The concept of space and time (space)

Our idea of ​​ourselves as an observer is involved in building the idea of ​​space and time. We represent ourselves as an observer who is aware of his position in the Absolute space and is synchronized with the Absolute time, determines the size of the objects being studied and the duration of the time intervals studied. At the same time, the spatial dimensions and time intervals that a person is able to recognize lie in rather narrow intervals, beyond which human perception is powerless to perceive anything. To step on another scale of time or space requires imagination.

Space

Let's say you looked out the window. An idea of ​​the observed space has arisen in your mind. This space is observed by you from the inside and contains parts, each of which is assigned a name. For example: the sky, the house, the street, and so on. You direct your attention inside this space, find objects in it, determine their mutual position, putting them into one big mosaic. In order for the mosaic to stick together, we use the hypothesis that there is an absolute space. Then we can assume that any space we recognize is part of the Absolute space. Thus, we believe that any space we recognize is an idea of ​​some part of the Absolute space.

Do the following exercise: look at the house in which you live, outside. You are aware of it as part of the Absolute space that is perceived outside. Get closer to him. You will notice that in the space around you its share will increase. Go inside. You will find a qualitative change in perception: what you previously recognized as space from the outside is now recognized by you as space from the inside. Now, being inside, imagine this house just as you imagined before entering it. You will find that for this you need to present yourself outside the house. Being inside the house, it is impossible to see the house outside. Conversely, being outside, you can not see the house from the inside. Since we very rarely go inside objects, it seems to us that objects are somehow different from spaces. But in reality, the difference between an object and space is only in the point of view that the observer takes. The point of view outside the imaginary surface makes us see space as an object, the point of view inside the imaginary surface makes us see the space bounded by this surface as the world around us. Therefore, we formulate the following definitions:

The space perceived outside is a part of the Absolute space limited by an imaginary surface when looking at this space outside. Often associated with an object.

The space realized from the inside is a part of the Absolute space limited by an imaginary surface when looking at this space from the inside. Often associated with a region under study.

We will do another experience. Look at the salt crystal. You clearly see its surface, feel its hardness. For you, this is definitely an object. Now imagine that it consists of atoms. To imagine this fact, you can do it in three ways.

1. In your imagination, you can step inside a crystal and look at a tightly packed lattice of atoms. In this case, the boundary of the crystal is now recognized by you from the inside as the boundary of the region you are studying, and the atoms as objects within this region. What is outside the crystal is not accessible to you, you are inside.
2. You can stay outside and "dissolve" the crystal boundaries to see the atomic boundaries below it. This operation will allow you to detail your picture of the studied world. This operation is equivalent to increasing the resolution of our perception. But along with the details the crystal properties will disappear. Now you do not have a crystal, and you can not say anything about it. However, now you can talk about a group of atoms. You can call a group of atoms a crystal and all the properties that were associated with the crystal as a whole, transfer to a group of atoms. This process by the scientists of the 19th century was called the process of studying the Universe. Scientists tried to find the particle (or particles) that would be indivisible. It was supposed to be the basis for building the whole world. According to the idea of ​​scientists inside this particle there should have been nothing; it is the end product of the division of space, an atomic construction element. It is impossible to imagine the space inside this particle, its size is absolute zero. Then all the properties of the whole world could be derived from the properties of this atomic building element. There was an idea that knowing the initial conditions of all these particles, one can construct the trajectories of their movement in the future and the past, thus describing past events and predicting future ones. But it turned out not so rosy. And the solutions were too sensitive to variations in the initial conditions, and the uncertainty inherent in nature itself did not allow scientists to describe the initial conditions quite accurately, and the matryoshka of particles turned out to be infinite. Therefore, modern science is no longer looking for an answer to the question: what is the elementary atomic particle of which the whole world consists? It is clear to everyone that, plunging in, we discover new universes. Therefore, an attempt to derive the properties of the whole world on the basis of the properties of the atomic element has failed. However, the method of dissolving the boundaries has remained, and we often use it when we want to clarify the details.
3. The third way is to divide the space with the crystal into three sub-spaces. The first is the space outside the crystal, the second is the space inside the crystal and the third space is the boundary of the crystal. Such a division will make it possible to describe both the properties of atoms and the property of a crystal as a whole. The boundary takes on the properties of the crystal as a whole, the space inside is filled with atoms, and the space outside interacts in the shell. This method of modeling can often be found in physics when studying the atomistic theory of matter.

