I think therefore etc.

The love to play with words, don't they.
Maybe philosophy should be left to mathematicians.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Ok, not completely futile...I did like the "Yes, Virginia..." posts! But for the most part, much ado about nothing, IMO.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

There are some posts by others that are darn close. For example remember certain posts in the Huygen[sic] thread and their various other incarnations? Darn good rabbit food if you ask me. And, just like rabbits, the post's contents were constantly recycled.

Amen, Brother!

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

R.A.F. wrote:R.A.F., to claim that my arguments are based on my personal philosophy does not disprove those arguments or show that they are irrelevant. Furthermore, since you have no knowledge of my own personal philosophy, you are in no position to claim that my arguments are based on my own personal philosophy.

Scientific reasoning is based on mathematical reasoning, which is based on geometrical reasoning, which is based on arithmetical reasoning, which is based on logical reasoning. Any of those kinds of reasoning can be appropriately used as a base for an argument pertaining to a scientific subject. The last in that list is the base for my arguments in this thread.

Logical reasoning can be based on axioms (like in mathematics), observations (like in science), and ideas (like in philosophy). There are more possibilities and often those are mixed, but this is a start.
To me, it looks like your logical reasoning is based on your ideas, i.e. your personal philosophy. It is not based (or not for the most part) on observations or axioms. You started about 'the universe idea', which stresses this point.
Of course, it could be that it is not your personal philosophy, perhaps you are just playing the devil's advocate or so, but that seems to me largely irrelevant. In that case, you are defending a personal philosophy, just not your personal philosophy.
There is nothing wrong with either of those, but I don't see why you deny it.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

*ahem*
If Universe DNE, then U DNE, and you are a subset of U. Where are your m4d l0g1k 5k1llz on that one?

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

You can't take the sky from me.

I suggested earlier There may have been a smiley at the end, but if "Richard J Hanak", whatever that is, can answer that, I'd be very interested.

Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Four--Moon in June)

Initially I thought that my arguments had taken care of this thread. Indeed there was no response to my three "Virginia" posts for 16 days. But ultimately Virginia came back one day to tell me of Jimmy K.'s latest outrages and of Richard J. Hanak's lengthy reply.

"OK Virginia, let's start with his arguments about classes and sets. They're particularly stinky!"
"That's wrong right off the bat. Can you think of a property every set has?"

Virginia though about it a moment, and then asked, "The number of elements in it?"

"Yes, every set has a cardinality, the number of elements in it, either zero or some finite number or possibly even infinitely many. Colloquially we consider the properties of the members to be the properties of the set. We can consider, for example, the set of all stars within 1000 light-years of Earth. Once we have this list we can ask how many stars are in this set, what is the total luminosity of the stars in this set, what percentage of stars in this set have spectral type G and so on. We can always use the locution 'the attributes of this set's elements' or 'the history of this set's elements' but everybody understands that this is what is meant by 'attributes of this set' and 'history of this set'."

"And sets don't even have to be homogeneous for us to assign meaningful attributes to it. I can define a set that consists of a lion, a witch, and a wardrobe. I can determine how many doors it has by counting the doors of the wardrobe."

"How many teeth does your set have?" Virginia catches on quickly!

"I could determine the total number of teeth by counting if only the lion and the witch will let me! RJH continues:"

"I challenged him to define the Moon himself, and RJH continues with this:"
"Only problem is, he hasn't defined the Earth, he hasn't defined satellite, and he hasn't defined what 'natural' means in the context of his definition.

"Now I know that words have to be defined in terms of other words, and ultimately there are going to be words that cannot be defined but whose meanings must be taken to be understood, but RJH does not extend this courtesy to me in the definition that I give later of the Universe.

"And even if we do accept RJH's definition of the Moon, it is still ultimately a collection of atoms and it has the attributes that it does by virtue of this fact. Because the Moon is a collection of atoms, it has a total mass and an inertia tensor, it has a history (its position at each moment of time), it has velocity, linear momentum and angular momentum. All of these are things that matter very much to me as a celestial mechanic. It has all of these things by virtue of being a collection of atoms. Now we could please RJH by always saying things like 'the collection of atoms that constitutes Earth's natural satellite has a total mass of 7.3483E+22 kg', but that would be pedantic."

To be continued...

