Frog march wrote: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: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: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:The second paragraph in my first post of this thread reads: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: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: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: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.

I disagree. It would be difficult to get a group of philosophers to agree on precisely what the distinction was, so it cannot be said to be objective. You yourself seem to show some confusion in the matter.

In the latter case, that can't possibly be considered direct observation. You aren't seeing the object in question at all. You're seeing the surroundings, and deducing the existence of an intervening object. It could instead be a cardboard cutout for all you know.

Why not?

Certainly they do, since they change the quality of the light. Moreover, froma quantum perspective, photons are absorbed and re-emitted as they pass through a medium. The photons that you see are not the same ones that were emitted by the object, and might be changed in their qualities (such as polarization, for example, by a filter). How then can this be different from a more complex device other than in degree?

Hmmmmm I think think this question needs a thread of its own. :-k

8)

I don't buy it. The only way it would be possible would be if everyone shared a consiousness. Unless you are postulating that even the people around you are figments you have conjured, but if thats the case, then Why can't be be god? I mean if it's all in my mind, why am I bound by laws of nature?

__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory

.

The applied energy had it self a quality such that as the energy was applied it manifested in patterns predestined by the quality of the energy.
each level.. as we precieve them.. dimensional level, then had itself a finite amount of energy which was put forth towards particular efforts..
and the overall amount of energy applied in creation most clearly has already been applied. and is so Finite.. yet variable at any time, based on God only know what.

The spatial Ether, while not finite.. is instead.. compliant.
one might propose that some odd quality of applied energy might result in a 3d space that just continues to expand, until what???
possibly in that case, the Ether might react in any number of ways, which i am not clearly able to speculate on...
thinning to the point of rupture like a balloon??
-MT

Ahhh but none of you have consiousness. You only say you have consiousness to confuse me and make me think that you exist. 8-[

But I Am Not Fooled!! [-(


:wink:

Lol tha LAST thing you want is someone like me in your head

__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory

Which leaves me puzzled as to why you even posted this thread. I'm not understanding your purpose in doing so. :/

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

This thread reminds me of the old "Is Science a belief system" thread....

Say what??

The "spatial ether" idea has been throughly debunked. [-X

Hey, let's all go over to Lurker's and play some head games!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I exist, therefore I say I exist.

But saying that does anything else, is the world dictated by quantum theory? If I turn my back from a window and look back a moment later will everything still be there? If I put a man in a room and split the room in two will he still be in both halves... or will he be in two halves, or will he be in two halves in both halves of the room?

The questions are endless so just stop asking them!

Or enlarged?
Richard. Looking at an object doesn't mean you see an object. Similarly touching something doesn't mean you are physically touching it as it's just an illusion, the electrons in my body and in my desk prevent me from passing my hand through it and I never actually 'touch' it, but if my body was made of electrically neutral particles (lets just say I wouldn't fall apart for now) I could pass my hand through the desk, through myself and more dangerously through the floor.

Looking at myself in a mirror I see myself. Or I see the reflected light that was filtered by my body because my skin and clothing and hair only re-emit certain colours so the mirror that then re-emits the photons can only emit the photons of the same colour. I don't see me I see my Colour filtered photons. Also the silver in the back of a mirror strips out certain wavelengths of the spectrum, See Here. I have a blue top on right now that would be missing some photons from its colour.

When i propose an Ether, i propose a transindental fluid which condesends to obey surtain natural laws.
Laws set forth by the applied energy in creation.

-MT

Grey wrote:A visual representation of an object is a copy of the object in the form of a photograph, picture, statue, video display, etc. An object must exist before it can be copied. The necessary antecedence of an object to a copy of it means that an object and a copy of it are two different entities. That a copy can continue to exist when the original object has ceased to exist also means that the two are different entities. That difference is a precise distinction between the two. The same precise distinction applies to an object and its representation. Direct observation is observation of an object itself. Indirect observation is observation of a representation of an object. Since there is a precise distinction between an object and its representation, there is a precise distinction between direct observation and indirect observation. I think it would be easy to get a group of philosophers to agree that the distinction is precise and objective.

Grey also wrote:If there is no difference between an object and its surroundings the object cannot be directly observed. That’s how natural camouflage works. However, if you observe a dark region in a light surrounding, you have observed something dark even if you cannot identify it. Observation and identification are not synonymous. If the dark region has the shape of a rattlesnake and it moves like a rattlesnake and you know that you are not looking at a movie or television show, you should have complete trust that you have directly observed a rattlesnake and should act accordingly.

Grey also wrote:Because those opthalmologic factors do not alter the fact that an object itself is being observed rather than a representation of the object.
Grey also wrote:Since opthalmologic factors do not alter the directness of observation, eyeglasses, sunglasses, artificial lens implants, and, hence, lenses and filters in general have no bearing on whether an observation is direct or indirect.

When a surgeon looks, whether with naked eyes, or through eyeglasses, or through a magnifying lens, or a filter, at an x-ray picture representation of a broken bone, he directly observes the picture and indirectly observes the broken bone. In the operating room when he retracts the overlying tissues and can see the broken bone itself, whether with naked eyes, or through eyeglasses, or through a magnifying lens, or a filter, he directly observes the broken bone.

I hope that now we all have a clear understanding of direct and indirect observation and can return to the original point of this thread. All kinds of cosmic things have been observed, but the universe has never been observed directly or indirectly. That makes it a hypothetical entity. Is there any scientific evidence or logic that justifies the idea of the universe as a physical thing to which physical properties and histories can be attributed?

Have you ever seen a solar system? No. Have you ever seen a galaxy? No. You have seen stars, planets, dust, but you make them into the solar system idea, the galaxy idea. This is perfectly justifiable, just like the universe idea is justifiable.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse