Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: What does IMHO mean? Message-ID: Date: 14 May 91 07:14:22 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lines: 28 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >Not necessarily. I don't think it is that obvious. The fact that a >physical body *can* exist in what we call space doesn't prove that >it can't exist elsewhere or is bound by that space. This is >particularly true since we have no idea what may or may not exist >outside "space." Well, actually, it can't exist without what we call "space." Your last sentence shows that you have not thought this through: the whole idea of being "outside" space still implies being somewhere where the concepts of "in" and "out" apply. A "body," as it is normally understood, is a thing of length, width, and breadth; "space" is precisely those three dimensions. "It's all in Plato, all in Plato. Goodness what _DO_ they teach them in these schools?" -- the Professor, in the CHRONICLES OF NARNIA Dan'l [There may be two different uses of "space" here. I agree with you that a body as we normally understand the term requires a space to exist. But it could be space in a different "universe", or of different characteristics (different dimensionality or different metric) and still allow something sufficiently close to bodies to merit use of that term. --clh]