4

Space doesn't have a taste, a smell, a sound or a "shape". Anything we experience and think seem to require it. It doesn't have any experiential property whatsoever, but we still normally refer to it as "perceived". In fact it seems to be the framework in which we perceive rather than something with perceptible qualities. The container of any "thing" with properties.

Is space experienced or is it an imposed framework of experience? Is there anything with properties that is not in space?

By experience I mean: "awareness of perceptible properties"

Can we be aware of any perceptible property of space?

urhen
  • 89
  • 5
  • 4
    Hi, welcome to philosophy SE. Pain does not have a taste, a smell, a sound or a "shape", and neither do integers or socialism. It is common to all abstractions. Are you asking about philosophical views on whether space is intersubjective (it does not match the title)? That space is "an imposed framework through which we experience" is Kant's thesis, not very popular today, but whether it is or isn't is completely irrelevant to that question. – Conifold Sep 27 '19 at 18:00
  • @Conifold I've edited a little bit. Pain is an experience that still has a spatial location. My question is: If space isn't experienced then isn't it indipendent of individual experience? – urhen Sep 27 '19 at 18:13
  • Why does spatial location matter? The equator also has it. And computer skills do not have it, but can be part of individual experience, and are intersubjective (but can not be "experienced"). Is the question based on the play of words, "experienced" vs "experience"? They refer to different things, and are even translated into dissimilar words in other languages. – Conifold Sep 27 '19 at 18:27
  • 2
    @Conifold Computer skills can be "experienced". Why do you think the opposite? They still are a set of behaviours in space. But space itself isn't. Why is philosophy still debating whether space is indipendent of experience or not? What are the compelling arguments still alive today that see space as experienced? – urhen Sep 27 '19 at 18:38
  • 2
    @Conifold Even Socialism can be experienced as a set of spatial events by the way. Even thoughts and ideas require space as a framework. – urhen Sep 27 '19 at 18:40
  • I do not think anybody is debating in those terms, "experienced" vs "not experienced". Judging by your use of them they are specific to you, and it is unclear what they mean. If socialism can be "experienced" as a set of events I do not see why the space can not be "experienced" as a set of places. Modern debates about independence of space are usually phrased in terms of [substantivalism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/#WhaRepSpaManSub), but that has little to do with "experiencing". – Conifold Sep 27 '19 at 19:05
  • @Conifold I see a fallacy. Places like a "church" are still a set of colors, shapes etc. Space doesn't have any experiential property. A set of something makes only sense whitin spatial framework. Space as a "set" of places makes no sense. – urhen Sep 27 '19 at 19:43
  • Space has "extension" traditionally, and churches are certainly more than sets of colors and shapes, or they'd be indistinguishable from other buildings, or even Rorschach blots. I am not sure if thinking a thought qualifies as "experiencing" in your terminology, but much of abstract distinguishing is related to that. What you should realize by now is that the terms in which you formulate your question are inadequate, and try to rephrase it. – Conifold Sep 27 '19 at 19:54
  • I'm not entirely sure what's being asked here. In the purview of subjective experience I definitely have a "sense of space"; the actual properties we usually claim space has I specifically sense about this space (e.g., there should be a straight line between where I feel my lips seal here to where that cup I see is; I sense *that* there's a straight line and "where" it is). To ground the next thought, I personally sense my "self" to have a location roughly inside my head a bit behind the eyeballs. By contrast, I can't point to where in this sensed space emotional states I feel are. – H Walters Sep 28 '19 at 02:12
  • ...so is something like that what you're asking or is it something else? – H Walters Sep 28 '19 at 02:14
  • @HWalters _By contrast, I can't point to where in this sensed space emotional states I feel are._ There's a group of scientist who mapped **where** people feel emotions in the body. Look it up if you want. My question is: Does space itself have properties? – urhen Sep 28 '19 at 09:38
  • actually you don't perceive space. you perceive distance between objects (matter). Without the perception of matter, you won't perceive 'space'. Time, space, and causation are necessary for our perception of the universe yet they are the great intangibles. Are not time and matter necessary to perceive space? Are not space and matter necessary to perceive time? And matter - all we can say is that it moves. Read Schroedinger's "What is Life? with Mind and Matter" here - https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/what-is-life/A876185F2DB06FF5C2CC67C9A60DAD7F# – Swami Vishwananda Sep 28 '19 at 12:02
  • @urhen I assume you mean [this](https://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/646)? Very interesting, though still looks preliminary (unless you have more info). Regarding properties of space, absolutely it has properties; the ability to have some infinite set of points be a "3d space" as opposed to a "2d space" or a "4d space" is related to the properties space has. The space I subjectively experience is analogous in properties to the space I can imagine, and it is emphatically 3D, Euclidean, and fuzzily "local" (though can be really big). – H Walters Sep 28 '19 at 15:07
  • ...but again, I'm looking more towards if this is what you're asking about than a discussion here. – H Walters Sep 28 '19 at 15:08
  • @HWalters That's exactly what I'm asking. What are the properties of space? I'm challenging the very possibility for space to have qualities in the first place. I think that an infinite set of points is the very definition of space rather than a property. In my view space seems to have no properties that could be attached other than definitions like "infinite set of points". For that reason it doesn't seem to be experienced. By the way, are there philosophers that agree with this idea? – urhen Sep 29 '19 at 13:44
  • I think a discussion on the properties of space should be a distinct question. – H Walters Sep 29 '19 at 14:04
  • 2
    I can not think of any philosopher who thought that space has no properties. After all, Euclidean geometry is all about its properties: it is homogeneous, isotropic, flat, and so on. And they are perceptual properties. Flatness, for example, may not be as directly perceived as seeing a shape or color, but reading numbers off a ruler or protractor is still "experiencing". "Infinite set of points" is not a definition of space at all. Integers are such a set, and nobody thinks of them as "space". On Aristotle's view, which was dominant before Cantor, space does not consist of points at all. – Conifold Sep 30 '19 at 23:56
  • Please see [my answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/67331/37256) on Ouspensky's rendering of Kant. – Rushi Oct 02 '19 at 15:19

4 Answers4

1

Is "space" directly accessible to the senses?

It is not because it is the absence of sensation. Much as one can sense small quantity through subitizing, one can also be keenly aware that nothing is present, so too can one see motion and length or feel force, but be keenly aware that none occurs or exists. Is it true to say that the property of lacking sensation is itself a sensation?

No, because if one accepts the law of non-contradiction one cannot accept these two propositions: "space is not sensing" and "space is sensing". Hence, the simplest dichotomy for apprehension is the language of the mind-body duality, it is a conception (mind, not sensation) characterized by the absence of perception (body, sensation). This is why it is considered an abstraction and not a physical thing.

See this SE post for more details about how the concept is computed neurally

Whether you are talking about "void" discussed in Antiquity, "absolute space" during the 17th and 18th centuries, or " relativistic space-time" of the last century, the notion is essentially the same. A space or discontinuity in matter is what a pit is to the ground, emptiness, and the more sophisticated the philosopher, the more complex the constructed concept.

According to the SEP on Newton's Views on Space, Time, and Motion:

The most important question shaping 17th-century views on the nature of space, time and motion is whether or not a true void or vacuum is possible, i.e., a place devoid of body of any sort (including rarified substances such as air). Ancient atomism, dating back at least to the pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus (5th century, B. C.), held that not only is such possible, but in fact actually exists among the interstices of the smallest, indivisible parts of matter and extends without bound infinitely. Following Plato, Aristotle rejected the possibility of a void, claiming that, by definition, a void is nothing, and what is nothing cannot exist.

In modern physics, space is often conceptualized either as a discontinuity of atoms and other particles or as a field which is continuous everywhere echoing the ancient debate.

J D
  • 19,541
  • 3
  • 18
  • 83
0

The mathematician and physicist Hermann Weyl would answer that space-time is not experienced as extended. The 'arithmetical' continuum of mathematics and mathematical physics would be a fiction and a paradoxical one, while the 'intuitive' or 'empirical' continuum of experience would be unextended. This view accords with our experience.

If we could experience space-time as an extended object this would falsify the Perennial philosophy and probably also Solipsism. Extension is a theory to explain experience, not an experience, as Kant notes.

  • And how does Weyl characterize "intuitional experience"? – J D Oct 04 '19 at 17:09
  • 1
    @JD - It would be what we experience stripped of the theories that we overlay on our raw sensory data. I don't like his use of the word 'intuitive' and would use 'directly experienced'. –  Oct 05 '19 at 11:14
  • Ah, now your "direct experience" makes more sense. You mean perception divorced from conception. That's a difficult thing to achieve. Very Zen. – J D Oct 05 '19 at 17:27
  • @JD That's it. Weyl endorses the Zen view of the continuum. –  Oct 06 '19 at 08:42
0

A current view on space is due to General Relativity. Here space is united with time to the physical concept of spacetime. In that context your original question reads:

Is spacetime experienced? And converted to a question from physics:

Does spacetime have any detectable properties?

The answer is: Yes! Everybody is aware of perceptible properties of spacetime.

Gravitational forces indicate the curvature of spacetime.

Even more: Spacetime is a physical object like other physical objects. Each mass acts on spacetime by changing the curvature of spacetime. The most spectacular result is the 2017-detection of gravitational waves created by the merging of two black holes.

For some basic information on spacetime see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Jo Wehler
  • 20,817
  • 2
  • 26
  • 77
-1

Is space experienced or is it an imposed framework of experience?

Space is experienced. And our eye is the sense that creates its experience. You wouldn't be aware of even the space right in front of you if you close your eyes. Sometimes it will be your skin, nose or ears that makes you aware of the distance from a familiar object. When you realize the timeless state, space becomes meaningless. Its (space's) experience ends. So we can say it is an experience. If you don't have the experience of time, you can't experience space also. It is because, if you experience time you are in duality; and space exists only in duality.

Is there anything with properties that is not in space?

If you can't call the greatest property that gives all the properties that create the experience of space a property, there is no such thing. If anybody has mentioned such a thing, we can't say "that thing is 'in space'". C.f. : Gita Chapter 9 Verse 4.

Since everything we know is within the frame work of time and space there must be no such thing with properties that is not in space.

Can we be aware of any perceptible property of space?

Property is an attribute, quality, or characteristic of something. Often we are aware of the incomparable vastness of space. Vastness is a property that is perceptible with our eyes.

SonOfThought
  • 3,507
  • 9
  • 18
  • "And our eye is the sense that creates its experience" [debatable](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1203645) – H Walters Sep 28 '19 at 19:01
  • Yes, it is debatable. Often, variations in temperature sound or smell help a blind man in his spatial-perception. I had given its hints in my first answer. Without brain, nerves or consciousness eyes won't work. I was mentioning the importance of eyes. A blind man uses a white-cane or a stick for his spatial-perception. This has its limitations. This is the 'basic thing' he often needs for spatial-perception. So we can say that his spatial-perception is in terms of length. It would be impossible to create a clear awareness in him about space as we have. – SonOfThought Sep 29 '19 at 10:11
  • Unicellular organisms have no eyes. Their outermost part functions as the receptors of all their sense organs. If you search its roots you would reach the consciousness and its manifestations. – SonOfThought Sep 29 '19 at 10:12
  • @SonOfThought So we experience space in the same way we experience a cup of coffee? I doubt that. With my question I want to challenge the very possibility for space to have qualities in the first place. Vastness seems to be the property of something in space like the vastness of an ocean. – urhen Sep 29 '19 at 13:53
  • @SonOfThought Space doesn't seem to disappear when I close my eyes. I don't find that convincing. – urhen Sep 29 '19 at 13:57
  • @SonOfThought since you refer to bhagavad gita, I hope you are aware that space is related to perception of sound in indian philosophical schools – vidyarthi Sep 29 '19 at 18:39
  • @urhen: Well, you would get some explanation from http://vedantastudent.blogspot.com/p/maya.html "With my question I want to challenge the very possibility for space to have qualities in the first place."~ Of course, you have the right to challenge especially because I didn't put any proof before you. Before tasting sugar you can argue that it is bitter. Realization is the only way to get out of this firm belief. – SonOfThought Sep 30 '19 at 14:06
  • @sonofthought: There is no 'if'. There is a term advaita, and it means non-duality (a - not and dvaita - duality, but here not means beyond). And as a term it already represents what is ultimately, that is beyond the manifold of appearances and seeming. There doesn't seem to be any connection this with space though. Space is still within the manifold of appearing and duality. – Mozibur Ullah Oct 02 '19 at 06:35
  • @urhen: "Vastness seems to be the property of something in space like the vastness of an ocean." ~The most suitable thing that we can show is the space. Even the vastness of the ocean is due of the vastness of space. "Space doesn't seem to disappear when I close my eyes. I don't find that convincing."~ I believe it is because of time and your early experiences. If you you can sit closing your eyes without a second thought, your can't experience space. – SonOfThought Oct 02 '19 at 06:38
  • @vidyarthi: Yes, while analyzing we'll find.... Space -> sound; Air -> sound and touch; Fire or light -> sound, touch, and sight; Water -> sound, touch sight, and taste; Earth -> sound, touch, sight, taste, and smell. But it is only for analysis. If there is a term 'Advaita' what it would be representing ultimately? If you use space and time at the the same time, it is Dvaita; not Advita. – SonOfThought Oct 02 '19 at 06:53