Frog march wrote:
Quote:
|
All you really have is sensory input from which the mind creates a working model.
|
I am in complete agreement with that statement. If the elements of the model derive from sensory input then the model can represent the external world. But it is also possible (and sometimes desirable) to create a model in which some or all of the elements of the model are mental constructs. That kind of model may or may not represent the external world. The deeper the levels of abstraction between sensory input and mental constructs, the easier it becomes to introduce errors into the model.
The pre-telescope model of the external world had the spherical shell of stars as a limiting boundary. That shell and everything inside it constituted a finite universe. The concept of totality was meaningful with respect to a finite universe defined as the totality of all that exists.
When the shell of stars idea was abandoned the concept of totality was no longer meaningful with respect to a universe without an observable boundary. Perhaps it was assumed that eventually a boundary would be found. When the size of our galaxy was established it was believed that all that existed was within our galaxy. Once again the notion of a boundary resurfaced. However, Hubble’s determination of the distance of Andromeda demolished that last boundary. No observable boundary of the universe has appeared since.
No one has proved that the present mainstream model of the universe must be finite. For an infinite universe the concept of average density is very questionable and the property of entropy is not applicable. The concept of entropy is meaningful only for a closed system.
R.A.F. wrote:
Quote:
Richard J. Hanak wrote:
Quote:
|
But just because the universe is considered to exist as a physical thing by many people doesn’t make that an *is*. There is ample evidence from that past that many people have thought many ideas to be true that were subsequently proven to be false.
|
I fail to see what one has to do with the other. There have been mistakes made in the past, and there will also be mistakes made in the future...SO WHAT. Just how does that equate with your "idea" that the Universe may not be "real"? You posted (the quoted paragraph) as if there is some kind of connection between the 2...there is not.
|
The implied connection was that the correspondence of an idea with reality does not depend on the number of people supporting for the idea. That many people consider the universe to be real does not imply that the universe is real.
Cougar wrote:
Quote:
|
"The universe" is not a theory. It's basically just defined to be "everything," whether we can see it or not. It's not a hypothetical thing. It's a postulate thing. We don't know what exists or if anything exists outside our light horizon. Whether there is something or suddenly nothing beyond our light horizon, that doesn't mean the universe is "hypothetical". It still "is".
|
A postulate is something assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning. Being a postulate does not exclude something from being hypothetical. And just because something is hypothetical does not preclude its subsequent change from a hypothetical thing to an observed thing.
Reasoning with a term whose meaning is not clear can produce false or meaningless results. So let’s consider your basic definition of the universe as “everything.” One meaning of the word ‘everything’ is ‘every single thing as an individual’ or ‘each thing’, as in “Clear everything from the desk”. That meaning cannot define the universe. The second meaning of ‘everything is ‘all.’
‘All’ has two distinct meanings in the present context. The first meaning, akin to ‘each’ as in “All men are mortals,” cannot define the universe. The second meaning of ‘all’ is ‘the whole or full amount of something.’ ‘Whole’ in the present context might mean ‘an assemblage of parts associated together as one thing.’
It is easy to conceive of an automobile as an assemblage of parts associated together as one thing. One thinks in terms of an engine, frame, suspension, wheels, body, etc. It would be unwieldy and perhaps impossible to think of an automobile as an assemblage of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It would be equally impossible to reason about the universe as an assemblage of atoms, or stars. Soon after Hubble’s work on Andromeda, galaxies were thought to be the ‘building blocks of the universe.” They were the things that were receding from us. They were thought to be the ultimate structures of matter.
Later, however, it was found that galaxies associated as parts of clusters. Not too long ago clusters were found to be associated as superclusters separated by huge galaxy free voids. There is no basis for assuming that there are no higher rungs on the structure ladder. There could be a dozen more or an infinite number more. No one has demonstrated that there has to be an ultimate largest part of which the universe is assembled. It might be as impossible to model the universe as an assemblage of superclusters as it would be to model an automobile as an assemblage of sub-atomic particles.
Reviewing where we’ve just been, ‘everything’ led to ‘all’ which led to ‘whole’ which led to parts having a totally unknown nature. Defining the universe as “everything’ leads to something with at best a questionable meaning and at worst with no meaning. The same is true for the defining the universe as “the totality of all that exists” or as “the whole of existence.” It seems that the universe should be given a completely meaningful definition if the universe idea is to be justified.
Bathcat wrote:
Quote:
|
You may infer that, but obviously you do not know it from direct experience. (You have never experienced being a rove beetle, or experienced snailhood.) Therefore by your own criteria your statement does not refer to anything 'real.'
|
The second paragraph in my first post of this thread reads:
Quote:
|
The existence of a thing is verified by observing it. Anything that cannot be directly or indirectly observed is a hypothetical thing whose existence is supposed or imagined.
|
Real things can be known by indirect observation. One need not be an electron or directly observe an electron to know that electrons are real.
