What does philosophy tell us about the universe?

[msb]

If anyone wants to continue discussion on Silverman's article, or my comments on it, please do so here. I'm still having trouble integrating the concept "universe" with "characteristics", "attributes", "finite", etc.

EDIT: This is with the proviso that we are not doing physics here--we're doing philosophy. I don't particularly care what physics has to say on the issue.

[msb]

Here are the most relevant and recent excerpts from the old thread. You can read the whole thing if you think I'm leaving something out.

Alex's article

MattBalin wrote:

I've read that article before, and I found it even more interesting the second time around. I still have to digest some of the ideas in it and see if they work out, but there's one thing I'd like to toss up for discussion.

Silverman says that the universe is finite. He also says that in order for something to be finite, it must be finite with respect to something. But he doesn't say what the universe is finite with respect to -- just that it *has* to be finite, since it exists. So what's finite about it? (I'm not in any way implying that the universe is infinite. It's not, that'd be a violation of identity. But Silverman has knocked down a lot of his options...)

DAC wrote:

Also, what attributes does the 'universe' possess other than identity? Since it cannot have the characteristics of its parts, it possesses identity with no particular characteristics (as noted by mattbateman, I am still digesting this)... This does not seem to far off from infinity (infinity in this context is defined as an alleged entity that possess a non-measureable quantity of a particular characteristic. i.e.- No characteristic at all). How does this differ from the above statements of the universe from Silverman? On one hand you have a universe that has identity but has no characteristics and on the other, a universe that has identity, but has infinite characteristics (impossible)... It goes back to my question asked in my last post... What is the difference between a universe with 'no size' and a universe with 'infinite size'... The end result is the same in reality, neither can exist...

My understanding of identity and existence is that to exist is to exist as something particular and possess characteristics. Does silverman ever say what are the characteristics of the universe, other than it has identity (which I don't believe is a characteristic, but a corrollary of existence)?

MattBalin wrote:

Matt Bateman, if you're going to argue that finiteness doesn't apply to the universe, you'll also have to argue that the concept of quantity doesn't apply to the universe. Ok -- if it's unbounded, how would it? But we're still hitting a dead end. Seems like every concept you try to apply to the universe leads to a contradiction, and it's precisely because the universe is unbounded.

"Unbounded" leads to something suspiciously like the "some, but any" principle. I'll have to think it through further, but I'm worried that Silverman is trying to turn the universe into one big abstraction. If so, and if it's because of "unboundedness", then that idea needs to be dropped. I don't live in an abstraction.

I (mattbateman) said:

I'm thinking out loud here more than providing a good answer.

I think recognition of the fact that "universe" is a synonym for "existence" might be the key to understanding whats going on here.

It is correct to say that a particular existent is its attributes and its identity.

But existence as such--the axiom "existence"--what can you say about that? It's an axiom, so not much. "Existence exists." "Existence is identity." You can say much more about particular existents (aspects of existence), but the concept itself is irreducable and undefinable.

There's an analogy to consciousness here: you can divide consciousness into various aspects (thinking, feeling), but the concept itself is irreducable and undefinable. You can specify and analyze in detail the nature of aspects of consciousness, but you can't analyze awareness as such.

So the analogy would be...

Consciousness : Aspects of consciousness :: Existence : Existents

Please shoot this explanation full of holes... I am way far from sold on it. Things to think about: Does identity imply characteritics? What does "characteristic" mean? I, too, am worried that we end up with "universe" as something of a disconnected abstraction--though I'm not sure that this worry is justified, either.

And DAC wrote that he thought that identity does imply characteristics, and that characteristic was a synonym for attribute. (Sorry for not quoting this one, but I hate quotes in quotes.)

[RadCap]

"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".

For instance, time is a relationship between entities. It is the measurement of the movement of specific entities. As such, the concept "time" may be applied to the entities, but not to "universe" because "universe" is not an entity at all. It is not a thing. So one may speak of the age of specific entities - of a planet, or a star, or a galaxy, etc, but one may not speak of the age of "universe" because there is no universe apart from these entities.

Furthermore, since time is a relationship *between* entities, IF you (falsely) considered the universe an entity, what OTHER entity are you measuring in relation TO the universe in order to measure 'age'? Are you measuring it in relation:

To something outside the universe? Invalid, because there is nothing besides all that exists.

To itself? Invalid, because one cant measure a difference between a thing and itself. There will be no difference.

To nothingness? Invalid because nothingnesss is not something. It simply does not exist. And as such, no relationship can exist.

