Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What is "the sum of all that exists"?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This is the continuation of a topic (that became off-topic) that occured several months ago... I would prefer to keep this discussion limited to the metaphysical nature of the universe and its fundamental ultimate constituents...

Read the original discussion here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...topic=192&st=60

=====================================================

I've been busy with career concerns and have not been able to post for a while. I will recap to save others the time of digging through this thread...

Assumptions about all that exists as it pertains to the concept 'universe' (not assumptions about 'existence')...

All of x possess spacial boundaries (the sum of all that exists)

QUOTE

When you state: "All of x possess spacial boundaries" do you mean that each and every x possesses a "spacial" boundary? Or are you trying to say that the SUM of all that exists possesses a spatial boundary? (I assume it is the former, because the latter would be assuming what you are trying to prove, thus making the argument circular. However, I wanted to know for certain which it was you meant.)

Each and every x possesses a spacial boundary, a spacial boundary in this context defined as limits for the existent in categories such as mass, volume, etc...

x is a physical existent

I include the above because we are discussing the concept 'universe' (I.e.- What is 'out-there') and to distinquish a thing from its attributes and/or actions, which exist as relationships between existents, but they themselves have no physical extension. Whatever the primary constituents of physical existents are, we can be sure of two things. They exist, therefore possessing identity, and they exist finitely. When I speak of 'all that exists' in the context of this discussion, I mean all physical existents. At present I am not concerned with entities (mental or otherwise) or attributes of existents (even though they exist). I am concerned with whatever that fundamental building block(s) is(are) and its nature. This fundamental building block exists, has identity, exists finitely (even if we cannot measure it accurately), and it possesses spacial bounds (since it is a physical existent). This is all I am concerned with in this discussion, establishing this. The relationships between existents will be resolved accordingly.

relationships between existents include the temporal

All that exists, exist finitely (I.e.- Is limited in quantity)

All that exists possesses spacial properties, and relationships between these existents include the temporal.

The word is not the thing. The term 'universe' has two tenses.

First, it is a collective noun of quantity. I agree when spoken of in this sense that time, space, etc. do not apply. How could they apply to a collective noun...

But, when the concept 'universe' is taken in its literal sense, 'the sum of all that exists' it becomes limited. The concept 'sum' by its nature is limiting.

If every existent is spacially bound, then all existents are spacially bound, and all that exists has a spacial boundary (I'm visualizing an imaginary sphere that includes all existents in its volume). The same goes for the temporal. If every existent is spacially bound, then existents have temporal relationships with other existents.

The fact that you cannot compare the movement of everything to nothing, etc. does not matter. This speaks of the concept 'universe' in the collective noun sense, and stops there.

The parts cannot contradict the whole (when a new entity is not involved, we have established the 'universe' is not an entity). If time and size are properties and relationships of all existents, and all that exists (all existents) have spacial and temporal properties. Then size and time apply to the whole (the whole being all existents).

Our inability to measure this *quantity* of 'that which exists', does not negate the possiblity of a finite quantity 'that which exists', it just means we can't measure it at present.

Now, I'll answer specifics if your post...

QUOTE

Furthermore, what is your definition of spatial boundary? Your referent for it is "physical existent". As such, conceptual boundaries would not be included. For instance, "solar system", while an existent, is not a *physical* existent. It is a *relationship* between physical existents. As such, it would be excluded from your "assumptions".

This is true, solar system as you describe it would not be included. But, the individual existents that we, for convienience, collectively call 'solar system' are included. I am going broader that the concept planet, star, etc. I am speaking of that fundamental building block(s) of the physical existent, what ever that happens to be. 'Spacial boundary' in this context means those spacial properties possessed by that fundamental building block.

QUOTE

So it appears, then, that your x refers *specifically* to entities and not to any other form of existent. Since we have already established that "universe" is NOT an entity, and since the above statement refers specifically TO entities, then whatever is said above does NOT apply to the concept

"universe".

I am not following you here... An 'existent' is something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. I use physical existent above to differentiate a thing from its attributes or actions. An 'Entity' is something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action as percieved and integrated by a human consciousness (eventually, entities become regarded as units). I include these definitions to make sure we are discussing the same thing. My goal is to distinguish something that exists independent of human consciousness (existent), and something that exists independently and is perceived and integrated by a human consciousness (entity).

You are correct, the 'universe' is not an entity. But I am also not speaking of entities, but existents. Existents, not entities, are ultimately the fundamental building block of 'all that exists' in the context of the 'universe'. To say that entities make up this fundamental building block is like saying somehow the 'universe' is predicated on human consciousness, or at the very least tied to it somehow. I am certain that the universe would still exist even if there were no consciousness to percieve it.

As I noted above, the concept 'universe' is a collective noun of quantity and in this sense is an integration of our consciousness. As you noted in a previous post:

"Universe is not an entity unto itself, possessing anything of itself, including any unique attributes, characteristics, etc.. There are ONLY the characteristics, attributes and relationships of those things included in the concept OF "universe" which is "all that exists".

What are those things included in the concept 'universe'? All physical existents and all their properties, attributes, and relationships amongst themselves independent of the recognition of human consciousness.

=====================================================

I have been unable to answer several questions... At a minimum please read the above summary of the previous thread. I am not interested in rehashing those old discussions from that previous thread (or off-topics).

a) Based on the perspective of consciousness, I can understand that the universe is unbounded (I.e. - There is no practical way for the human mind to fully map or explore it all, this is similar to the statement in another topic that natural resources are unlimited, unlimited from the perspective of human consciousness, not metaphysically unlimited). Where I seem to 'stray' is when I apply this to the metaphysical nature of the universe independent of consciousness (I.e.- As if no consciousness existed to perceive it). Since metaphysical infinites (unboundedness) cannot exist, and it is irrelevent if the human mind cannot measure the totality of the universe (the inability to measure a thing, does not automatically deny an actual metaphysical measurement exists). I would appreciate any comments... I will post my other questions later, this is my main quandry and the last step in my elimination from my consciousness of that anti-concept 'god'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have anything to say about this topic, but since it's been brought back up, I thought I'd take the opportunity to go on record: I no longer stand by the position I took in the original debate.

By the way, I know there were threads I intended to reply in but didn't get around to... I normally just leave the windows open on my computer for future reference when I can't get to something immediately, and I've been gone for two days at a wedding and celebrating my birthday. While I was gone, my computer crashed, so I lost track of the threads... if anyone was expecting a response from me somewhere, please PM me and let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...