Mathematics of Space & Time

Anything conceived is accompanied by the dimensions of SPACE and TIME.

  1. Anything conceived is differentiated from what is around it, and from what was there before. These differentiations may be expressed as dimensions of SPACE and TIME.
  2. Mathematically, we may represent a dimension by the length of a line. The line may extend forward or backward without limits.
  3. We may represent a point on the line as a reference point, and call it ZERO. Any other point on the line would then be locatable precisely from this point.
  4. However, any such reference point would be arbitrary, as it could be located anywhere on the line.
  5. Any section of the line may be measured. We may designate a certain line segment as a unit. Any length would then consist of a number of units.
  6. However, any such unit would be arbitrary, and it could be subdivided into smaller units ad infinitum.
  7. EXAMPLE: The sea level serves as the reference point from which to measure heights and depths anywhere on earth.  We may call this reference point ZERO. The unit of “feet” may then be defined arbitrarily and fixed. The height and depth may then be measured as a number of these units.
  8. We may refer to the ZERO of a dimension as the “anchor point” because all other points in the dimension are anchored to it by the fixed arbitrary unit.
  9. We may refer to all other points in the dimension as “dimension points.”
  10. Since any point on the scale may be used as the “anchor point,” the ZERO of the dimension does not mean “absence of dimension.” It only represents the point at which the dimension is anchored.
  11. The “anchor point” of space shall be a specific location (present location); and the “dimension points” of space shall be locations differentiated from the “anchor point,” however infinitesimally.
  12. The “anchor point” of time shall be a specific moment (present time); and the “dimension points” of time shall be moments differentiated from the “anchor point,” however infinitesimally.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • tylerjourneaux  On December 18, 2011 at 4:40 PM

    I think perhaps you mean ‘perceived’ rather than conceived, since conception doesn’t require space (for example, conceive of the number 10). Now, what I’m wondering, is whether you’re suggesting that space is merely phenomenal (much like Leibniz would suggest) or whether you think that space is more like an empty container which a body may or may not occupy? It seems to me it has to be one of the two.


  • vinaire  On December 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM

    Conceiving, to me, is visualizing, and that does require mental space. Maybe I am looking at it differently from you, but that is how I see it.

    When I conceive of 10, I find it contained in a space, which I might call “number space.” The whole idea of space is “to contain.” The “number space” will contain all numbers including 10.

    Mental space is different from physical space. Some may think of mental space as the reflection of physical space in the mind, but that is not necessarily the mental space. In this particular example, mental space would be that, which contains all reflections of the physical universe including the reflection of physical space.

    Your idea of space as a “container” is correct. Just expand upon that idea. If an abstract concept broadly envelops a particular class of specific ideas, then that abstract concept provides the space in which all those specific ideas exist.



  • tylerjourneaux  On December 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM

    I think perhaps you have a very odd view of conception, but either way, perhaps saying ‘perception’ really would have made it easier to read. Can you tell me what you think the difference is between conception and perception?

    What you suggest about space is plausible. However, what think you of the idea that space is simply phenomenal, and it is the result of the relations between objects, rather than a ‘real’ container. For instance, imagine some object A standing at some measurable 3-dimensional distance X from some other object B, and in addition imagine that object A stands at some other measurable distance of X+n from some object C. Even if nothing else existed, wouldn’t the ‘relations’ of distance be enough to imply the phenomenal perception of space without space being metaphysically real? If the universe is finite in size, as seems to be the case, then perhaps that lends some credence to the Newtonian notion that it is really an empty container – but need it be? What if all perception simply subsists in relations?


  • vinaire  On December 18, 2011 at 7:57 PM

    To me, conception would be “generating an idea in the mind.”

    On the other hand perception would be “interpreting the signals entering the mind through sense channels.”

    I am of the opinion that just like matter is condensation of energy, energy is condensation of space. I am currently working on understanding the nature of space in this context.

    This will make your assertion of space related to objects quite plausible. Right now I lack a clear understanding of space, but I think there has to be some kind of a fabric to space which congeals into energy and matter. So space is more than container. It seems some kind of primordial material.