--

Put simply, the concept "universe" posesses no identity. The concept simply *identifies* a quantity of existents (specifically "all"). Without giving it additional thought, that tells me the concept is essentially mathematical in nature.

[DAC]

This quote is mine from the previous thread:

Basically this is treating the universe as one entity, without reference to the fact that the concept 'universe' is a collective noun used to denote 'the sum of all that exists (many entities)'. My question is: What is the nature of all that exists? It is matter and energy in many different forms. What are the properties of matter and energy? Because spacial and temporal characteristics apply to these entities. Therefore they must apply to the universe as a whole (used in the collective sense).

Some say that I commit the fallacy of composition here. But my point was if the universe is not an entity, but a shorthand way of saying all that exists. Then the properties of the individual entities would be the properties of the whole. This is not the same as a human body analogy, since the human body is an entity itself... The universe is not... Now if the existents of the universe possess temporally and spacial boundaries (and other characteristics), and the concept 'universe' is a way of saying 'all that exists' and not meant to be an entity in itself. Is it not reasonable to concluded in this case, that since the individual physical entities possess these qualitites, that all physical entities would possess these qualities (i.e.- to exist is to exist finitely, and possess identity, and characteristics)

I am still debating within myself if mental existents were meant to be included in the concept universe (e.g.- emotions, etc.), I am currently re-reading what Rand has said on this... I think they should not be included, and when I speak of the universe I am 'assuming' just what is 'out-there'... Including my body, but not its mental inner workings or processes...

Quote from DAC in a previous thread included for clarity:

Put another way if the matter and energy possess attributes, some of which may be spacial or temporal, how is it that the universe cannot, when the universe is nothing more than a shorthand way of saying 'all that exists'. The universe is a collective noun, not a concrete entity in it own right. NaCl is its own entity, with its own properties, that differ from its constituent atoms (e.g.- Sodium is explosive in water, Chlorine is a poisonous gas... Put them together and you have salt... A requirement for human survival). The universe is not like this, it is a shorthand concept, not a new concrete entity. No one can point to the universe and say there it is. It is grasped conceptually not ostensively.

I believe to be classified as a new entity, the collection must be fundamentally different than its parts, as in the NaCl example above. I do not believe the concept 'universe' meets this requirement...

Any additional comments... or disagreements with what is below...

Does identity imply characteritics?

I believe it does... identity is existing as something in particular, and that something must have characteristics... [i'd like to add, that if the concept is not a new entity then it necessarily has the characteristics of its constituent parts. This differentiates 'sum concepts' from new entity concepts.]-DAC (Not a part of the original quote, added for clarity)

What does "characteristic" mean?

I understand it to be synonymous with 'attributes'

So one may speak of the age of specific entities - of a planet, or a star, or a galaxy, etc, but one may not speak of the age of "universe" because there is no universe apart from these entities.

This could also be taken as the age of the universe is as old as its oldest entity...

[RadCap]

Um - WHY did you simply choose to IGNORE my ENTIRE post? And you DID ignore it, because you did NOT respond to any of my premises or principles, even though they CONTRADICT most of what you subsequently posted. Instead you quote YOURSELF (!) in an attempt to restate what you had said BEFORE my post.

That is NOT the way to carry on a rational discussion

I note that you DID reference ONE tiny statement of mine - meaning you MUST have read my post. That leaves me at an even greater loss as to why you ignored my arguments - WHY your ignored the principles and premises I CLEARLY stated. The sentence you reference is not of principle at all, but is merely the application OF principle. And you did NOT understand even that application. You say:

"this could also be taken as the age of the universe is as old as its oldest entity..."

Since "universe" is "all that there is" by saying "the universe is as old as its oldest entity" you are saying' ALL that there is' 'is as old as its oldest entity'. This is a BLATANT contradiction. Example: If an entity is discovered which is 9 billion years old, you are claiming EVERYTHING - every galaxy, every planet, every rock, every PERSON, is 9 billion years old.

That is patently absurd.

If you want to pursue this conversation rationally, I suggest you begin by addressing my premise - the one which contradicts all your arguments and invalidates most of your questions:

"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".

Put simply, "universe" posesses no identity. The concept simply *identifies* a quantity of existents (specifically "all")."

[RadCap]

I must apologize for part of my previous post. While its content is valid, the emotion - the disappointment - is not. I didnt pay close enough attention and believed DAC had posted previously in this thread. Since he hadn't, those references are inappropriate and do not belong. (However, I do still claim most of my post was ignored - ie not addressed and the arguments not considered - because DAC says things in his post which contradict those premises completely).

[DAC]

I shall address your premise...

