorrow

Try reddit instead maybe

Abstract shape being intemporal would depend on the argument:

Anytime the concept of a circle or square is thought of, or generated, it requires time or its generation.

That the representation of a square on Earth, cannot be depicted, without using time to create it, would this not implicitly that time is explicitly involved in the existence of 'a shape'.

Now, interestingly enough, this does not mean that if there was no time there was no shapes. So I suppose that does suggest that shapes are beyond time, lets say the universe froze right now and there was no time, there would still be shapes, rounds, and jagged edges, but lets say its unpaused, and then paused again, and there are different shapes now than from the first pause, if there was only the timeless first pause, then those shapes in the second pause that were newly seen would have never been experienced so able to be included in the timeless pantheon of shapes:

But does this mean a universe needs time to display all possible shapes? And if infinite things are not represented, and cannot exist in this universe or any, do they still have an abstract existence, and is that as much as one as shapes have? Or because shapes may be in more possible universes than ytghlakiphans they have some more clout in the universality of universals, and beyond

logical forms a la geometry and even mathematics generally are still a priori, even if their elaboration over time in consciousness demand that they be synthetic a priori.
I believe this is the debate the motivated the whole critique

is there an abstract finite number of geometric shapes? Though its a high number, with 'increase angle by.01 degrees' shapes. but triangle, square, are the straight, proportioned, ones, shapes, and so eternally, regardless of if any universe ever existed at all, and in every one of them, the triangle, and square would have some 'auto significance', would be, the eternal concept of the square, the eternal concept of the triangle, eternally basic and proportionate possibilities, arrangement of concept, arrangement of matter. Would this same line of thing be true for other things and how plato arrived at his idea of forms: a real square, a real perfect accurate actual square has never bee drawn or represented because atoms, but we still understand the concept and idea and ideal of square, of the shape and the meaning of the graphed coordinates that equal square; a real car has been seen, but there are many real cars, but there could always be a better and more perfect car, the car of all cars, and like the square of all squares cannot be represented, and the 9 of all 9s cannot be represented, the car of all cars cannot be represented, and the cat of all cats, but the conceptual perfect idea of these, is an eternal perfect form, of which all manifestations of are based

Your issue here is locating the shape as something objective that is to be "depicted' and could exist outside time.
But Kant would say that this is incorrect. That the shape is an object of cognition and a cognition which requires time to manifest. While the substance of which shapes are derived can exist in a timeless state they remain merely substance.

It is possible that even in that circumstance that shapes can exist in of themselves in a timeless state but we can not speak of it as we only have access to our cognition of them which is contingently dependent on time

I should mention too in regards to are there an infinite shapes. Kant would say that indeed while there will be an infinite variety of potential shapes they are all reducible to a schematism
i.e. a triangle is a shape derived from three lines where any two are larger than the sum of another.
While the potential amount of shapes are infinite it is only through the continuous variety through the synthetic unity of more fundamental cognition's (points, lines, angles etc.)

>The (a posteriori, empirically represented) natural world
>The ideal structure of a formal (mathematical) geometric system
(Bonus Question: What is temporal but not spatial?)
>The abstract mathematical representation of temporal relations - which are characterized by a partial ordering (a poset) in the case of the temporal relations studied in the context of empirical natural science (i.e. Relativistic Physics), and characterized by a strict total ordering (a well ordered set) in the case of the analysis of the temporal structure of phenomenal consciousness, as well as intersubjective, normative time (i.e. "common sense" temporal relations - those established by the "date and time" characterization of clocks and calendars).

But the core simple fundamental balanced proportioned common shapes, are the ones that would likely most commonly crop up across the universe and across multiple possible universes, (crop up to the attention of intelligent entities), and is this attention which gives the square and triangle its 'standing out specialness', its commonness, universal commonness, standing out from 'infinite (debateable, but alot alot) other shapes', Like wise across many other possible styles of formations of universes the numbers 3, 5, 7, 9 would crop up more often in use and significance, than the number 3968436398.

Or does square and triangle have some significant holy champion cool points specialness against (debatable) infinite other shapes beyond humans and aliens in this universe and any other, but simply beyond all things, eternal eternal time times eternal eternal time, the concept of square, triangle, is its own perfect fundamental unexistent existent, neverexistent everexistent, 'item', truth

The "significance" of the shapes is simply in their schematic simplicity. That any position in the universe can be expressed in terms of its triangular relationship to two other points or that any two dimensional area can be most simply expressed in terms of a square.
The objective shapes are significant to us only because it is the schema itself that they reveal to us, and their use to us in term is only because their schematic simplicity makes them so efficient.

In the end the fundamentals of angles and lines reign supreme over any shape.

I was saying more, platonic solids (triangle, square for example), would be thee platonic solids to intelligent aliens throughout the universe, and if a number of other universe are possible over infinite time, in a number of those, the triangle, and square, will be the triangle and square, and they are popular shapes because their balance and proportion, and simplicity, makes them useful to intelligent entities? But a number of other universes could develop intelligent entities that find other shapes more useful?

Certainly it is the case. Bees are the supreme example with what use they make of Hexagons

I was saying, is time a quality of squares, because squares could not exist if time did not, but then I think is time not a quality of every single thing then, which then makes me wonder about OPs: What is that which is both spatial and intemporal?

Me, without thinking thinking intemporal meant 'not having anything to do with time'.

Space? Space has nothing to do with time,

Indeed according to Kant time is infact dependant on space itself, though not at all derived from it. As what is time at all to speak of if it has no changes in space to reference itself from. Space must therefore be independent of time as far as it is a mere potentiality of outer sense

Of the shapes you mention. All of them. But for the same reason the number 1, 2, 3 "stand out". The simpler an instanciation of a schemata the more applicability it will have. As for any given task its expedient to use the simplest solution.

But you must see its not that these shapes are in themselves significant outside that. Its purely derived from their shared identity as expressions of geometry.

lets say there were 1000s of universes before this one, and there will be 1000s after (say that number is millions):
lets say in this universe there are millions of intelligent species, and lets say on average there are millions of intelligent species in each universe that exists (this is working theoretical thought experiment under the consideration the universe as a system may grow and shrink or fundamental change in cycles or sequence, it is just a thought experiment regardless, the interesting topics are still interesting and relevant data can be garnered, that is also merely a level extra, from considering the universe does not born and die and reborn, but lives eternal, or the other option, a single birth and single death and then eternal ash to follow, so under the condition of only considering the current universe, and the highly potential likely fact of there existing other intelligent species, what percent of intelligent species throughout all time (is another and simply clearer way of saying all that) regard, triangle, circle, square as being 'something fundamentally significant' standing out in its unique simple perfection, of being actually it, a triangle, the simple, eternal concept of representing a perfect order (equilateral that is), it must relate to that, order, (proportion, balance, evenness);

What percent of intelligent species over all time recognize the triangle, square, circle, as particularly standing out compared to as an user said 'infinite geometric shapes', existing.

And furthermore lets say 90% or more of them said: yes, we have discovered there is something to that triangle, it is so, universally itself, so recognizable and pure and perfect, and eternally simple.

We have also discovered 9999 other geometric shapes, we have also discovered 4096463 geometric shapes, so is it purely an ignorant bufoonary kneejerk by my feeling that I have some more common intimate relation with the simplest, is this simplicty true, what is it based on, is it purely my ignorance of the other shapes, if I learned 100 geometric shapes at once, is me choosing circle, triangle, square, completely based on nothing but my own simplicty and ignorance, all possible geometric shapes exist 'in unwriten theory', some of which is written, most of which is comprehend, space, points, line, disection, grid, numbers graph, points occupying numbers non repeating, finitude, angles, degrees, connecting, even if know matter existed, this mind with imaginary paper and pen can represent any shape. Beyond the minds, is there any favor, of geometric shape, or are they all equal, and how many more chaoses are there than possible orders, how many more none perfect shapes can be created than perfect.

In short: Everything and nothing

In long: Read up on some eastern contemplative traditions.

We live in a world where we have labels for everything. And while labels are useful, there is nothing inherently special about them.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Conceptually, this is pretty easy to grasp, I think. But to let go of labels and identifying with them and all of that is much harder to explain. It all comes down to your own personal experience in this life.

huh

About is the concept of a square spatial?

>What is that which is spatiotemporal?

What is that which is not spatio, spatial. Are numbers, is the concept of numbers, are the pure forms of numbers, spatial? (Are shapes?) (Are colors?)

Same question for time. (are numbers, shapes, colors, 'temporal'.)
What is that which is both spatial and intemporal?

The nonexistent concepts of numbers, and shapes? They do not exist but they are true, all it takes for them to exist is sufficiently powered minds to realize the potentials of these ideas, perfect order and proportion and sectioning and consistency and comparing, but people may come, understand consistent proportion of numbers, and then go, and this may happen again and again, and it compels one to think even when people did not exist, and so were not physically producing 2+2s=4s and squares, the activities were still taking place, a football field length field is still 100 yards and could be split into 10 even sections of 10, but then you have to say, yeah so every number and shape even though varies in complexity equally exist at all times (by not existing) but by being possible once a type of sufficiently advanced mind-entities realize even and consistent proportion and demarcating.