__________________
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 Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Five--I Belong to Me)
"The words may be precisely arranged according to the rules of grammar, but more to the point they are arranged and chosen in response to an earlier comment of RJH's not quoted here. The intent of asking the questions I did was to suggest how philosophy is one of the most wasteful of human activities, right up there with karaoke. Let's examine RJH's answer:"
"I shudder to even think of Richard J. Hanak initiating multiple instances of himself! There is a danger to defining oneself as a neurological function of the brain: that's not how the law sees it. RJH may not like it, but the law defines us as collections of atoms with certain inalienable rights. If something unfortunate happens to us that we no longer have re-entrant neurological functions capable of multiple initiations of ourselves then some other collection of atoms will have to exercise power of attorney over us. As the recent Terri Schiavo case proves, this is one of the places where politics and religion collide so we will not discuss it further.

"Besides, in the next paragraph I strike paydirt!"
"I'm not even going to touch that!" Virginia and I both had a good laugh over that one, and so should the reader.
To be continued...

__________________
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 Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Six--Justify Yourself)
"Maybe not offensive, but not justified, as the title of this thread indicates. Almost every one of the threads RJH started ultimately mentioned his book The Universe on Trial and/or had a link to a website he used to have."

"He didn't really answer any of your questions," Virginia noted.

"No, he didn't. He really does think that the concept of a universe is not justified. And if he is correct then it must be abandoned. Although he will not tell us in this thread or any other what he intends to replace that poor universe that he put on trial with. If one Googles on 'Richard J. Hanak' and looks at some of the pages, one will see as the subtitle to one of his books, 'The Return to Absolutivity'."

"Absolutivity? What is that?"

"Think about some of the other 'ivity' words that you know of."

"Creativity, activity, relativity?"

"Yes, Virginia, relativity. 'Absolutivity' seems to be a made-up word meant to stand in opposition to relativity. And if you look through this threads you will see many, many misconceptions about physics that our comments and links have not been able to dispel. But there is still hope!"
To be continued...

__________________
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 Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Seven--The Universe You Cannot Leave Behind)
"More dictionary games. The particular meaning of 'leave' that was meant was 'to exit'."
"Still more dictionary games. Virginia, have you read any of Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?"

"Yes, they're hilarious!"

"Do you remember Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged, the being accidentally given immortality who sets out to insult every creature in the universe in alphabetical order?"

"Yes."

"Well, let's imagine that we could arrange for RJH to have an 'unfortunate accident with an irrational particle accelerator, a liquid lunch and a pair of rubber bands' similar to Wowbagger's. After suffering his 'long dark teatime of the soul' he departs in a starship capable of lasting practically forever. So RJH the Infinitely Prolonged and the self that belongs to himself are able to leave the galaxy, the local cluster of galaxies, the supercluster of galaxies, the supercluster of superclusters, the supercluster of superclusters of superclusters, the n-th iteration of that and then what?"

Virginia was lost in thought.

"If RJH is right he exits from one level of structure only to find himself in a larger structure. If there is a largest structure he emerges into the space between these largest structures and has only the choice of entering one of these structures or staying outside of all of them."
"Can you answer it for me? Why can't Forrest Gump leave the universe?"

Virginia needed only a moment, "Because there's nowhere else to go?"

"That's it. Poor RJH the Infinitely Prolonged. Aboard a mighty starship and nowhere to go!"
To be continued...

__________________
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.

=D>

I've proposed this idea twice now, without invoking a reply from our resident philosopher and logitician, so let me rephrase it:

The Univese is the set of all things that can physically interact through the exchange of force carrying particles, and the medium through which these particles propagate.

*taps his foot patiently*

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

You can't take the sky from me.

Works for me. I say we all conclude that we are in the Universe and RJH can be *somewhere else* if that makes him happy!

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Not a bad idea. I don't need any bottled brains in my pantry.

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

You can't take the sky from me.

Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Eight--My Mother the Car)
"Endless dictionary games. We could just as easily talk of an automobile or talk about an automobile or talk to an automobile or if you are Jerry Van Dyke, talk with an automobile."

"Don't you mean Dick Van Dyke?" Virginia asked.

"Jerry Van Dyke is Dick's brother and in 1964 he starred in a television show called My Mother the Car. The situation was this: his late mother was reincarnated as an antique automobile that could speak to him and only to him (voice of Ann Southern). Consequently he spent a lot of time in the garage talking with her. Think Mr. Ed with a car instead of a horse."

"How horrible!"