"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".

Put simply, "universe" posesses no identity. The concept simply *identifies* a quantity of existents (specifically "all").

I disagree with your statement that the universe has no identity. Existence is Identity and if it exists it exists as something.

Quoting from Radcap quoting Dr. B:

"That could be read as committing the fallacy of composition. It does not

follow from the finiteness of each thing that the totality of all things

must be finite. But I think his argument is actually: If to exist is to be

finite, then since the universe exists, it must be finite."

and I add if it is finite, it has identity...

There is your response...

I was not ignoring it, I was simply surprised by the fact that an objectivist would claim something exists yet have no identity. I have never seen this posited in objectivist literature... If I am in error, refer me to the proper objectivist text.

If you have access to some of Dr. B's thoughts on this subject that we do not, then I would hope you would share them with us...

Again, I would like to discuss the questions in my previous post (Does identity imply characteristics, etc..)

EDIT:

Quote from RadCap quoting Dr. B

"(You might argue that since the ultimate constituents of the universe do

not come into existence or go out of existence [Matter of Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change forms, and the total M+E is constant], we can get round this temporal problem by counting [i.e.- measuring by a specific means] just the ultimate constituents. [speculation by Dr. B begins here] But I don't think this is possible either--I don't know how you'd ever be able to determine if you'd counted them all once and only once. And what if there are ultimately only four kinds of ultimate constituents, which interpenetrate or are goo-like? We can't assume that the ultimate constituents are physical objects in the perceptual-level sense.) [but we can assume that they exist, possess identity, and are therefore measurable somehow, we can know reality. Nothing is unknowable]" DAC- Brackets and emphasis mine...

My answer to this: Just because we cannot determine if they have all been counted once and only once has no bearing on the quantity of matter and energy in existence. Put simply, our inability to measure a thing accurately does not negate the possiblility of its finiteness (in this case our inability to measure quantity does not negate the possibility of an actual quantity)...

I believe this attempts to answer my claim in another thread... (that the universe is the sum total of all the matter and energy in whatever form it exists). But does not do it to my satisfaction. Briefly, my agrgument is as follows: All the matter and energy that exist are constant (i.e- Finite) therefore the universe is finite, since the universe is the sum of all the matter and energy in existence in whatever form. Our inability to 'measure' the quantity is irrelevant.

For reference, see the brief discussion of the Uncertainty Principle in the other thread for clarity (NO physics discussions here please)

[RadCap]

I'll try this from the beginning and see if it makes sense to you:

"Universe" is a concept. Concept creation involves measurement and measurement-omission.

So - what is measured and what is omitted when creating the concept "universe"?

Existants are measured.

What about existants are measured?

Is their length measured? No. Length is omitted.

Is their volume measured? No. Volume is omitted.

Is their age measured? No. Age is omitted.

Is their shape measured? No. Shape is omitted.

Is their color measured? No. Color is omitted.

So what IS measured?

QUANTITY.

This means, as I suggested earlier, that the concept "universe" is numeric in nature. It identifies the NUMBER of existants. So it is in the same class as the concepts "zero", "one" "hundred", "million", etc etc. Unlike most numeric concepts, however, it does not identify a SET quantity. Instead it identifies the TOTAL quantity, but does so without identifying the SPECIFIC quantity.

So - we now know "universe" identifies a quantity of existants - specifically the quantity "all".

Thus the question of whether the universe is an entity is now easily answered. Is "quantity" an entity. No. Quantity is not an entity. Quantity is a conceptual relationship about individual entities. This means, when one speaks of "the universe" one is speaking NOT of an entity (of an existant), but of a relationship (quantity) among existants. As such, when I say "it" does not have identity - I mean that it does not have identity AS an entity - as an existant. The "it" being referenced is ONLY a relationship.

The rest just deals with that relationship - with that quantity. And for the reasons I have already explained, your understanding of that quantity and how it can be referenced, is in error. Example:

By saying:

"the age of the universe is as old as its oldest entity..."

you are saying:

"the age of ALL existants is as old as the oldest existant"

This is demonstrably false. You are one of ALL existants. You are NOT as old as the oldest existant. Therefore all existants are NOT as old as the oldest existant.

This is true of anything you can say about each and any of the existants. "All existants" are not the same length as the tallest existant, the widest existant, the heaviest existant, etc etc etc.

I hope this clears things up now. Let me know if there are further questions.

(BTW - I am not certain, but believe you might think I am suggesting "universe" is somehow "infinite" - ie has no identity when it comes to quantity. I am not saying that. I am, in fact, saying just the opposite. The concept "all", while not identifying SPECIFIC quantity, does identify A quantity, meaning it identifies a finite number. As such, the concept "universe" necessarily is finite because it includes the concept "all".)

[DAC]

From what I gather, we are in agreement that the universe is finite, and that it possesses a finite quantity of its building blocks, which I represent as all the matter and energy that exist in whatever form. I am basing this alleged agreement on your statement:

"The concept "all", while not identifying SPECIFIC quantity, does identify A quantity, meaning it identifies a finite number [of existents]. As such, the concept "universe" necessarily is finite because it includes the concept "all" [existents]"- DACs comments in brackets.

Therefore, the universe is finite, has a finite quantity of entities, there are a finite quantity of relationships between entities, a finite quantity of characteristics, etc...

Also, omitted means they exist, but are unspecified... all existents have qualities.

I believe the properties of the existents (matter and energy) that make up 'all that exists' are transferable to the concept 'universe' (which is the sum of matter and energy) as a whole and you do not...

This is where the disagreement lies...

It is like saying the universe is made of matter and energy existing in many forms, that can be quantitatively defined, have quantitatively defined relationships... and then saying that the matter and energy that makes up all the universe cannot be used to describe all the matter and energy that makes up all the universe. 'Universe' being interchangeable with 'the sum of all that exists' (i.e.- all the matter and energy in existence in whatever form)

To recap: The universe is finite. It possesses a finite quantity of its building blocks, which I represent as all the matter and energy that exist in whatever form. It has a finite quantity of relationships between its constituent matter and energy, some of these being temporal or spacial in nature. Yet, as you claim, these temporal and spacial properties do not apply to the whole... Where I say they do.

Maybe it would help me if I had an example of an existent that did not have any temporal and/or spacial properties...

Also, do we have an answer to this:

I am still debating within myself if mental existents were meant to be included in the concept universe (e.g.- emotions, etc.), I am currently re-reading what Rand has said on this... I think they should not be included, and when I speak of the universe I am 'assuming' just what is 'out-there'... Including my body, but not its mental inner workings or processes...

[RadCap]

From what I gather, we are in agreement that the universe is finite, and that it possesses a finite quantity of its building blocks, which I represent as all the matter and energy that exist in whatever form. 

We are in agreement that the universe is finite (as I explicitly stated). I am not certain we agree on why. And I would correct part of your statement. The concept "universe" does NOT specify what existants are made up of (matter, energy, whatever). In other words, it omits THAT as well. The concept "universe" ONLY states that existants exist and that there is a quantity of them.

I would also correct your next statement to read:

"Therefore, the universe is finite; THE UNIVERS IS a finite quantity of entities, OF WHICH there are a finite quantity of relationships between THIS FINITE NUMBER OF entities, EACH POSSESSING a finite quantity of characteristics, etc..."

You then say:

I believe the properties of the existents (matter and energy) that make up 'all that exists' are transferable to the concept 'universe' (which is the sum of matter and energy) as a whole and you do not...

You are correct. I do not say this. And the reason I do not say it is because it makes no sense. You are saying you believe the properties possessed by EACH existant is transferable to ALL of the existants. This is impossible. For those existants which already possess them, there is nothing to transfer. And for those existants which do not possess them, you CANNOT transfer them (that would violate the law of identity).

I have already demonstrated the contradiction of doing this (with your example of "age") and expanded on it by demonstrating the folly of the principle itself. You have not disputed that this is an error on your part. Yet you proceed as if the error does not exist.

So - please explain HOW you 'transfer' the property of one existant to the "whole" of existants (to ALL existants). Provide some OTHER example of what you think is a property which can be applied to the "whole" (to each and every existant which makes up ALL existants) for, as it stands, this question has been answered by demonstrating it to be invalid.

Ultimately, what you are still doing is treating "universe" as if it were a thing - an entity, to which ALL qualities must be applicable. As has already been demonstrated, "universe" is NOT an entity, but a relationship BETWEEN entities - specifically a NUMERIC relationship.

(I am not going to address the "emotions" issue directly until the primary issue of "universe" is resolved first)

[DAC]

I believe that every physical existent posessess temporally and spacial properties... this is how I apply it to the whole. If every physical existent does not possess temporal or spacial properties then I am not aware of this... hence my question:

Maybe it would help me if I had an example of an existent that did not have any temporal and/or spacial properties...

Can you provide an example...

BTW, do not expect a response until monday morning...

[RadCap]

Sigh. You IGNORE my statements, REFUSE my requests for explanations, and simply REPEAT yourself.

