Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
I will agree that there is no self-contradiction in the meaning of the word ‘everywhere.’ ‘Everywhere’ means ‘in all places’ or ‘in all positions in space.’ Are you proposing that the word ‘universe’ primarily means ‘in all places’ or ‘in all positions in space?’ Surely ‘everywhere’ is not the basis for defining the universe..
|
Yes it is.
Maybe 'things' exist outside of your concept of 'everywhere' Mr. Hanak, but not mine.
Quote:
Here is where I’m going with this. If the universe were defined as the totality of all things that simultaneously exist and do not exist, the obvious self-contradiction in that definition would render it unreasonable. One cannot reason with a self-contradiction. Often self-contradictions are not so obvious. If in a cosmological context the meaning of the word ‘universe’ is not reasonable, it should be corrected to make it reasonable or else be abandoned. There is nothing terrible about abandoning an idea. Nobody is upset because the phlogiston idea was discarded.
In examining the meaning of a word or term, one deals with semantics. When examining an idea to see if it is reasonable, one deals with logic, which is a branch of philosophy.
|
If you have a problem with "the universe," you need to do a better job of articulating it IMO. All l see from you is semantical obfuscation and philosophical irrelevancy. You can't use semantics or philosophy to debunk "the universe," at least with me. You don't have to agree Mr. Hanak and I think we both can live with that.
You can have the last word but I'm done here.