"Yes Virginia, television wasn't any better back then either. Don't let anyone try to fool you. But let's get back to the topic."
"Nevertheless, the engine, frame, transmission, tires, etc., have the properties they do because they are made of certain materials and their interactions, these materials have certain properties because of the atoms that they are made of and their interactions, the atoms have certain properties because of the sub-atomic particles and their interactions. It is not 'turtles all the way down' even if it is superclusters all the way up. Study galaxies, stars, atoms, nuclei, and even automobiles at whatever level you like, but always remember that underneath it all is a huge quantity of a small number of particles and their interactions. It is at that level that the way to defining the universe lies. In the next two paragraphs he almost agrees with me."
"At the nuclear level the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions have to be taken into account in explaining the properties of nuclei. Electromagnetic and gravitational interactions must be taken into account for the remaining levels up to stars. But once we reach the level of galaxies only gravitational interactions remain. And gravity is mostly indifferent to the properties of the things it interacts with. It doesn't matter if an automobile has cheap plastic seat covers or Corinthian leather (wish I could do a good Ricardo Montalban impression!), it will drop the same way off a cliff (allowing for aerodynamics, of course). At the largest levels, however many there are, only gravity matters, contrary to the claims of the Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe followers.

"I have no need of knowledge about the largest (if any) structures in the universe to reason about it as a whole. All I need is the densities of matter and radiation (which could be zero), the signature of the curvature (+1 for closed, 0 for flat, -1 for open), and possibly the cosmological constant."
To be continued...

Note: While this dialog is fictional, there really was a TV show entitled My Mother the Car. I am not making this up!

__________________
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 Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Nine--All This and Feynman Too!)
"I never said I did. RJH views the universe as a collection of protons, neutrons, electrons, but Virginia and I do not. Why is that, Virginia?"

"Because we know better!"

"Well, that's a little smug, but true. And if one day we find out that quarks and leptons are composites of still more fundamental things, we will know even better then. That is the way science progresses. But RJH continues:"
"It is said that no good deed goes unpunished. I do this in order to tie in with the direct and indirect observations as described by RJH in his original post. I also know from the discussions in the 'Ashmore's Paradox' threads that the emission of a photon is a collective action of the atom, and it is this situation I'm trying to cover. There are other effects that have to be understood collectively as well, such as superconductivity. But this still does not change the fact that there are quarks and leptons and gauge particles at the bottom rung of the ladder and they are (ultimately) responsible for everything we observe."
"His first paragraph of response to that is to criticize the sentence structure of my paragraph and to claim that he sees two definitions of universe in it. I won't quote that paragraph. RJH continues:"
"I don't know about that, Virginia. The education level of the participants of this board is relatively high, well, at least a couple of steps above GLP! I don't think too many people would have a problem extrapolating from a small Feynman diagram to successively larger and larger diagrams. Calculation is out of the question, of course, but I'm not asking anybody to actually calculate the Feynman diagram that is the universe. I think the only people here that could not comprehend the universe as a Feynman diagram would be some of the posters who have trouble with quantum mechanics or think special relativity is wrong. There's not much I can say that will help, but there's always hope!"
"Only with the intent of avoiding pedantry, your honor!"
"What a profound observation. Spoken like a true philosopher." Virginia giggled.
"There is no need to represent objects other than particles. Just show all the particles that make up the object and their mutual interactions. This is not very practical, since each of us is made up of about 1E+27 to 1E+28 particles or so, but again I ask only for use of people's imaginations, not their calculating faculties."
"This is no different than the undefined terms of 'Earth', 'satellite', and 'natural' that he used in his 'definition' of the Moon. As for my momentary lapse in using the word 'graph', I am sure that if RJH looks in his dictionary, he will find lots of entries that have the abbreviation SYN (for synonym) followed by other words that are synonyms of the word being defined. I'm sure most readers of this board understood 'graph' to be a synonym for 'diagram', even if RJH did not."
To be continued...

__________________
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.

I remember My Mother the Car!

Now, I think that Celestial Mechanic's Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe should be published! =D> It's great!

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I'm sorry to go back to this, but I think this is really fundamental. Grey's points about direct and indirect observation seem very germane. I really can't understand why you privilege certain wavelengths -- those observable by the human eye -- as direct and make the others indirect. In reality, I think our brain perceives things through the intermediation of the eyes, which act in a sense like a telescope.

Another question, too. I don't think it's absolutely true that we cannot see things which are not there. There is a phenomenon of afterglow, perhaps, where we continue to see something after it has disappeared from reality. For example, if you look at the sun, and then turn your eyes away to a dark place, you will continue to see the sun, slowly fading. This is not a direct observation.

