About Everyday Space

In "Questions, Objections and Answers," Schlesinger dissects some arguments that suggest that space and time are not similar and possess qualities that the other does not have. For example, that one can ask, "Where are you," but not "When are you?" He breaks down illogical perceptions of space and time to show their similarities. Here is an example:

"Bernard Mayo examines the question whether space has order and direction in a fashion that parallels order and direction in time..."

He responds to this later in the answers section:

"Mayo errs by thinking that we cannot compare a succession of moments with a series of Euclidean plane surfaces. The truth is that both are full-fledged successions, possessing all the properties that are possessed by ordered series of elements succeeding one another."

Such as, this lamp is closer spatially than that cup, so one precedes the other, in the same way that a moment precedes another moment. However, the spacial "preceding" comes in terms of someone's perspective- otherwise one could say that the cup precedes the lamp. However, time goes in one direction, so one could only say moment x precedes moment y, but not the other way around. 

He talks about other things too, such as the controversy over the possibility of a multi-dimensional time.

These discussions are interesting, because they are very theoretical require stretches of the imagination to perceive. One has to think the "right way" to find the similarities between space and time, and if one thought about it differently, could perceive it altogether differently. Is there truly a correct way to understand space and time? The objective way that space and time are constructed?

Stories about Parallel Universes

After reading the Buzzfeed article "9 Strange Stories that Might Make You Believe in Parallel Universes," I feel like I've read some very cute fiction by some young authors trying to stretch their writing muscles. None of the stories seem to be backed up by anything, even after I read the sources. Truthfully, it would be very difficult to prove a parallel universe exists and that you have traveled through it. However, silly accounts such as, "I was driving, and then things were different!!" or "I visited a parallel universe and wrote a short story and took some pictures of a desert to prove it!"

In fact, it'd be very difficult to convince me- even a photograph of a portal would make me say, "Such clever vfx!" or "What could this promo be for?"

The story of Lerina was the most interesting to me, because I was talking to my friend who discussed somewhat similar things- "Sometimes I find clothes I don't remember buying," or "I don't even remember when that cup got there!" but those things could also be explained away by something other than parallel universes.

That's not to deny that parallel universes don't exist. I'm just not entirely convinced by these random stories that anyone could write and put up on the internet, and I'm especially skeptical of random websites that are used as sources such as "Week in Weird" or "Before its News."

On the other hand, I don't think there's any way that you could totally dismiss the idea of a parallel reality. We could never truly know, such as there is no way to know for sure if the truth of reality is solipsistic, or divine, or a simulation. 

Relativisitic Space

Below, I try to wrap my head around the theory of relativity, and what the shape of space might look like:

In "Gravity and Spacetime" by Martin Gardner, the author tries to explain to me the concept of a 4-dimensional spacetime as best he can, and I do my very best to try and understand what he's saying. I understand the rules of Euclidian geometry, from highschool geometry, but the rest is all rather new. He goes over elliptic geometry and hyperbolic geometry, which are both based off of the postulate that "parallel lines never meet." He goes on from here, explaining a way to map space and time on a 3-dimensional axis (2-dimensions for space and 1 for time), and to explain how gravity works in Einstein's spacetime- that gravity is caused by the huge weight of planets/stars/celestial bodies in spacetime creating a well in the fabric of spacetime, in which other bodies that are traveling otherwise in a straight line get caught up in. 

These theories and ideas are very interesting to me, although very hard to parse. I haven't had to think about geometry or math or graphs in a long time. These ideas of how space and time work together to influence our reality are very interesting and they give some sense to things that we take for granted- do parallel lines really never meet? What is gravity really and why is it a thing? I've seen the graphic of a large planet laying on a plane, displacing it slightly and how that causes gravity, but I had never read an actual explanation.

I can't really say whether I agree or disagree with these physics because I can't say I truly understand them, and all I know is that truly greater minds have done more with it and understand it way beyond my capability- perhaps all I can say is that with this brief glimpse, I have a greater interest in attempting to understand the idea of spacetime, and even the fact that spacetime is a model of reality and physics rather than just the idea that space and time are in fact things that exist.

My greatest source of confusion is when the author tries to say that actors in space and time might disagree when an event in time occurs or where it occurs in space, but can definitely agree in spacetime. I understand maybe that spacetime is 4 dimensional, but not how it relates to the non-euclidian geometry models we discussed earlier.

I also was interested to read about the mathematical descriptions and models for 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. dimensions, because I was under the impression that we hadn't even begun to comprehend what those could be!

On the subject of understanding the theory of relativity and space-time, these videos below helped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko (Links to an external site.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NblR01hHK6U (Links to an external site.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3GVVkPb3OI (Links to an external site.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwhKZ3fd9JA (Links to an external site.)

I think the series is longer but this seems to cover the concepts introduced in that reading.

