I see you haven't understood Kesh's post at all. Please leave religion / atheism out of your posts. If you want to discuss it, you can go over to FWIS, but here it is off-limits, certainly in the rather offensive way you discuss it.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Semantics.

The Universe is defined as all there IS.
Therefore only ONE thing needs to be for the universe to exist.

Cogito ergo sum. I am therefore the universe is.
The properties of the universe are irrelevant to the discussion.

In analogy: If I am inside the Forrest all I see is trees.
The part that I can see is a Forrest, it doesn't matter if it the rest of it is only a 100 meter across or covers the whole planet.
#-o

8) Im not talking about religion.

No, im talking about the fundamental effect that a belief in big bang does for or to a typical low income child..

Mind you these ideas.. are taught from the pillars of genius in our communities and they carry great weight, most especially to children who desire intelectual power.. and as such must be regarded as a powerful influence.

and to much are the influences in our society habitually negative, and leads to establishing mind sets which allows for alot more negative socail behavior than would have been had in the absense of the negative influences...

Poker is all the rage on Tv and cable.. and what has happenned??

they say poker and gambiling is up, most especially in children.

Think about it.

-MT

Fortunately belief in the BB doesn't seem to harm middle- and upper-income kids. Whew!! What a relief! 8)

Actually, I don't think very many children at whatever income level think a lot about the origin of the universe. They are mostly content to parrot what their parents and/or clergy have told them. And if you're a low-income child, you have bigger and more immediate concerns than "how did the universe get here?". :-?

And before the BB, what do you think was the cause of all of society's problems? Darwinian evolution? And what about before that? Copernicanism? Rubbish! Our social problems are caused the the conditions of our society, not by any particular scientific theory that happens to be in vogue. Of course, this isn't to say that a scientific theory can't be twisted and misapplied with horrible results, but again it is a problem with the people misapplying the science, not science itself.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

8) you guys are smart.. sociology 101.

desicions are directly effected by attitudes.

attitudes are directly linked to our beliefs.

Our beliefs are bases on our education, and all the inlfuences found and gaind from it, including bias and delusion.

So if we believe that the universe began in a big bang.. and random action made everything.. and life is just a freak accident.

and so there is no meaning to all this, then why should i believe any of this religious stuff?? i wont... you dont.

and so if these are my core beliefs..

Then as young male punk, when it comes to making a desicion about killing the clerk he's robbing or not.. that punks mind searches for reasons not to kill....
he find science from school.. and he realise in what seems like logic, that theres no God.... so just kill this guy and get outta there... bamm.

If only that kid had better influences, then we could feel safe in all neigborhoods.. and walking down our streets.

You are all victoms of that same educational system.

-MT

which of course is nothing, compared to how it used to be.. with no educational system at all.... so dont get me wrong.
But few people want to discuss the power of influence and are willing to try and combat it.
people get scared of the word censorship.. which i dont advocate..
I advocate warnings.. loud and clear warnings, all the time.

You are just being silly. :roll:

The number one guide to human behaviour is not reason but instinct.
We are by nature social animals.
Most people know in their gut that certain things are not done.
Personal believe has little to do with it.

By definition anti-social behaviour undermines the social frame-work that helps us to stay alive in the first place.
#-o

Celestial Mechanic wrote:I cannot name any meaningful ideas or projects pushed aside. That was only mentioned as a possibility. As for the conclusions you draw from the Hubble Telescope, it can view all kinds of things, but not the universe itself. Certainly it can be used to determine the properties and histories of the things it can view. However, the connection between things observed and a thing not observed can only be arrived at mentally by the process of logical reasoning. Logic is one of the branches of philosophy. The situation is not one of science or logic; it is science and logic; it is science and philosophy.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote: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.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:Don’t castigate all of philosophy because of some of Aristotle’s mistakes. While it is true that Aristotle made a mess of physics and cosmology, his three fundamental laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle) have held up as the foundations of logic. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Without non-contradictory identification there could be no scientific method, no objective science. Without philosophers like George Boole, Augustus DeMorgan, and John Venn, who contributed to our knowledge of logic, there could be no switching circuits, logic circuits, computers, computer programs, internet, or Hubble Telescope.

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.

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?

Celestial Mechanic also wrote: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.

Thinking consists of identification and assimilation. When an idea is defined it is identified. However, an idea can only be defined in terms of other ideas. Therefore, to be assimilated an idea must not contradict any previously held idea, else its definition would be self-contradictory and violate Aristotle’s second law of logic. Usually such contradictions only become evident after successive substitutions of meanings for terms in the definition. When there is such a contradiction one must seek to determine which of the two contradicting ideas is false.

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.

Ahh, but the thing is, the universe isn't a container for stuff. It IS the stuff. You've gone from asking whether or not the universe is a thing to straight out telling us it isn't, while acknowledging the things that supposedly exist within it. But those things ARE the universe. A universe is a set of objects that interact in some way, be it electromagnetically, gravitationally, or by the strong or weak nuclear forces. The Universe is the set of all things that interact with us.

Either that, or cognito ergo sum.

__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.

The above snippet of yours is a good example of what you've done this entire thread. Ever consider that you can't "logically justify the universe idea" because you are over-analyzing a word? I don't need to justify the "universe idea" myself, the common dictionary definition works fine with me. "Hidden self-contradiction" in a word that basically means "everywhere?" Not to me. Then again, I'm sure we can have fun with the word "everywhere" if we put our minds to it .. and that's my point. I must've missed yours because I don't see where you are going with this outside of engaging in a semantical/philosophical jig.