So I can't really see the rationale for making this distinction. And thus it's not possible to move "forward."

But on the other hand, I think you've written a book about this so it's obviously something you've thought about a lot. I don't quite understand exactly what it is you're trying to say. Perhaps that anyting that we can't observe directly can't be firmly stated to exist? OK, but then we get go to a deeper dilemma, that even those that we can observe with our own senses cannot necessarily be firmly said to exist. It may all be an illusion. But I think obviously you're not talking about something so simple. There must be something more specific that you're getting at, but I can't say I understand it. What if we don't trust anything that can't be perceived directly by our senses? That throws away cosmology along with the entire foundation of biology, chemistry, physics unless I'm missing something.

__________________
As above, so below

Thanks. I'd primarily let this go because I'd been unavailable for a couple days, and in that time the conversation had moved on to other issues, and I wasn't sure I wanted to backtrack. Besides, I thought Celestial Mechanic was doing such a fine job that I wasn't certain my contribution was strictly necessary. For the record, I'd still agree that Richard's distinction between direct and indirect observation remains arbitrary, and his suggestion that things that can only be observed partially or indirectly (by his definition) lack reality is likewise arbitrary.

It's not just arbetrary, it's fundamentally flawed. "Direct observation" seems to mean "with the eyes", but ultimately there's no reason for us to consider the eyes trust worthy. I'm near sighted. I can't resolve distant images. I have a friend who's far sighted. He can't resolve near by images. Our eyes are flawed, and therefore so are the images our brains see. More importantly, the eye is not the brain. None of our sensory organs are. They can be fooled.

I consider these philosophical discussions to be prue jibberish, though. We can define the universe to be something. We can define it to be a subset of something else. If I'm doing a chemistry experiment in a closed system, I only need to consider the closed system to be "the universe". I don't have to look beyond it at all, especially if I'm doing pure theory.

Frankly, the only rason I popped my head in here against was to see if RJH had decided to comment on my definition above, which includes him as an element of the set U, a subset of the universe.

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

You can't take the sky from me.

Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Ten--We Are the Universe)
"What do you think, Virginia? What do you think my intent was?"

"That everything is connected."

"So does that include the Moon and non-Moon things?"

"Yes."

"What about RJH and me?"

"Yes, it must include the two of you, because it includes everything!"

"That's right, everything in the universe is connected to every other thing in the universe, no matter how far away in space or time. There is always a chain of particles and interactions leading from one event to another. In fact, that is the essence of my definition.

"Consider the chain connecting, say, RJH and me. Consider the down quark in a proton in a carbon atom on one of RJH's fingers. This down quark and the structures of which it is part are brought down upon a key at his computer keyboard. This quark (along with its neighbors) exchanges many virtual photons ultimately resulting in his finger pressing down upon the 'm' key of his keyboard. Still more virtual photons keep most of the quarks in his finger from going through the keycap. These virtual photons cause the keycap of the 'm' key to move and to press a metal contact down into the keyboard where an electrical contact is made.

"Let's review where we are now. We have traced a chain of particles and interactions leading from a quark in RJH through numerous other quarks and interactions into the keyboard of his computer. I leave it to you to imagine the quintillions of further particles and interactions (the lines and vertices of this graph) leading from the keyboard into the computer into storage in RAM, into its transmission over phone lines (maybe even over satellite!) to the phone line that leads to my computer, to the interactions that light up my LCD screen and the photons that carry the image of that 'm' into by brain.

"And you're connected, too, by virtue of the many quintillions of molecules of air that carried this to you where you heard it. Not to mention all the people at the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board reading this post right now. Lucky devils all!" Virginia giggled.

"Now when I say that everything in the universe is connected, I only mean it in the sense above, of an actual literal connection particle to particle via their interactions, mostly electromagnetic, but there are also gravitational interactions over large distances and strong and weak interactions over sub-nuclear distances. I really hate it when people start getting all dewy-eyed and mystical and use this as an excuse for carrying on in some touchy-feely, New-Agey, sing 'Kumbaya' manner."

"Every time I hear 'Kumbaya' I want to hurl!", Virginia interjected.

"Can't blame you! Don't worry, I'm not going to get Bob Dylan and Bono and Bruce Springsteen into a studio singing 'We are the universe, we are connected'. And Michael Jackson is right out!"

