Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
[Snip!] Celestial Mechanic also wrote:
Quote:
|
Pretty much the whole notion of cosmology takes the existence of a universe as a given.
|
The word ‘cosmos’ and the word ‘universe’, though now often used as synonyms for each other, did not originally have the same meaning. ‘Cosmos’ originally meant ‘the arrangement or order of things.’ ‘Universe’ originally meant ‘one turn’, what that shell of stars seemed to do: turn as one thing. |
Well, this is all pretty interesting for those interested in etymology and the history of science, but of what relevance is this to the actual question at hand, which is the existence/non-existence of the universe itself? Sure, people have had different ideas of what the universe is (how many elephants and turtles to support the Earth, etc. ) but the basic concept, that everything is a part of some much bigger thing has remained a constant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
[Snip!]The mind operates on knowledge. Similar to a computer, it is a GIGO machine: garbage in – garbage out. So how do we know if the knowledge we give the mind does not include bad stuff? Knowledge of logic lets us weed out the bad stuff.
|
So how do we know that we have knowledge of logic? :wink: Take a look at some of the postings of
lyndonashmore and
Lunatic. They obviously believe that their arguments are the epitome of reason.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Epistemology, one of the branches of philosophy, deals with the nature of knowledge and how we know what we know. Surely epistemology should be of special interest to scientists who use old knowledge and create new knowledge. Our predecessors have handed down much of our knowledge. Some of that knowledge has been around for a very long time. Frequently new evidence forces us to rethink and abandon some old knowledge. Galileo Galilei’s new evidence about falling objects resulted in the trashing of Aristotle’s physics. Tycho Brahe’s careful astronomical measurements, and especially those of comets, cast serious doubt on the shell of stars idea. The subsequent invention of the telescope led to the measurements of star distances, confirming that the shell of stars idea was false. Yes, the universe idea is a given, given to us by our predecessors. But, were they less prone to error than we are?
|
Again, the details about the "shell of stars" concept is irrelevant. Why do you obsess about it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Celestial Mechanic also wrote:
Quote:
|
And how do you propose to "determine if the idea of a physical universe idea is justifiable"? Do you have some experiments in mind, or do you propose to attack the problem with more philosophy?
|
The universe itself cannot be observed directly or indirectly. Therefore, there cannot be an experiment to justify the universe idea. The only other way to justify the universe idea is to think about it.
|
I guess it's going to be word-salad then. I'll get some ranch dressing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
[Snip!]To justify the universe idea one must show either that there is no self-contradiction hidden in its definition or, if there is a hidden self-contradiction, that it can be eliminated. To eliminate such a self-contradiction, one of the contradicting ideas must be replaced by another that does not lead to a self-contradiction and does not destroy the original intent of the definition. I have not been able to logically justify the universe idea; perhaps someone else can.
|
Or maybe you can justify it after all. Just hit your philosophy books again!