Between the macro and micro worlds

Where does this complexity come from, you ask? Why are we always between the space that is realized from the inside and the space that is realized from the outside: between the macro and micro world? The reason is that we are not able to recognize the space at every point. We are able to realize only the boundaries of spaces in the form of surfaces. This happened because of our way of perception through sight. The second reason is that we consider the space from any one point of view. Changing points of view radically changes our view of space.

Once my trainer taught me to be aware of the space around the entire surface of my skin. This way of perception was supposed to give me bodily knowledge about space. If we were able to do this, then we would have a way to be aware of space directly. But this way of perception is very rare and does not have a verbal description. Therefore, in the transfer of knowledge, we can not rely on it.

To present our perception of space, we will conduct a mental experiment. Imagine a straight line. Imagine that this is the space in which we live. It is impossible to study and describe the whole line. Therefore, we need to choose a region to study - the segment under study. In addition, we have a limitation on spatial resolution: we cannot register parts of less than certain sizes. This means that we cannot perceive the properties of a segment at a point, we can perceive only the properties of segments of a finite length (properties can change when changing the scale of a partition). We divide the studied region of space into segments of finite length and for each of them we determine its properties. As a result, we obtain a description of the segment under study. Such a description seems logical and complete, but our perception of space does not match this picture. We can neither explore space at every point, nor present it at every point. We use a different way of perception and description. Imagine that you can not move inside the test segment. The only position that is available to you is the place where you stand. How to study the whole segment from this position? For this you use sight. Vision registers streams of light that propagate through the studied segment. Vision registers the points from which light is reflected, in which it is absorbed, from which it is emitted. These points are the boundaries that divide the segment under study into segments that are transparent to light, and segments that are opaque to it. Light is not able to penetrate inside the opaque segment and freely propagates outside it. Where the light does not penetrate, we imagine the object. Where light propagates, we imagine a space free from objects. So the whole segment we study is divided into segments that are transparent to light and segments that are not transparent to it. Inside the opaque segments we place the objects. As a result, we do not know the properties of each element of this space, but we know the coordinates of the points that convert light streams. Such a vision of space strongly depends on the chosen point of view. If we place the observer inside an opaque segment, then the picture of the investigated space for him will change dramatically. Instead of streams of light, it can use other streams, for example, streams of electrons. This will give him a completely different picture of the studied space.

The way we use to study the Absolute space is as follows: walking on it, we choose the space to study. We are aware of it from the inside. In the chosen space for study, we choose the minimal solvable object. From objects of this size the surfaces we study will be collected. If the space to explore is a galaxy, you can take a star with its surroundings as a minimal object. Then we will be able to consider star clusters (the stars themselves will not be able, because they are taken from the vicinity). In a cubic micrometer, an object the size of an atom can be taken as the minimum object. Then as surfaces we can choose surfaces woven from atoms. In the same space, you can choose different minimal objects and build different surfaces and objects. And there is no way to tell which choice will be right. It all depends on the problem being solved. This strongly contradicts intuition, which tells us that objects really exist. The part of the Absolute space that we are exploring consists of a multitude of spaces that we realize from without, from within, and the relations between these spaces.

The relationship between conscious spaces

The spaces that we are aware of can intersect, can be nested into each other, can be the consideration of the same part of the Absolute space from different sides: from the inside, or from the outside.

The border itself is also a Conscious space, not a section, as it might seem. To see it, you need to get to the border as close as possible until its details become visible. This is also contrary to intuition, but one must learn to work with it.

Aware spaces perform the following functions:

1. Spaces that are perceived from within are associated with the area under study.
2. Spaces that are perceived from within serve as a container for subspaces that are conscious of the outside.
3. Spaces that are perceived from within are connected to other spaces that are recognized from within to build larger spaces that are recognized from within.
4. Spaces that are perceived from the outside are associated with boundaries between two spaces that are recognized from the outside, or space that is recognized from the outside, and space that is recognized from the inside.
5. Two different spaces, realized from the inside or outside, occupying the same place in the Absolute space serve as a model of different points of view on the same part of the Absolute space.
   
   1. Space, perceived from the outside, is associated with space, recognized from the inside, occupying the same place in the Absolute space, as space and its structure.
   2. The space realized outside is associated with the space realized outside, occupying the same place in the Absolute space, as two different points of view on the same space.
   3. A space that is perceived from within is associated with a space that is recognized from within, occupying the same place in the Absolute space, as two different points of view on the structure of space.