"He did indeed understand that diagram and graph are synonymous. There's still hope!"
"The sense of the word 'closure' that I have in mind is this: the process of expanding a set according to some process until the set can be expanded no further. Imagine as much of the diagram as you can. Now imagine everything else that it is connected to, and everything else that that is connected to, ad infinitum (if necessary!). Most of our readers should have no difficulty with this. Everything else that may be connected to us through interactions as described above is the universe that we belong to. Anything not connected to us is in some other universe by definition and is absolutely unobservable by us in our universe."
"Sounds like philosophical word-salad to me!", Virginia said.

"Yes, I'm afraid so. Feynman diagrams/graphs were chosen as something familiar to the readers of this board; the reality is the particles and the interactions that comprise the universe. When you and I and RJH are dead and gone, and the last of RJH's books has crumbled into dust, you know what? The universe will still be here."

__________________
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.

Fram wrote:Reasoning is thinking or arguing in a logical manner. Since reasoning presumes logic the noun ‘reasoning’ should not be modified with the adverb ‘logical.’ Please excuse me for having made that error above and for having led you into the same error. Reason can also be described as the application of logical operations to unambiguous terms. Hence, logic is the base of reason. When reasoning, one forms conclusions, judgements, or inferences from facts or premises. The axioms, observations, and ideas you mention constitute those facts or premises. They are the grist for the mill, not the foundation of the mill. BTW, you can see from all the different definitions of the universe that have been presented in this thread that the term ‘universe’ is an ambiguous term.

Fram next wrote:In light of the above explanation of reasoning, let me replace ‘observations or axioms’ with ‘facts or premises.’ Now let’s examine the key points of my arguments.

1. The universe idea was conceived in ancient times.
2. Ancient people thought they lived in a geocentric world delimited by a shell of stars.
3. That delimiting allowed the ancients to think of the world as a thing.
4. Those people saw that all the stars of the shell rotated around the earth in unison and named it the ‘turns as one’ which in their language was ‘universe.’
5. Tycho Brahe’s careful measurements of the orbits of comets showed that they went beyond the then supposed distance of the shell of stars.
6. Telescopic measurement of the distances of stars proved that they were not on a spherical shell and that there was enormous variation in those distances.
7. Loss of the spherical shell removed the delimitation of the universe that had previously allowed it to be thought of as a thing.
8. When it was discovered that we are in a galaxy, the galaxy was thought to be the universe.
9. When it was discovered that our galaxy was not the only one, galaxies were claimed to be the ‘building blocks of the universe.’
10. Galaxy clusters, discovered early in the twentieth century, meant that galaxies were not the building blocks of the universe.
11. Galaxy superclusters, discovered late in the twentieth century, suggest that galaxy clusters are not the building blocks of the universe.
12. Today the universe is considered to be a thing that can have physical properties and a history.
13. There is considerable ambiguity in defining the universe.

Of those 13 statements only 7, 10, and 11 might arguably be called ‘my ideas.’ The remaining ten statements are in no way my ideas; they are all facts. Those 13 statements suggest to me that it may be time to re-evaluate the universe concept and to ask “is the universe idea justifiable?” Finally we have a conclusion that is unarguably my idea.

The only connection between all of this and my own personal philosophy relates to my values. I value mental activity of any kind, especially the finding and solving of interesting problems.

Celestial Mechanic wrote:Yes, CM, I agree that my notion of sets was wrong. Unlike classes, sets do have the feature of cardinality and because of that some other features as well. You have claimed that my arguments about classes are also in error, though you failed to give any reasons for that claim.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:To define a word is to state or set forth its meaning. CM has just asked us to believe that there are words with meanings that can be understood but not stated or set forth. That seems like the description of a lexicographer’s worst nightmare. It looks as if CM wishes that the word ‘Universe’ would be indefinable but with an understandable meaning. And, of course, it should be CM’s version of its meaning that would be understood, without CM having to define it.

That there could be words that cannot be defined but whose meanings can be understood (let alone whose meanings must be taken to be understood) is preposterous. A word is a unit of language consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation. A word functions as a principal carrier of meaning. Humans have created the words of any language. When we are born we do not know the language we will use or any of its words. Thus, the understanding of words cannot be inborn.

For infants and toddlers the meaning of a word is given by a knowledgeable person pointing to an object, object attribute, or action and saying the appropriate word. Soon, to learn the word that means some object, the toddler points to the object with an inquiring facial expression and is told the word whose meaning is that object. Not long after that age the meaning of a word is given by its definition.