Bathcat also wrote:
Quote:
|
Again, this is speculation. It's not observable, objective fact, eh? How do you know that a sea snail does not perceive it's wat'ry home as simply an extension of its own being? Perfectly possible, my good man, perfectly possible: one may design algorithms for sensory detection and response in completely unalive machines.
|
If the sea snail senses the presence of a predator and pulls inside its shell, could it possibly perceive the predator also as an extension of itself? As for your unalive machine, if it can control its own motion and if in order to survive it must never attempt to enter an opening too small for it to pass through, wouldn’t it have to boot up with some self knowledge; say its dimensions in three axes? Even if it has AI algorithms to let it let it learn about itself (during a protected infancy) wouldn’t it have to have boot data to differentiate self from anything that is not self? Otherwise how would it save what it learns about itself to the self.dat file rather than to the external.dat file?
As for speculative reasoning to show that speculative reasoning is wrong, that is tantamount to cutting ones legs off from under oneself. That kind of reasoning suffers from the fallacy of self-denial. Speculative reasoning is fine so long as the mind’s I watches over the reasoning.
frogesque:
You are right! I’ve done that. Had to keep my thumb in a glass of ice all night to get a little sleep. Didn’t know that a hole should be drilled in the nail to relieve the pressure.
Don’t worry, there will always be that next mystery waiting ahead.
Mosheh Thezion wrote:[quote]I would have to say that the universe is composed of and so is, potential energy of specific quality and a transdimensional spatial Ether.[/b]
Is the potential energy finite or infinite? Is the transdimensional spatial Ether finite or infinite?
Fram:
Replying to your post of Mon May 02, 2005 12:28 pm:
The Catholic Church is not merely an abstract idea. It is an association of real, physical people, past and present, who share properties and a history.
Regarding your box analogy, how do the insiders know that there is an outside from which, or to which, information could flow? According to the BB model information is constantly coming in from the outside the visible universe box. Every year information from another light-year out is coming in and the contents (galaxies, etc.) of the box are constantly increasing.
skrap1r0n wrote:
Quote:
|
I would think that if one can make accurate prediction based on the sum total of their observations, and then have those predictions verified by multiple, seperate entities, then a good case for justifying the observations has been made.
|
One of the rules of logic is that proof of the consequent does not constitute proof of the antecedent. In the situation you present the observations are antecedent and the predictions are consequent. Verifying the predictions cannot verify (or justify) the observations.
Grey wrote on Tue May 03, 2005 1:28 am:
Quote:
|
And I claim it's an arbitrary distinction with no hard division. Is something I see directly observed? What if I see it through a window? What about on television? What if I see it through a curved window (a lens) that distorts or enlarges it? What if I see it through a set of such lenses (a telescope or microscope)? What if that allows seeing detail that I would otherwise be unable to see? What if I wouldn't be able to see it at all without the device? What if the light it emits isn't in the visible spectrum, but in infrared, and I need to use a device that converts that to visible light? What if it's emits primarily radio waves, and I use a computer to translate that into a false-color image? What if it's emitting Cerenkov radiation, and I use a computer to reconstruct its trajectory? Where exactly was the dividing line between direct and indirect observation?
|
The distinction between direct and indirect observation is not arbitrary; it is as objective as the distinction between presentation and representation. Direct observation is the sensing of what an object presents to the senses. Indirect observation is the sensing of a representation of an object presented by an intermediary.
When visible light emitted or reflected by an object (light object, dark surroundings) or by its surroundings (dark object light surroundings) is presented directly to the naked eye, the resulting observation of the object is direct. The directness of the observation is not altered by the eye’s responding to only some or one of the presented wavelengths, or by the lens of the eye changing the path of the light. Lenses, filters, and mirrors alter the path of the light, but do not cause observations to be indirect.
When the light reaching the eye was not emitted or reflected by the observed object or its surroundings (as with night vision goggles), an intervening object (device) has substituted one or more new wavelengths in place of what came from the object or its surroundings. The light from the object was presented to the device, which, in turn, creates a representation of its view of the object and its surroundings in visible light, and such observation is indirect. A painting or photograph of an object, being a representation, facilitates indirect observation of the object.
If an observed object does not emit or reflect light, or if the object cannot be visually distinguished from its background, then any visual display of the object is necessarily a representation and, hence, such observation is indirect. A false-color representation of radio waves, for example, provides indirect observation. Direct and indirect observation can also be made with the auditory and tactile senses.