So like those old cheap handheld videogames with the screen where you can see all the shades of possible numbers and symbols,

>it has no real spatial quality.
It creates the spatial quality it needs, by its own terms.

the concept of shape requires the concept of space, shape requires space to be the shape it is.

temporal however, this is about did the 'one perfect eternal concept of *a shape*, the gold standard, the universal perfect truest idealest model', take an amount of time for primordial babby God to draw. Or did it always exist. Does the idea of all shapes always exist, as over time, it is possible for the idea of all shapes to be realized over and over again. Or did before anything anythings back back back was there just always a triangle, before anything was made, or thought, or done, the impossible the ever persistant and omnipresent and prescient triangle was there, and then also a square, and every other shape, you can take any space, and air draw a square and then pretend to dice it up into slices, more and more,and crosses this way and that, and represent every shape, its very simple to do that at any space at any time, very little requirements to see, that my connecting dots with even lines and increments in space (though that is the cheeky, taking time bit) is how it is possible that 'a lot of possible shapes are possible'.

But that absence of substance, that is, the concept of a triangle, is true, the idea of a triangle doesnt exist in material, naturally, the gold standard, its a matter of different matter being used to make it, but different matter makes different cars and its still a car.

The concept of shapes is totally contained within the existence of a spatial magnitude itself.
Its not that there is in a space the possibility for shapes to exist. A spatial dimension itself precludes the existence of all shapes by necessity.
In the same sense in which there are no shapes without space, there could never be a space which can not contain all shapes. They are transcendentally synonymous.

Cool, so now back to OPs questions:

Is there anything that is not spatiotemporal, (concepts? Love? the future right now? the number 9999295242 to the 23942359325 power before I wrote it?

Is there anything intemporal? concepts? Shapes?

Or is the totality of all things and all possible things fated for all of total history to be spatial and temporal?

Imagine if stuff existed, a lot of stuff, but not a single bit of it moved, and not a single bit of it move and was promised guaranteed to never move for all of history, then that would be as if there was no time, but there would be space in that instant, and in that instant, the stuff that exists could be in shapes, like squares, but how could love exist, in this timeless state?

Perhaps the universe was paused while 2 people were holding hands in love, or perhaps many books and dvds were created about love and are frozen in place in the now timeless universe.

But those creations, and the relationships between man and woman require time to exist.

So there must be a point in which the concept of love was never known, square as well, even if these concepts can be known by many different types of intelligent entities, in many different types of universes.

But does this mean the idea of a triangle, square, love, (justice), etc. had to be invented by an inventor, is there no such thing as a pure 100% invention, because 'everything that is possible is possible' and so there are only different types of monkeys with different types of typewriters, but who designed the typewriters, and who was the first monkey to love.

Another way to ask or say; if absolutely only absolutely nothing eternally existed, would the 'concept of everything, everything that could exist if things could exist' ""exist""?

Which is like saying, a mind then could think of everything; or it is saying 'there are things that the total minds that come into existence may not think, 'but they are possible to think', just not of the minds that exist, or will, but it was possible, though eventually it gets too: the physical substance of the universe over eternal time could not possibly have functioned, created, produced: effect 1a, situation 2y, thing 6b, event 5e:

But even there still, things can attempt to be represented (cartoons and such) of things that are not possible in this universe and maybe any.

But do minds necesssarily need to be fed, to be provided information, and the assumedly complex establishment of materials and mechanics required to house conciousness: could a mind find itself turned on, awakened for the first time and understand a decent amount of information and understanding about triangles and love and law and beauty and proportion and math and justice?

Hypothetically. It would be God

If God, Gods, all the gods, and total most intelligent species of entities throughout the universes throughout all time, ad the spirit of Perfect Truth itself; were to write a wikipedia entry on The Triangle and everything about it; the totality of information required to know everything about the true, pure, absolute essence, identity, nature, of The Triangle; how long would the entry be?

Would things like the musical instrument triangle be included; and sports pennants, and backgammon board; are all of these necessary spirits of The Triangle, bringing out its possible utility over space, material and time? Is the totality of conscious relation and natural creations to the triangle what is being asked for?

no, that is a not well thought out statement: God could not exist, and 'be something', and lack the quality of space. or time.

So unless you are implying God does not exist as a thing or entity capable of doing anything or thinking, then you will have to write something else.