By what process could one possibly come to understand the meaning of an indefinable word? If there were indefinable words they would not be found in dictionaries. Dictionaries define the meanings of words. Words that are not to be found in dictionaries do not yet really belong to a language. I doubt that an example can be given of a word that cannot be defined, whose meaning can be understood, and that does not appear in a dictionary.

Donning a philosopher’s cloak to make epistemological claims, CM wrote “Now I know that words have to be defined in terms of other words, and ultimately there are going to be words that cannot be defined but whose meanings must be taken to be understood…,” A little later, though, CM cast off that cloak to write:It seems that CM wants to have it both ways. Furthermore, CM is very wrong with that suggestion, especially in light of this uncontested statement of mine earlier in this thread: Surely their philosophical activities cannot be considered to have been one of the most wasteful of human activities.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:One of the attributes of the Moon is that it reflects light. It has that attribute because of the electrons of its atoms. Electrons, protons, and neutrons are more fundamental particles that atoms. There is nothing ultimate about a collection of atoms, and that by CM’ own words. CM wrote above:Certainly those components are more fundamental than atoms and more a contender for the title of ‘ultimate.’

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:My reply to the preceding quote is also my reply to
Kristophe who wrote:Let me try again. The universe idea is strongly connected to the word ‘all,’ as in the idea of ‘all things’ or ‘all of space.’ The word ‘all’ can be used in either a collective sense or in a distributive sense. In the collective sense of ‘all’ the notion of totality is implied as in ‘all the water in that bottle.’ In the distributive sense of ‘all’ the notion of each and every individual is implied as in ‘all men are mortals.’ In this thread I have been trying to find out if all the things that exist can be considered in the collective sense, that is, to find out if the Universe can be a thing to which properties and a history can be attributed. If all the things that exist cannot be considered in the collective sense, then they should be considered in the distributive sense, that is, as members of a class. That would mean that the Universe as a class would replace the Universe as a thing.

The members of a set can be considered collectively or distributively, depending on the context. If the set itself is to have physical properties and a history, the members of the set must be considered collectively. If the members of the set cannot be considered collectively, then the set itself cannot have physical properties and a history. Whether the universe is defined as a thing or as a set, the question of this thread remains the same.

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:Yes, IF there were a largest structure that would be true. But how can we know that there are ultimate largest or smallest structures. Democritus started the quest for the ultimate smallest structures. His atoms were indivisible particles of stone, water, air, wood, etc. Eighteenth century chemistry proved that Democritus’s atoms were divisible into the atoms of the elements. So far every attempt to label a structure as ultimate has proven to be wrong. Why must there be ultimate structures?

If the cosmos is infinite, then the universe could not be a thing. No thing can be infinite. If the universe is not a thing, then the question of leaving or exiting it is meaningless.
Of course, if the universe is the class of things that exist, then so long as I live I cannot lose my membership of that class, or, to metaphorically paraphrase CM, I cannot leave the universe.

No thing can be infinite? Hmmm, if you are talking about strange definitions and concepts, then here you have a good example.

First of all, you were talking about the universe idea, not the universe thing. I wouldn't say that those are the same or one is part of the other.
Secondly: why can't a thing be infinite? Is a circle finite or infinite? The circumference (the actual line) has a finite length, but it has no beginning or end. So it is an infinite thing.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Playing fair, can you define the idea of Richard J Hanak in an unambiguous way?

(Paraphrase) Richard J. Hanak is the self that belongs to Richard J. Hanak. You can't get more unambiguous than that!

__________________
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 universe is the non-empty set whos elements physically interact with each other through the exchange of force carrying particles, and the medium through which these particles propagate.

Better?

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

You can't take the sky from me.

It may work for him, but it doesn't work for the guy with the sledgehammer and a glint in his eye who has promised that he won't damage anything that is unabiguously defined to be Richard J Hanak.

I really don't understand the whole point. Your list at the top of your most recent post, showing that our concept of how big the universe is has changed, is interesting, but if you're simply arguing that we don't understand exactly how big the universe is -- indeed whether it is finite or infinite -- then it's an interesting question.

But simply saying that the universe can't be a thing because a thing can't be infinite is just a question of how you define the word "thing." Time may be infinite for all we know, so OK, maybe time isn't a thing, but that doesn't make the concept of time "unjustifiable."

What exactly is it that you are questioning? And what could the relevance possibly be?