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.
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.
Again, the details about the "shell of stars" concept is irrelevant. Why do you obsess about it?
I guess it's going to be word-salad then. I'll get some ranch dressing.
Or maybe you can justify it after all. Just hit your philosophy books again!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

"The game" - an abstraction, like much of human language, to refer to the system of rules and results that we percieve.

The reality is immaterial, you see.
We either treat it as reality, in which case we try and figure out its rules, or we treat it as illusion, at which point any further speculation is pointless.

You either play the game or you don't. Further conjecture is a purely onanistic exercise in intellectual introspection, as any rules outside the game are imperceptable to those with senses limited by the rules of the game. Even our thinking processes are so limited.

Speculating what is outside the universe, whether the universe is or is not, or whether the outside the universe cosmistellar duck would like a cheeseburger are equally valid and at the same time pointless questions when looking for an accurate in-game description.

Kristophe wrote:On page 2 of this thread, in my May 16, 2005 reply I wrote:Look what happens if we try to define a thing as a set. Let’s take the moon as an example. We can begin with ‘the moon is a set of atoms.’ The earth and sun are also sets of atoms, so our definition of the moon as a set is not sufficiently narrow. We could add another membership rule to define which atoms can be members of the moon set. Any way you try to define that membership you ultimately wind up with ‘the moon is the set of atoms that constitute the moon.’ Unfortunately a thing cannot be defined in terms of itself. In such a definition if we replace the word ‘moon’ wherever it occurs by ‘ the set of atoms that constitute the moon’ we soon have ‘the moon is the set of atoms that constitute the set of atoms that constitute the set of atoms that constitute the set of atoms …….’ without end, and we can never attain a definition. (The ‘fin’ in ‘definition’ means ‘end.’)

If you define the universe as a set, you deny it thinghood, and with that the physical properties and history that a thing can have. As a set the universe would be an abstraction existing only in the mind.

Archer17 wrote:and 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. What about ‘things?’

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.

Celestial Mechanic wrote:1. If everything is a part of some much bigger thing and
2. if the universe is a thing, then
3. the universe is a part of some much bigger thing, and the universe cannot be defined as the whole of existence or the totality of all that exists. That thing that is much bigger than the universe is also a part of some much bigger thing, and so on ad infinitum.

Let me caution you that if you try to modify that basic concept in order to break the otherwise infinite chain, I think you will run into serious problems. As that basic concept stands now, if premises 1 and 2 are both true then the universe cannot be defined as the whole of existence or the totality of all that exists. If the universe can be defined as in 3, then premise 2 is true and premise 1 is false.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:To know something is to be aware of it. To have knowledge of something is to have recallable memory of it. If there is a thing you never learned and, hence, never put into your memory, or if a part of your brain holding or leading to a memory of that thing fails, you know that you have no recall of it, that you have no knowledge of it. If you can recall anything about logic you are aware of that recall and know that you have knowledge of logic.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:It is known that some night-flying birds can see stars and navigate by them. If birds are aware of stars, then the first humans must have been aware of them. They would have seen the “shell of stars” and wondered about it. They would have known the shell or rind of a melon and would easily have made an analogy between the melon rind and the “shell of stars.” Just as the rind delimited the extent of the melon, the “shell of stars” delimited all that is. Their astronomers would have noticed that the stars all swung across the sky in unison in the course of a night. Since that “shell of stars” behaved as if it were a single thing, it was natural to have thought that it was a thing.

That is very possibly how the universe idea began. The idea of the universe as a thing has been handed down through at least 10,000 generations and is now so ingrained that it is difficult to conceive that the universe might not be a thing. That is why I think the “shell of stars” concept is relevant and why I frequently return to it.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:If words get in your way when thinking then you must know some way to think rationally without using words. Please share your secret! Ranch dressing? Great! I like ranch dressing. It might help to make unfamiliar ideas palatable. Well-seasoned ideas, of course, require no dressing.

PatKelley in answer to my question about what he meant by the term “the game” wrote:What is the system of rules? How are we able to perceive the system of rules? From what actions, circumstances, or premises do the results arise? How are we able to perceive the results?

The answers are: physical constants and natural laws, through experimentation, the physical universe, and with our in-universe senses and minds making interpretations based on experimentation.

So, scientific inquiry is the answer. Other interpretations of physical reality have no meaning and are not testable or predictable, and all conjectures as to what lies beyond the boundaries of physical reality are not testable or predictable by definition. Even our inferences about this are bound by our physical reality.

In short: your pursuit is pointless, without end or answer, where all answers are as valid as no answer. A null set. A metaphysical pursuit guised as a conflict with science.

[edited to add] - Ah, a friend who has studied philosophy provided me with a succinct description of these arguments:

Solipsistic sophistry.

All right, RJH, how do you, a philosopher, in your near-infinite wisdom, "define" the Moon?

While we're at it, how do you define yourself? How do you know that you have properly defined yourself? How do you know that you are aware of properly defining yourself? How do you know that you have a recallable memory of being aware of properly defining yourself? When did you learn or put into your memory the awareness of a proper definition of yourself?

See, I can toss word-salad as well as any philosopher-chef!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Yes it is.Maybe 'things' exist outside of your concept of 'everywhere' Mr. Hanak, but not mine.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.