An object being something with finite extent in at least one of its properties (a particular entity); space being that which separates distinct objects. — Daniel

Using these definitions of object and space, objects and space would be the medium of change.

Another way of looking at it would be objects and space are the means by which minds model change (or process) which would mean that change/process would be fundamental and objects and space would be a mind's (which itself is a process) way of perceiving and knowing change/processes.

Change is a relational property I guess. It's a property existent between invariable elements. If the distances between the elements vary irreversibly then there occurs change. The change is the variation in the distances.So change is related to space and can be used to identify time, as a reversible periodic process, like the swinging of a pendulum or metronome by which time can be quantified. A periodic variation in distance is time. Is change time? Only if the change is periodic and reversible. If it's not periodic then change (reversible or irreversible) is just change. One period can be defined as a unit of time. Pendulums and metronomes are no clocks though. They don't register how much time has passed, t but they register that time passes. Like a ruler registers space but doesn't register how much space has passed, which is accomplished by an odometer. So rulers and metronomes are equivalent. Like clocks and odometers. Clocks and rulers are actually used for measuring change, though you could use metronomes and odometers just as well.

And it occurred to me that if we accept for the sake of discussion that mortgages are not in space, we can differentiate them by the order in which they are created — Arne

What if they (the mortgages) are created at the same time (and taken out by the same person)?

I am a bit puzzled with the way this topic is treated. I feel it is very much couched in the metaphysics of old, the nominalists and medieval realists, the rationalists and empiricists etc. I think Kant convincingly cleared up the matter when he deduced the categories of thought. The latter idealists refined these ideas considerably, but the gist is the same. Change, as well as space and time are categories. They are the fundamental structures that have to be presupposed if we are able to experience a 'world' at all. Relating them to each other, as if one is substantial and the other is a property seems to me mistaken. It is like asking: what is the quantity of time? Of course we think temporally and quantitatively and therefore we can devise a clock, but time as such has no quantity. there not multiple times or multiple spaces. Every hour is still time and every room is still space.

In the same way we think of substance and properties, and the relation between each other but do not for a moment think that these notions have any meaning outside of frame of reference. They are needed for us to think at all, operators, but I never saw a property as such, I only saw some definite properties. I also never saw substance as such, I only saw definite substances.

Change therefore is not a property, not of space, not of anything else. Change is a category of thought. I would even argue it is a-priori since change is not something learned by being experienced, but change is what experience is, aka it makes experience possible.

Call me daft if you want Arne, but you'll have to explain this to me. In my usage 2 stands for two distinct things with spatial separation between them, and 3 stands for three spatially separated things, etc.. Therefore, contrary to what you say, numerals seem especially useful when they refer to things with spatial existence. And I really don't see how they would be at all useful (except for the purpose of deception) to refer to things without spatial existence, i.e. fictitious things. — Metaphysician Undercover

That does not seem very correct, or at least it seems only a way to imagine something. such as numbers. 2 and 2 is 4 independent of there being 2 things and 2 other things. In the same way that in the syllogism If p. then Q, p. Thererfore Q, does not have to be rephrased as: "If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore he is mortal". Quantity and space are not relatable to each other because they are both necessary categories. (I believe that for Kant space was a category of the intuition and quantity of thought, but that does not matter and I am not very certain about it and the picture I paint is more Hegelian than Kantian anyway). Maybe I missed something, or maybe the categories got jettisoned by the analytics in concert with the phenomenologists...

What if they (the mortgages) are created at the same time (and taken out by the same person)? — Daniel

Time is one method that non-spatial entities could be differentiated. I never said it was the only method nor did I say it was a perfect method.

I suspect you are just as capable as I at answering your question.

That does not seem very correct, or at least it seems only a way to imagine something. such as numbers. 2 and 2 is 4 independent of there being 2 things and 2 other things. — Tobias

Sure, but "2+2=4" is rather useless accept when applied to actual things, just like "if P, then Q" is rather useless without any things that P and Q refer to. Arne was saying the opposite, that numerals are especially useful when there is no spatial thing which they refer to.

What space is occupied by your Mortgage?
What space is occupied by Philosophy forums?
What space is occupied by three hundred? — Banno

These are all examples of information. Information occupies space. If you don't believe me, look at the contents of your hard drive on your computer. Does not the signed copy of your mortgage agreement occupy kilobytes of space on your drive? This forum occupies space in the cloud. Type 300 in a text document and you can see that the text occupies space and the document occupies space in RAM until saved to your hard drive's space. For something to exist and for you to be aware of and talk about it, it must occupy space.

If you don't believe me, look at the contents of your hard drive on your computer. Does not the signed copy of your mortgage agreement occupy kilobytes of space on your drive? — Harry Hindu

If that be true than whether the morgage is stipulated in Word or in PDF would make a difference to the motrgage, since it will occupy a diffferent amount kilobytes of space on my hard drive. However, it does not. Likewise if Banno's morgtgage would somehow be eradicated from his harddrive and from the hardrive of the company he has a mortgage from, that would somehow destroy Banno's obligation to pay. That however is false.

Using these definitions of object and space, objects and space would be the medium of change. — Harry Hindu

I could subscribe to this though. Every change has a certain material aspect. Even if I conclude a mortgage, it will have some effect on the pathways engraved in my mind. That oes not mean a mortgage is that pathway or that change is a property of space.

Cool. I'll delete the contents of the hard drive and then my mortgage is gone.

Cool. I'll delete the contents of the hard drive and then my mortgage is gone. — Banno

Like I said, it was a COPY of your mortgage agreement. You'd have to hack into the bank's computer and delete it there too for your mortgage ro be gone.

If that be true than whether the morgage is stipulated in Word or in PDF would make a difference to the motrgage, since it will occupy a diffferent amount kilobytes of space on my hard drive. However, it does not. Likewise if Banno's morgtgage would somehow be eradicated from his harddrive and from the hardrive of the company he has a mortgage from, that would somehow destroy Banno's obligation to pay. That however is false. — Tobias

Word and Adobe add extra information that is not part of the mortgage information and that is what makes the difference. If there us no record that Banno has a mortgage then he is not obligated to pay something that doesn't exist. If you ask the bank for evidence that you have a mortgage, what do you think they will show you? If they can't show you any information of your mortgage then you effectively don't have a mortgage. If you are talking about his memory of his mortgage, then we are still talking about information that occupies the space in his head.

If everyone forgot that Paris is the capital of France, would Paris be the capital of France?

Information occupies space — Harry Hindu

Ain't it the matter on which zeroes and ones are formed that occupies space? You can use different stuff to push in a form of ones and zeroes, referring to objects in the world. You can uses tiny rings on a metal grid, or levels of liquid. The matter used in forming information is the occupant in space, not the information itself, which refers to the ones and zeroes, which again represents an object. It depends on what we decide where the patterns of ones and zeroes refer to. A memory with random zeroes and ones will contain a tiny bit less energy than a patterned one. The pattern with highest order, weighing the most, will be just as useless as the random one, contradictory as it may sound.

Imagine perception wherein the left and right span an infinite region of space that folds back on itself.

Change is being at the centre of this fold, manifolding.

A good image is having a flat face with two eyes, and out of the corner of each eye is seen a precise left and right in accordance with the flat face; seemingly infinite space is suppressed in mind but you could imagine that perceived left and right to go on forever and fold back on itself. Thus, change is focusing on that central region, causing a manifold.

You'd have to hack into the bank's computer and delete it there too for your mortgage ro be gone. — Harry Hindu

No, Harry. The mortgage is an agreement. But this sort of thing has been explained to you before, by many folk.

Change is a property of time. No time, no change.

The information that represents a mortgage (whatever its format - hard copy, virtual copy, mental copy) must have a limit (or set of) that defines its individuality - a given mortgage is different from other mortgages or other legal documents, i.e. a purchase and sale agreement. That is, this information has a shape (its shape being a set of particular, finite properties that define it as being information about a given mortgage). That this information has a shape indicates that it is different from wherever it is contained; that is, it occupies a space. In its verbal form, when communicated, the information gets recorded in the brain of the person that hears the information (represented physically by changes in the physiology of neurites, synapses, and other cellular phenomena - changes that are exposed to decay). Even the first person that came up with the idea of a mortgage must have given this idea a shape in its brain, differentiating it from other ideas.

It's not just information. It's an agreement that involves actions on the part of the parties. Even if the records of the mortgage disappeared, the obligations remain - they just cannot be proved.

Same as keeping a verbal promise.

No, Harry. The mortgage is an agreement. But this sort of thing has been explained to you before, by many folk. — Banno

I've also been told by many folk that God exists and wants me to be saved by him. Does that make it true? You're not appealing to popularity are you?

Then if you remove one of the members of the agreement, you remove the agreement? Then agreements are composed of members of the agreement and therefore occupy space.

Even if the records of the mortgage disappeared, the obligations remain - they just cannot be proved.

Same as keeping a verbal promise. — Banno

What is it that keeps the agreement intact? If at any moment I can make an agreement, at any moment I can cancel the agreement. It takes more than one to make an agreement but only one to break the agreement. If I decide not to abide by the agreement then I don't need to pay my mortgage?