__________________
As above, so below

Jens wrote:Earlier in this thread I wrote, “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.” Wavelengths that cannot be sensed by the human eye require a re-presentation of the emitting/reflecting object at visible wavelengths. The representation is usually on a flat surface such as a piece of paper or a display screen.

There can be a loss of information with an indirect observation. For example, changing one’s point of view in direct observation can change the observed image. Changing one’s point of view when looking at a display screen does not change the observed image. Binocular depth perception of a relatively near object is possible with direct observation but not with a representation of the object on a display screen. When using night-vision goggles, for example, the eyes are focused on the screens near the eyes, not on the objects farther from the eyes.

The issue is not related only to wavelengths, but to anything unobservable with human senses. Though we cannot sense the lines of force of a magnet, they can be made observable with the use of a sheet of paper and iron filings. A seismograph lets us observe ground vibrations too weak to be felt.

My purpose in calling attention to the fact that we can observe things directly and indirectly is to clarify what is implied by the notion of observation. The universe itself has never been observed. In science anything that has not been observed is undiscovered, hypothetical, or does not exist. Why should science make an exception in the case of the universe?

Jens also wrote:In the example you gave, when the eyes are closed it is no longer the sun you observe, but an afterimage that persists after the stimulus that caused it is no longer operative. There is a lot of neurochemistry involved in the act of seeing. Chemicals formed in the act of seeing must be bleached in order for a new image to be perceived. Time is required for that bleaching process. The effects of those chemicals persist until they are sufficiently bleached.

One thing to keep in mind is that observation implies the transmission and reception of information. In the case of light that transmission is at the velocity of light. Thus, there is always a time lag between the emission and reception of light. If we see a galaxy whose light has traveled ten billion years, we see the galaxy as it was ten billion years ago, not as it is now. For all we know, that galaxy may no longer exist.

I think we can safely say that a thing had to exist when it transmitted to us the information by which we observe it. Now, perhaps, it is possible to move “forward.”

Jens also wrote:Include indirect observation and I agree. There is an easy way to understand the notion of existence and to answer questions involving it. ‘Exist’ is derived from the Latin word ‘exsistere’ meaning to ‘stand out’ or ‘stand forth’, as in one soldier standing forth from an army. To observe something it must stand out or stand forth in some way, else it would be unobservable. Only after the invention of the electron microscope were viruses observed to stand forth. Only then were they known to exist.

Jens continued:That sentence is an example of a hidden self-contradiction. In essence it says that a thing that stands out (a thing we can observe) cannot necessarily be firmly said to stand out (exist).

Jens continued:Before we proceed let’s check the dictionary for the meaning of the term ‘illusion.’
1. a false idea or conception, i.e., a belief or opinion not in accord with the facts
2. an unreal, deceptive, or misleading appearance or image
3. a false perception, conception, or interpretation of what one sees, where one is, etc.
The meaning of illusion is given in terms of falsity, disaccord with facts, unreality, deceptiveness, and misleading. Falsity would be meaningless if there were no truth. Disaccord with facts would be meaningless if there were no accord with facts. Unreality would be meaningless if there were no reality. Therefore, in order for the notion of illusion to be meaningful there must also be truth, accord with facts, and reality. And therefore, the proposition “It may all be an illusion” is another example of a hidden self-contradiction. Since illusion presupposes reality, all cannot be illusion.

Jens continued:I think you had missed the idea that observation can be direct or indirect. Either kind of observation can be trusted. However, the interpretation of an observation is another matter.

Grey wrote:I don’t understand why the distinction between observing an object itself or observing a representation of the object seems arbitrary to you. I have never referred to partial observation, nor have I ever suggested that things indirectly observed lack reality. What I have suggested is that observation can be direct or indirect. I have also suggested that anything that has not been directly or indirectly observed, is an undiscovered thing, or a hypothetical thing, or a thing that does not exist. The alternative to a thing that has not been observed is a thing that has been observed and is thereby known to exist.

Kristophe wrote:I have explained direct and indirect observation in today’s post. Sensory organs cannot be fooled. So long as they work at all, given a suitable stimulus they transmit an appropriate signal to the brain. All sensors, natural and artificial alike, have operational limitations. Two of those limitations are a minimum detectable stimulus and a saturation level beyond which changes in stimulus intensity do not change the output signal. Other limitations include field of view, area of response, depth of field, and frequency response. Bees can see ultraviolet light but we cannot. However we can indirectly observe ultraviolet light with various techniques. A person who is colorblind to green light can indirectly observe green light.