    I know my view is an outlier somewhere in no man’s land. 🙂



  • tylerjourneaux  On December 19, 2011 at 1:20 AM

    No, your view isn’t as far out there as you might think – it just wasn’t very clear. Can I ask you, could you conceptualize God or an angel without any image? I can, and indeed any image ascribed to either is simply going to be imaginary (literally image-ination). If so, then what would you call that? It seems to me that when I think about such immaterial things as “the colour blue” or “Justice” or “a line” I need no ‘space’ to do it. When I think about a colour, I don’t think about anything but a colour. ergo etc.

    What think you?


  • vinaire  On December 19, 2011 at 6:43 AM

    My view of God is here.

    Essay #7: THE NATURE OF GOD

    As unknowable God is beyond space. But the moment God is conceptualized there is a context, even if abstract, and that context would provide the mental space. When God is imagined in physical terms, the space would be the reflection of physical universe in the mind.

    Maybe my definition of “space” is different. Abstract concepts, such as, the color blue, justice, or line, fall under the category of “considerations.” They have a certain scope, and that’s their space. Please see


    The physical space is just a special case of SPACE.



  • vinaire  On January 17, 2012 at 10:28 PM

    One gets conditioned to think of space in terms of physical space. Physical space is simply a special case of space.

    Actual space is much more abstract. Physical space is a concrete form of space.



  • Chris Thompson  On February 10, 2012 at 10:04 PM

    Between working for a living, I am working very hard on these ideas we all seem interested in. I just need someone to pay me for my overtime hours on physics so I can quit my day job. haha. Seriously, there are moments when I think how very arrogant I am to dwell on these things which have stumped smart people and there are lots of smart people! But my own philosophy incorporates that no one will ever be as interested in my own reality as I am and so on I go.


  • Chris Thompson  On February 10, 2012 at 10:11 PM

    Revisiting these posts of yours seems productive for me. I would like to comment on an idea I have about your 10, 11, & 12.
    “11. The ‘anchor point’ of space shall be a specific location (present location); and the ‘dimension points’ of space shall be locations differentiated from the ‘anchor point,” however infinitesimally.
    12. The ‘anchor point’ of time shall be a specific moment (present time); and the ‘dimension points” of time shall be moments differentiated from the ‘anchor point,’ however infinitesimally.”

    These terms are useful for me when I use dimension points to describe space-time. And I find anchor point to be useful to describe considerations which anchor me in space-time (example: self). What do I consider is my self? This seems to me to anchor me and to the degree that I ever let go of self, then I seem to slide a bit. This seems to be backed up by your point 10.


  • Chris Thompson  On February 10, 2012 at 10:27 PM

    And I am thinking maybe the R3R dianetic process, done correctly might take advantage of this when “move to the beginning of the incident and tell me when you are there” is used.

    We mock up so many layers of self. This one could look like the dial on an old fashioned radio where I tune in a station. My visual on doing this is of my hand turning a knob which mechanically moves a pointer across a linear scale representing wavelengths of signal. In fact, this is not happening and what is happening to make the radio work is under this layer of understanding. Or like the PC Windows program which uses a visually pleasing program to run the operating programs.

    Running an auditing command for me does get a result and does put me in touch with inconsistencies in my mind. I don’t actually run processes in this way of “returning” to an incident and haven’t since 1979. I don’t “move” to places in my mind, but rather I seem to solicit answers to questions and just look at what comes up.

    I have reality on interesting phenomena of out of body experience and likewise am curious at the physics of this. When you asked someone to differentiate between self as other than the body, and that together with my current state of mind, this really got me thinking about the fractal layers of my thoughts regarding the self.


  • vinaire  On February 10, 2012 at 10:43 PM

    You are correct in saying that the anchor point of any dimension, ultimately, seems to be self.

    Self is the ultimate storage.

    All dimensions seems to be referenced from self.

    Self seems to be the source of all dimensions.

    All dimension points seems to be an extension of self in a way.



%d bloggers like this: