Jon Atack vs the axioms

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
Look at it like this: You are the viewpoint. What you are looking at is the dimension ( space )

In other words, space is being defined as: that which you are looking at. Granted it's a nebulous definition, but isn't space rather nebulous anyway? No one can say where its borders are. So it might as well be defined as that which you can see. Even the vaunted Hubble can't see the edge of space - it's too far away.

Voila.

Mimsey

Thanks for trying to explain, but I don't buy it. Space is not "that which you are looking at" as you say above.

If the viewpoint is the spirit, or the location of the spirit, and anchor points or mocked up MEST is what he is viewing, then the space is what is in between. No need to make it complex.

It's a simple concept, but Hubs was making it twisted in order to sound profound.
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Thanks for trying to explain, but I don't buy it. Space is not "that which you are looking at" as you say above.

If the viewpoint is the spirit, or the location of the spirit, and anchor points or mocked up MEST is what he is viewing, then the space is what is in between. No need to make it complex.

It's a simple concept, but Hubs was making it twisted in order to sound profound.

Seems to me it's a bit like Saint Augustine and TIME. If you then substitute TIME with SPACE...

"What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not."
 
It is all circular. Space = between. Between = space. Same with time. Time = persistence; persistence = time.

You need something more basic to define them, and there isn't anything more basic. The maths describes how they work, but doesn't tell us what they are.
 
Top