In modern QM space is chock full. A vacuum is known to not be empty.

Modern physicists do acknowledge infinity, although Hawking says  
infinity may be bounded, that is, recurving in an endless loop.

The 4 Qts are more likeky to be Eliot's Struggle to represent  
timelessness. He represents time in many ways, as time reflected by  
the dead, in memory, etc. Living is what time feels like. He was after  
the rare experience of piercing the illusion of time. (Borges achieves  
this with surrealism.)


Sent from my iPod

On Apr 16, 2010, at 12:33 AM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Actually _both_ time and eternity are human categories, historically
> defined, and neither names any emprical reality. (Without going into
> detail, in the medieval period there were only two days of the year in
> which the hour corresponded to our 60 minute hour -- the spring and  
> fall
> solstice. During winter the hour grew longer at night so there would
> still be 12 hours at night. Time did not measure evnts; events  
> measured
> time.) Newton invented our modern space and time because for his
> physics he needed and abstract time and and abstract space. If you  
> read
> Dante you ought to feel very crowded: his space was not abstarc and
> inf8inite was Newton's (and ours for the most part). The concept of  
> the
> interglactic gulf would havd been utterly inconceivable to medieval
> Europeans. Space was chock full of things, and those things measured  
> it
> rather than were measured by it.
> Eliot's still point of the turning world would 'feel' vastly different
> to a medieval reader than it does to any of us, since we necessarily  
> try
> to grasp it within the context of our infinite space and time. (MOdern
> physics oesn't recognize infinte space & time either, but our dailyuu
> imaginations are still Newtonian.)
> "Absolute" and "relative" are both quite meaningless when discussed  
> (as
> they are in this thread) in abstraction from particular contexts. I  
> mean
> it's easy for someone to sit and babble absolute absolute absolute or
> relative relative relative, but they aren't saying anything to anyone
> else but merely caressing thier own brain cells in privacy. It feels
> good I guess to those who do it, but it's pretty dull as a topic of
> conversation.
> We don't experience time, since it is a category of abstract  
> thought. It
> seems to me that a major impulse in Eliot's Quartets is his wrestle  
> with
> how to feel time  concretely. Whether he pulls it off or not I do not
> know.
> Carrol