Disrupted Space

Below I discuss the story of a man who goes from blind to sighted, and how his experiences shed light on our reality and what it might be like to experience reality differently. Perhaps our experiences, if we could view 4 dimensions, would be similar to Virgil's below:

In Oliver Sacks "To see and not see," he describes the story of a man who has lived almost his whole life blind, and his experience as he recovers his sight. He documents his struggles and perceptions and life, up until he loses his sight again.

"We, with a fiffl complement of senses, live in space and time; the blind live in a world of time alone. For the blind build their worlds from sequences of impressions (tactile, auditory, olfactory), and are not capable, as sighted people are, of a simultaneous visual perception, the making of an instantaneous visual scene. Indeed, if one can no longer see in space then the idea of space becomes incomprehensible and this even for highly intelligent people blinded relatively late in life."

Virgil can move in Space without truly understanding it. Are there dimensions that we move through without understanding or perceiving it? Can we move through or perceive time if only we had another sense? We move through time as though we are a point on a ray- only able to perceive each moment as it comes. If we could suddenly see more of time, would we have to learn and struggle as Virgil does? Probably- senses aren't innate. This implies a lot of things- that our human perception of the world, our sense of reality, isn't explicit. We perceive reality in a very subjective way, with senses that we have evolved. But reality, or space and time, could be very different- with space itself not being straight, but actually curved, as we discussed earlier.

I wonder if there is a way we could create a visual reality that doesn't make any sense, in VR perhaps, that can simulate the confusion that Virgil first experiences when he first regains his sight. The rules about light, perspective, color, movement, are all broken in some way.

Back to Virgil- the transformation of blind man to seeing man seems almost like a complete transfer to a different dimension, like he's gone to a different world- and when he returns to his tactile world, he is much more at home. 

It must have been completely bizarre to him how 3d objects appear to have different forms as they rotate in space, and can look completely different from each angle. It is similar to how a resident of flatland might feel when visiting the 3d world- a completely new dimension, almost.

Politics and Culture of Space

Below is a writing for class in which I discuss how animals and humans choose to occupy and "own" space. These are just some thoughts about how we try to take ownership of space and whether it is natural or learned, a right and necessity or a culture:

I read the "Territorial Imperative," by Robert Ardrey. He writes about how, just like animals, humans carve out spaces for themselves territorially, and the importance of this in understanding the human condition. He explains that territory/owning land is not simply a societal construct but something that exists in the psychology of most animals, such as birds, squirrels, lions, and humans. And that owning territory invigorates and strengthens, 

"Is Homo Sapiens a territorial species? Do we stake out property, chase off trespassers, defend our countries because we are sapient, or because we are animals? Because we choose, or because we must?"

The line of thought is interesting. I think part of it of course is that life is better and easier when we have a place to call our own, to settle down. A place whre we can exist and feel safe and be in our own mind. Being constantly on the move is tiring and takes a lot of energy and there's less stability in it, although I suppose it could be more exciting.

Is it hard to imagine a life without a "room" simply because that's the only way I've lived? I suppose that I could always find another place to spend my time alone, but I could never guarantee my seclusion, and I'd never have anywhere to put all my junk and knick-knacks. Humans and animals all need to sleep, so we all need a place to be.

Where do whales sleep? There's no cave or anything big enough for them to lay their weary heads. 

On Emotional Space

The first thing I read completely was "Being and Time, part 5: Anxiety" by Simon Critchley (Links to an external site.). I haven't read philosophy recently or very in-depth, so it took some effort for me to parse it at first. Critchley in this post tries to explain anxiety as a feeling in an "ontological" sense, and also in reference to Heidegger's work.

He tries to explain anxiety, I think, as a kind of self-awareness and separation of you and reality. It is less a fear of something physical and actual, and anxiety a feeling towards something undefined or general. I think I can relate to this- the feeling of anxiety about nothing in particular, such that you need to dig into your brain and thoughts to determine what could be bothering you. I think anxiety can often manifest itself in a physical pain, too, like a pressure in your chest. Here below is his comparison of fear and anxiety. Maybe one fears a specific test, and has anxiety about their future career, or something.

"Matters are very different with anxiety. If fear is fearful of something particular and determinate, then anxiety is anxious about nothing in particular and is indeterminate. If fear is directed towards some distinct thing in the world, spiders or whatever, then anxiety is anxious about being-in-the-world as such. Anxiety is experienced in the face of something completely indefinite. It is, Heidegger insists, "nothing and nowhere"."

He also discusses further how anxiety is not always "darkness and despair" but can come about in mundane ways. 

"Anxiety does not need darkness, despair and night sweats. It can arise in the most innocuous of situations: sitting in the subway distractedly reading a book and overhearing conversations, one is suddenly seized by the feeling of meaninglessness, by the radical distinction between yourself and the world in which you find yourself. With this experience of anxiety, Heidegger says, Dasein is individualised and becomes self-aware."

Maybe it can come about from your personal sense of self in relation to the world, and whether you feel "connected" to it- a younger me was anxious often about being connected or a part of the world. When you feel yourself as an individual, and you have all the responsibilities of being an individual, to yourself and others, there is maybe some anxiety there.