Ain't it the matter on which zeroes and ones are formed that occupies space? — Raymond

What else are numbers if not scribbles on a page, which occupies space?

The all occupies space. Every subject and object, conform the principle of essential necessity, can be allotted its faithful, just, and righteous place in the Holy Kingdom of our Great Creator, oh bless His Name! Singulars, particulars, and regulars, all deserve their place in His Holy Magnificence.

So brothers and sisters, let's hold hands and prey! Let's say gratitude to our Shephard and Divine Examplar!

Indeed. Only on a material form, a number can occupy space. It depends on the volume of the material used how much space is occupied. You can use bronze to form a one, or use the spin of an electron as 1 or 0. Small space. Anyhow, information, by the rule of essential necessity, needs space.

The mortgage is an agreement. — Banno

An agreement is in no way an object or an entity, so it's not even worth your while arguing that an agreement is a non-spatial "object" or "entity". And since it is a relation between a plurality of individuals, it is in no way an "individual".

It might be worthwhile to investigate whether relations can be non-spatial. But the op defines space as that which separates objects. Relations do the exact opposite, they unite separate objects. So it appears like all relations, under that definition of space, are non-spatial. But this just tells us that we have a poor definition of space.

You put that very well! I learned more from these words than a whole book of Salmon I had to read once, about "causal statistical laws and causal forks". Space is indeed needed for interaction. It separates but has, by interaction through it, the potential to unite. And that's what an agreement is about. There is a will inherent in nature. It uses space to articulate oneself and to reach out and be with others. Already in the fundamentals this can be seen. Space in between as the expression of the will to be separate or together. And time is the result. Without interaction no time and change. In which case space is totally useless. All matter would be without will, and it's the question if space could even exist.

An agreement is in no way an object or an entity, so it's not even worth your while arguing that an agreement is a non-spatial "object" or "entity". And since it is a relation between a plurality of individuals, it is in no way an "individual". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet it only takes one individual to break the agreement, or relationship.

Is not space a relationship between individuals?

When I get all my ducks in a row, they take up more space than when they are not in a row, because the row takes up extra space, just as when I put them in a box, the box takes up extra space.

Is not space a relationship between individuals? — Harry Hindu

No, as the op defines, space is what separates individuals. Relationships, as we generally use this term are what unites individuals. "Separates" and "unites" are somewhat opposed.

Separates" and "unites" are somewhat opposed. — Metaphysician Undercover

The definition in the OP is wrong. Scientists have described space as a thing that can expand or contract. Put a wall between you and I and an object, not space, separates us.

These are both types of relationships. A couple can be married (unites) and then divorced (separates) and both are types of relationships between them. You could be sitting right next to me or across the country and that is a relationship between you and I.

In measuring the space between individuals are you not establishing a relationship between them? Thats what a measurement is - a relationship.

These are both types of relationships. A couple can be married (unites) and then divorced (separates) and both are types of relationships between them. You could be sitting right next to me or across the country and that is a relationship between you and I. — Harry Hindu

The divorce does not separate them, it still describes a unity, but it also puts a temporal constraint on that unity by saying that it has ended.

In measuring the space between individuals are you not establishing a relationship between them? That's what a measurement is - a relationship. — Harry Hindu

People do not 'measure the space' between things, they measure the distance between them. So yes, by measuring the distance between them you are establishing a relationship, and this is inherently a unity between them. You are making them both one predicate of the same subject (which is the unity of the two) by saying that the two exist with such a distance between them. Measuring the distance between them is not to posit a space between them which is being measured, it is to posit a principle of unity between them, the act of measurement unites them.

The divorce does not separate them, it still describes a unity, but it also puts a temporal constraint on that unity by saying that it has ended. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why not just agree that divorce and marriage are relationships so that you don't contradict yourself in saying that a divorce is a type of unity. What you mean is that it is a type of relationship.

People do not 'measure the space' between things, they measure the distance between them. So yes, by measuring the distance between them you are establishing a relationship, and this is inherently a unity between them. You are making them both one predicate of the same subject (which is the unity of the two) by saying that the two exist with such a distance between them. Measuring the distance between them is not to posit a space between them which is being measured, it is to posit a principle of unity between them, the act of measurement unites them. — Metaphysician Undercover

Every time you say "unity" you mean relationship. Every time you say "distance" you mean space. We are both saying essentially the same thing, but using different words. With our different words, we are pointing to the same thing. Thanks for agreeing. :smile:

Change is not a property. It is a process. Property is an attribute, a quality, a characteristic.