Intermission: infinity and space

April 8th, 2013

By descending into spatial form (a place) we come to realise that space is essentially tied to the void. However small or big, space mirrors itself in composition – in this sense space does not change and should be finite. To do this we would have to obtain an atom of inspaceable place, sort of a wall.
But this would assume that at some point space becomes  completely placed, that is – full in its presence, which is not the case, so the only possibility would be to assume that space is infinite or that space is void.
This is a troublesome point of desicion. For, assuming that space is void, we must posit something like primordial atom of matter which would be unspaceable. Would it then exist in space and be impenetrable to spacing? What would it then be if not some transcendental limit? Existing in space, but having no connection with it?
Second presupposition – that space is infinite – would yield endless regress and progress in spatial magnitude and place us as a part of it, but infinity is closer to a force than a quantity.  It thus seems that space is neither void, albeit very similar to it, and not infinite.
In a certain sense space is radically finite. And while being so is unchanging in its compositional principle, it nevertheless does acquire different forms – precisely because it is acted upon by force of infinity. This being so, presents us with a point that is undecidable – namely: is space constructed of primal atoms (which as we saw leads to contradiction) or is it a form of a void and encounters some transcendent atoms as its limit? In either case an atom would be sort of known unknown and transcend any spacing whatsoever – from inside and outside altogether.
Should we leave this point undecided and still want to find how space becomes placed, we could assume that it happens so by it (space) being some curvature of infinity in a void. So space would be a result of a collision between void and infinity.  And being the only finite thing space would necessarily be placed as a form of experience. Thus any experience is finite. We don’t have infinity experiencing itself, but finite things being a result of there existing unexperienced power of infinity and utter bottomless of void. Experience (placed space) is finite. Infinity and void can only be decided, axiomatically posited and accepted as necessary for existence of any place and its experience.

To sum:
1) space can not be atomised and is not acting on atomised unknowable alterity.
2) space is always placed and idiosyncratic in its composition.
3) space, being a necessary form of experience, is finite and is the only finite thing.
4) its finitude is a a result of infinity coming into collision (or, should we better say, powerless pressure) with void.
5) thus finitude is only possible because of unexperiencable existence of infinity and void.

It seems now that some positions outlined in post scriptum of previous intermission are not valid, or don’t hold ground. Infinities don’t act on each other. That would most probably produce a disaster (a god) – infinity experiencing itself. In which case there would be infinite space and experience perfectly mapping with infinite time that is present and represented at the same time. Needless to say there would be a me or a you. No place. No time. No spacing and no thought.
I will try to grasp the logic of this possible disaster in next intermission.


Texts | Comments

Comments are closed.


Monthly Archives