Jens wrote:Jens, that is not what I say. You have omitted my inclusion of indirect observation. In my previous post to which you now reply, I wrote to you What I do say is that observation is either direct or indirect. A thing that has not been observed directly and that has not been observed indirectly is unobserved at all and is undiscovered, or hypothetical, or does not exist. A thing that has been observed directly or that has been observed indirectly is not undiscovered, and is not hypothetical, and does exist.

We can directly observe some stars, the Milky Way, and a few galaxies with the naked eye. With a telescope we can directly observe some stars and galaxies too faint to observe with the naked eye. Stars and galaxies too faint to directly observe with a telescope can be indirectly observed with a telescope equipped with a photographic camera set for long time exposure. Photographic observations are indirect observations because one observes not the object but a representation of the object on a film or display screen. Any objects that have been observed either indirectly or directly are not undiscovered, are not hypothetical, and are known to exist.

Jens continued:It is true that we have directly observed things like the earth, planets and stars. We have also indirectly observed many stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters. But when you say “those are clearly part of the universe,” or when you say “Even if only stars exist, that’s still a universe,” you have not said what you mean by the word ‘universe.’

Jens, I will again try to explain the notion of existence to you. ‘Exist’ is derived from the Latin word ‘exsistere’ meaning to ‘stand out’ or ‘stand forth’, as in one soldier standing forth from an army. There is an easy way to test for whether a physical thing is known to exist or not. If something has been observed to stand out or to stand forth from everything else it is known to exist. If something did not stand out or stand forth in some way, it would be unobservable and would not be known to exist.

To test for correct usage of the word ‘exist’, substitute the expression ‘stand out’. Here’s an example. The earth, planets, and stars have been observed to stand out from everything else. Let’s assume that there is a universe and that the earth, planets and stars are parts of the universe. It doesn’t follow from the observation that the earth, planets, and stars stand out from everything else, that the universe also stands out from everything else. That last sentence translates to “It doesn’t follow from the existence of the earth, planets, and stars that the universe exists.”

You say “So therefore, the universe does exist even according to your definition.” You imply that I have a definition of the universe. What is my definition of the universe?

Jens wrote: I did say “In short, a physical thing…” It seems it was too short. I apologize. According to that definition of ‘thing’ a physical thing is that which is conceived, spoken of, or referred to as existing as an individual, distinguishable physical entity. If two physical entities were to occupy the same space at the same time, one could not be distinguished from the other. Therefore, if one physical entity is to be distinguishable from another, it must be separate from the other. In other words, a physical thing is a physical entity separate from other physical entities.

Jens wrote:The connection is that the BB theory assumes that the universe is a physical thing to which physical properties and a history can be attributed. Without that assumption there could be no BB theory. If the idea of the universe as a physical thing to which physical properties and a history can be attributed is not justifiable, then there is no such universe. If that is so, then the BB theory proposes properties and a history for a thing that does not exist.

What historical fact do you mean?

Fortis wrote:Because the expression ‘the idea of Richard J. Hanak’ has several different meanings and because a number of other people also have that name, your question is too ambiguous to answer in an unambiguous way. If you would tell me how your intent in that question is relevant to this thread, I would gladly help you to revise the question.

Celestial Mechanic wrote:But it is not the sense organs that are being fooled or deceived. Touch a hot stone and your touch sensors do not send your brain signals that you are touching cold water. Look at the night sky and your sight sensors do not send the signals of dark spots on a light background. Sniff some chlorine gas and your smell sensors do not send the signals of roses. If you touch something the touch sensors do not send the signals of a musical tone. If you sniff a very weak concentration of hydrogen sulfide in air your smell sensors do not send the signals of a strong concentration of that gas.

Sensors only respond to stimuli; they do not interpret or misinterpret stimuli. Illusions do not occur at the sensor level. Illusions occur because the mind misinterprets some of the information content of sensor signals.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:A suitable stimulus for a sense organ is the stimulus to which it can respond: light for light sensors, certain dissolved molecules for taste sensors, certain airborne molecules for smell sensors, pressure for a touch sensor, etc. The signal from a sensor is appropriate if the signal intensity is related to the stimulus intensity. Because each sensor is ‘hard-wired’ to a specific part of the brain, and because the nerves that carry the signals are insulated from each other, there is normally no ‘cross-talk’. For example, a light stimulus to the retina does not produce the sensation of hearing something.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote: and earlier Celestial Mechanic wrote:You seem to make two distinctly different uses of the idea of connection. In the case of particles, you have an actual literal connection via force-particles that provide an ongoing physical interaction between the particles. In the case of photons you have an indirect connection via the particles that emit or absorb the photons and a series of other particles. Now, while a particle has an ongoing physical interaction with other particles, a travelling photon does not have an ongoing physical interaction with the particle that emitted it, the particle that will absorb it, any other particles, or other photons. Emission and absorption are two terminal historical times in the life of a photon. The photon does its travelling between those two terminal times. It seems that your second use of the idea of connection is a historical connection, not an ongoing physical connection.

Notice also that because the interaction of particles is ongoing, the present tense can be correctly used in saying that a particle is connected to another particle. However, a historical connection to the past or future of a photon only allows for reference to the connection in the past or future tense, not in the present tense as in your claim that “Every photon is connected to every other photon…. .” Now, if you could provide an experimentally verifiable mechanism for an ongoing interaction between two travelling photons, you would be able to correctly speak of their connection in the present tense, and you would undoubtedly receive a Nobel Prize in physics.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:A limit to what can be added to the set presumes that the number of particles and their interactions is finite. Why must that number be finite?

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:But you expect us to imagine an infinite number of imaginations. Seems like a contradiction there.

Furthermore, a finite number of particles and their interactions per imagination multiplied by an infinite number of imaginations yields an infinite number of particles and their interactions. There can be no closure if the number of particles and their interactions is infinite.