I would dispute this point from two sides.

First, if you say that things that have not been directly observed are only hypothetical, then you have to throw away so much that everything we know would seem to become hypothetical. Everything small enough to be indistinguishable to the human eye, such as germs, not to mention viruses, atoms, electrons, becomes hypothetical. Fine, you can state it that way, but for most of us it seems pretty unreasonable.

And on the other side, I think you would admit that we do observe certain things directly. The earth, planets, stars. And those are clearly part of the universe. So therefore, the universe does exist even according to your definition. Maybe things beyond the stars are only hypothetical, but that doesn't matter. Even if only the stars exist, that's still a universe.

__________________
As above, so below

You're arbitarily changing the dictionary definition. It says "that which is conceived as being distinguishable," but you're taken out the conceived part. You're saying it has to be separate from other entities. The dictionary only says that it has to be conceived of as different from other entities.

__________________
As above, so below

This is what I find most interesting. Actually, I'm not a supporter of the BB theory. But I fail to see the connection. Whether the BB theory is true or not is not dependent on whether a concept of our own is justified or not, IMO. Our concept of the universe could be strange, but that would not change whether a historical fact happened or not. Would it?

__________________
As above, so below

RJH, can you do this?

Utter and complete nonsense. You should know better. There are countless examples of optical and aural illusions. (For a while it seemed as if Scientific American had a "sensory illusion of the month" article in each issue! )
How do you know that the stimulus is suitable and the signal appropriate?
You didn't really read the post this was in, did you? Every photon is connected to every other photon in the universe via either the particle that emitted or absorbed it, and that particle via a force-particle with which it interacted, and that force-particle via another particle and so on through possibly quintillions of particle/force-particle pairs until we finally arrive at the particle that either emitted or absorbed the other photon.
Nothing more exists to add to the set.
We can only imagine so much at a time.

__________________
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.

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.

Richard, I'm sorry I still don't follow this at all. I don't think a thing has to be distinguished from other thing at all, except in perception. For example, Europe is made up of a bunch of countries. In fact, Europe cannot be distinguished from the collection of say, German, France, etc., etc. But I still claim that Europe exists as a separate thing, because I perceive Europe to be something that has its own existence.

You asked me for a defintion of the universe. I don't think a precise definition is all that important, because there are issues between what we mean by "universe" and "cosmos" -- are they the same or different concepts? -- but to me they are roughly equivalent, meaning the larger thing, or rather the largest thing, to which those other things like stars and galaxies are part of.

What I mean to say by a historical fact is this: to me, the question of whether the BB happened or not is an empirical issue. It depends on whether the evidence shows that the BB happened or not.

You write that there can be no BB theory without the assumption that the universe is a physical thing. I would say that to me, it seems that any cosmological model would have to take the same assumption. Or rather, I don't see how an assumption about whether the universe is a valid concept or not would have any relevance whatsoever in the cosmological model you would find acceptable. Unless of course you're talking about something like a digital universe or maybe a Buddhist universe or something where nothing really exists in reality.

__________________
As above, so below

It arose from statement 13 of this post.
This then appears to lead you to suggest that the idea of the universe is not justifiable, and hence other consequences flow.

I was merely wanting to see if you could define "Richard J Hanak" in an unambiguous fashion, and hence demonstrate that the ambiguity that you attribute to the concept of "the universe" is of a different order to the ambiguity in defining other concepts which we seem to have no problem with.

Since you are so "fond" of dissecting what others post, lets take a second and dissect what you have posted, shall we?...

Really? I find nothing vague about Fortis' question. He basically is asking, "what is the reasoning going on in your head?" or "What is your intention with all of "this?" or to put it simply..."What is your "point"??? From reading this thread, it's obvious that you have no "point", so I can see why you don't want to answer that question.

Irrelevant...Fortis was asking you the question, not someone who shares your name. I'm surprised that you would think that you could post that, as if it was a "case of mistaken identity".

Not "ambigious", at all. I know that you want it to be that way so you can continue to make this thread you personal "word playground", but that won't work. The only "ambigious" poster here is you.

Relevant?? How could anything be "relevant" when this whole thread is simply a "game" with no answers. It doesn't have anything to do with Against the Mainstream theories, either, since you haven't proposed any theory. You simply want to "play" with the definitions of words. Why didn't you just title this thread, "What is is?" That would have made as much sense.

And if any "definition is possible", then "any answer is possible"...

Read the 2nd quote in my sig...

I see that I may have mis-characterized Fortis's question, although I think my post stands on it's own. ops:

Not that far from the underlying reason why I asked the question.

It isn't really that clear where RJH is trying to get with his line of argument. He appears to be claiming that you can't unambiguously define the universe. (I would argue that you can define the universe to the extent sufficently unambiguously for our purposes in the context of physics, and would like to be given an example of where it is insufficient.) If you can't define it unambiguously, then he seems to suggest that the concept of the universe isn't meaningful.

If he can't define Richard J Hanak (and you are right, in that my earlier post indicates what I mean in an operational sense by putting in the context of the madman with the sledgehammer ) in an unambiguous fashion, that can't be pulled apart using the techniques that he applies to the concept of the universe, then by his reasoning RJH isn't a meaningful concept either. I suspect that RJH does believe himself to be a meaningful concept (after all, why should we be interested in the writings of a meaningless concept ), and hence he may wish to reconsider his position on the concept of the universe.

Since Richard J. Hanak either cannot or will not answer this question, I guess that my paraphrase of his word-salad will have to suffice.

__________________
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 see, our sensory organs are models of perfection that have the misfortune to be wired to such imperfect brains as mine and, dare I say it?, Richard J. Hanak's that constantly misinterpret these pristine sensory inputs. But wait a minute!
And there is also considerable neurochemistry involved in the other senses as well. So the sensory organs are not truly perfect and can be fooled after all.

Of course, some might despair of our ability to know anything at all given the rampant imperfection of our sensory organs. Well, philosophers might. But sensible people acquire training through experience in the limitations and imperfections of their sensory organs. Ultimately we are able to compensate for these imperfections and move on.

__________________
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.

A postscript:

If all goes well, I may have another "Virginia" post by 2005 July 12 05:00 UT.

__________________
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.