Flawed eyes have more limitations than unflawed eyes. Their output to the brain is appropriate to their limitations. The images perceived with flawed eyes are more limited presentations of reality, but that does not mean that the presentations are flawed.

We experience the world through our senses. Barring certain pathological conditions, the information we get through the senses is the trustworthiest information available to us. When we are fooled it is because we have misinterpreted that information. Magicians count on that to make their living.

Fram wrote:Here is the relationship between the universe idea and the universe thing. The mainstream idea of the universe is that it is a physical thing to which properties and a history can be attributed.

Lets go by your rule that anything infinite has no beginning or end. If the circumference of a circle had only one point on it, that point would be both beginning and end, making the circumference finite. However, the circumference has an infinite number of points on it, each of which can be both a beginning and an end. That makes the circumference very, very finite. (Infinitely finite?) After all, any one of those points can be used as a beginning and ending point for measuring the circumference.

The reason a thing cannot be infinite relates to what we mean by the word ‘thing’. Here is a dictionary definition of ‘thing’: “that which is conceived, spoken of, or referred to as existing as an individual, distinguishable entity.” In short, a physical thing is a physical entity separate from other physical entities. If it were not in some way separate from others there would be no way in which it could stand out to be observed or identified. An infinite thing would be everywhere and in everything. It could not be separate or distinguished from anything else. The idea of an infinite thing contains the hidden self-contradiction of a distinguishable entity that cannot be distinguished. It is a contradiction in terms.

Kristophe wrote:That definition is not unique to the universe. The sun (or any other physical object) is also a non-empty set whose elements physically interact with each other through the exchange of force carrying particles, and the medium through which these particles propagate.

By the way, as stated, the universe consists of a non-empty set of elements and a medium through which force-carrying particles can propagate. The force carrying particles, though referred to in order to specify the elements, have not been brought into the definition though they are different from the elements of the set. Your definition might be better put as ‘The universe is the non-empty set of elements that interact with each other, the force carrying particles exchanged to provide that interaction, and the space through which those force-carrying particles propagate.” Though more inclusive, even this last definition would apply to any physical object. A universe definition needs to differentiate the universe from all other kinds of things.

Jens wrote:That list does not refer to our concepts of how big the universe is. Consider, for example, item 9 of the list, which is: “When it was discovered that our galaxy was not the only one, galaxies were claimed to be the ‘building blocks of the universe.’” That item says nothing about the size of the universe. That list is a condensed history of how people thought about the universe and why they thought as they did. The purpose of that list was to demonstrate to Fram that my line of reasoning primarily involves facts rather than my own ideas.

When you write “just a question of how you define the word ‘thing’,” you seem to imply that we are free to define it any way we might wish or that the definition is of little consequence. If you look at the definitions your dictionary gives for the word ‘thing,’ you will find a dozen or more. Only two or three of them relate to physical things. In the statement “Reading detective novels is my favorite thing”, for example, the word ‘thing’ does not refer to a physical object; it refers to the act of reading. A definition of a word implies the context in which the word so defined can be used. Using a word out of context or using a word with ambiguous meaning can lead to errors in reasoning.

Yes, time isn’t a thing. Time is an abstraction we make from the motions of things. We cannot conceive of time without thinking of something that moves: e.g., the sun in the sky, the hands of a clock, the oscillations of a quartz crystal, etc. Although we can observe many physical things and their motions, we cannot observe an abstraction.

The notion of infinity is an abstract idea we make by negating the attribute of finiteness of the things we observe. Our notion of infinity is logically justifiable and is mathematically useful. Infinitude itself does not render a concept unjustifiable. However, as I have mentioned earlier in this post, the notion of an infinite physical thing is self-contradictory and therefore unjustifiable.

You asked what I am questioning. The mainstream idea of the universe is that it is a physical thing to which properties and a history can be attributed. I am questioning if that idea can be logically supported, or in other words, if it is justifiable. The answer to that question is relevant because the big bang theory, a frequent subject on ATM, presumes the mainstream idea of the universe.

Celestial Mechanic wrote:A photon is a physical thing to which properties (frequency, velocity) and a history (time and place of emission, time and place of absorption) can be attributed. If each thing is connected to every other thing, is each photon connected to every other photon? If so, what is the nature of that connection?

Celestial Mechanic also wrote:What would prevent further expansion of the set?

b]Celestial Mechanic[/b] continued:That is confusing. Why should expansion of the set be limited, but expansion of the diagram go on ad infinitum?