Two spaces that are perceived from the outside or from the inside can occupy the same place in the Absolute space. For example, the idea of ​​a stream is possible due to two spaces that are perceived from within, in the same place of the Absolute space. One space is associated with moving matter and motionless relative to it. The second space is connected with the "coast", in relation to which the matter moves. Only knowing the relative motion of these two spaces can it be argued that the flow exists. This example appeals to time. There is an example for which there is no need to appeal to time, but it is less obvious. I will cite it for those to whom the idea of ​​the flow seemed obvious. I contend that the idea of ​​a white car is possible thanks to two spaces. One of them is connected with the white surface, and the second with the machine.

The observer, comparing these two spaces, says: a white surface in one space coincides in the Absolute space with a machine in another space. In total, we get a white car. Imagine that at some point the car ceased to exist in our mind, but the white surface remained. We still see a white surface, but we no longer see the car. The space associated with the machine has disappeared, but the space associated with the white surface still continues to exist in our mind. Thus, the idea of ​​an object is the result of the simultaneous perception of many spaces, stacked on top of each other like a stack of transparent cripples.

Difficulties in the awareness of spaces

Difficulty 1

We are simultaneously building a space that is perceived from within, and spaces that are perceived from the outside, invested in this space, but for some reason we are not aware of this. At the same time, if we can associate a space that is perceived from the outside with an observable object, then we do not associate the space that is perceived from within with anything. Just as we are not aware of several spaces that are perceived outside of us in one place of the Absolute Space. If we were aware of the space we are observing from the inside as a studied sub-space of the Absolute Space, it would be easier to imagine it.

Difficulty 2

We easily fall into the specification of representations, but we are not able to do their generalization. Within the framework of the system thinking discipline, a lot of attention is paid to the ability of an engineer to realize the over-space in which the studied space is placed, that is, the ability to perceive the studied space as part of a certain over-space. Such a representation is symmetrical: a conscious space would occupy an intermediate position between the super-space and the sub-spaces. This way of thinking requires some effort and discipline from us: for this, it is necessary to learn how to change the scale of ideas in a direction unusual for us, in the direction of generalization of ideas.

Imagine you are standing on a bridge. You can easily move to the side of the detail view. You see a bridge, guy, cable. Movement to the side of detailing is not difficult for you, because you constantly hear the question: what does one or another object consist of? But, as soon as you are required to move in the other direction, towards the generalization of ideas, you are lost, because you very rarely hear another question: what is this object part of? You can well imagine the bridge as part of the river space, or part of the city space, or part of the mountain space, or part of the road network, or part of many bridges, you have enough abilities to do this, but it takes effort to do this. You yourself will not do this on your own at the level of automatism.

Difficulty 3

Difficulty in understanding the position from which the description of the space is given. We think it is defined rigidly. But in fact, we are able to change points of view.

Difficulty 4

Difficulty in differentiating the operations that we perform on spaces. Let there be two conscious spaces within the Absolute. There are several ways to combine these two spaces. Depending on the method of combining, we get different domain models.

1. Expand one space to include the second in the quality of the sub-space. For example, there is a carburetor design and an engine design. We can expand the idea of ​​the engine by incorporating the carburetor as an object.
2. Combine two spaces into one, but not over-space, but a space of the same level. We walked along one part of the forest, then along the other and combined the views, getting a wider view of the scope.
3. Consider these two spaces as parts of a single over-space. We have a chassis design, there is an engine design. Put together, got a car consisting of two objects (not designs!): From the chassis and the engine.

All these three ways are different points of view.

1. In the first case, we stayed inside the engine, but went beyond the carburetor.
2. In the second case, we stayed inside each of the spaces.
3. In the third case, we went beyond the boundaries of both spaces and were outside.

Difficulty 5

When we say that a wall is made of bricks, we say it is wrong. The correct rhetoric should be this: the space interpreted as a wall includes spaces treated like bricks. It does not consist, but includes!

Spatial model range: minimum resolution and maximum size

In each conscious space there is a minimum size of the objects in question, smaller than which objects are considered point-like, and the maximum size defined by the outer boundary of the Conscious space. This means that each of the Conscious Spaces has its own individual coordinate grid, which has its maximum size and its minimum solvable limit. That is, it makes no sense to talk about the position of the aircraft on the runway with millimeter accuracy, at the same time, the gap between the blades of the engine should be known with an accuracy of tenths of a millimeter. Attempting to bind all sensed spaces to a single absolute coordinate grid can be puzzling. The minimally resolvable size determines the objects that we ultimately build.