I state "universe" is NOT an existant, but a relationship between existants. You ignore this statement and continue to treat "universe" as an existant.

You claim you can "transfer" qualities from each existant to ALL existants. You provide an example of this. I refute that example and explain the principle which refutes any others. You ignore this refutation and reassert the claim. I ask for other examples of your premise. You refuse to provide them.

You repeat your question as if I did not understand it. I have already restated it numerous times, so my understanding of it is clear. Furthermore, you ask me to identify things I have already stated do not exist. In other words, you establish a straw man (by continuing to treat a relationship as if it were an actual entity).

To make it perfectly clear to you:

NO existant - NO thing - NO entity - exists which does not have properties of some sort. However, the concept "universe" DOES NOT IDENTIDY AN ENTITY. IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY A THING.

THE CONCEPT UNIVERSE IDENTIFIES A RELATIONSHIP AMONG THINGS - AMONG ENTITIES - AMONG EXISTANTS.

It SPECIFICALLY identifies QUANTITY. And it identifies ONLY quantity.

So - based on your expressed BELIEF - how does a QUANTITY have spacial or temporal properties?!?!? PLEASE - tell us ALL - what is the LENGTH of "3" or "some"? What is the height of "5" or "many"? What is the age of "1" or "few"? What is the shape of "9" or "all"?

According to you, it is possible for these QUANTITIES to possess spacial and temporal QUALITIES because each unspecified existant referenced by these concepts possess them. According to you, you MUST treat these numeric RELATIONSHIPS as if they were ENTITIES and thus "1" "3" "5" "9" "few" "some" "many" "all" MUST have spacial and temporal qualities - meaning we should be able to see "3.14"- or "Pie" as he is know to his friends, walk down the street!

Do you SEE how ABSURD the assertion is? Do you SEE now WHY treating such a conceptual relationship as a THING leads to such absurdity?!?

If not, I CANNOT explain it any simplier - and you will simply be stuck living in a 'reality' where 3.14 actually exists AS a THING! But the ONLY way you will stay there is if you CONTINUE to ignore my statements and refuse my questions.

[MinorityOfOne]

At risk of being accused of being a Atlas-Thumper, I thought it might be useful to take a look at the thoughts of somebody a bit smarter than ourselves.

From the appendex to ITOE:

AR: ... the concept "existence," at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept "universe" -- all that which exists.

[241]

Prof B: I would be completely satisfied on this if you could clarify one more thing for me, which is: why call the universe an entity, rather than simply a collection, since it doesn't act as a whole?

AR: Well, you can't really call it an entity in that sense. I don't think the term applies. The universe is really the sum of everything that exists. It isn't an entity in the sense in which you call a table, a chair, or a man an entity.

Actually, do you know what we can ascribe to the universe as such, apart from scientific discovery? Only those fundamentals that we can grasp about existence. Not in the sense of switching contexts and ascribing particular characteristics to the universe, but we can say: since everything possesses identity, the universe possesses identity. Since everything is finite, the universe is finite. But we can't ascribe space or time or a lot of other things to the universe as a whole.

[273]

I think one of the things that might be confusing here is this. Take the question, "is there a specific number of existents in the universe?" Well, first of all, we can't count existents, but only entities. So switch the question to entities. (I make a point of stating this, because it's a very different question, and some people have been equivocating.) One thing to notice is that this isn't a very interesting question, in a sense. The universe is not a sum of all entities; it's the sum of all existents. (In other words, it's a metaphysical issue, not an epistemological one.) So even treating it as a strict sum, counting the number of entities in the universe, if you could, wouldn't give you anything like a full understanding of the universe.

Ok, but take the question in reference to entities. Now here's why I think somebody might think this is a valid question. Let's say your room is the sum of all the entities that are in it, as well as those that make up its structure. So you count all the stuff in your room, and that's the number of entities in your room. Obvious enough. Now you broaden the scope of the question: what's the number of entities in your house? You go ahead and count all the stuff outside your room, you add it to the number of entities in your room, and there you have it. The idea might be that you could keep doing this until you've hit the whole universe, and then you've got a count.

There are a lot of problems here. Entities depend on a human perspective, and there's often a contextual issue involved in what is considered as an autonomous entity. If you want to find out how much you've been smoking, you'll consider each of the cigarettes in your ashtray as entities to be counted. If you want to clean your room, they're just a pile of butts. Which is appropriate for counting entities? It's totally optional.

That's one problem. Another is, entities change. By the time you completed counting all the entities in your room, tons of entities elsewhere have changed into other entities, split, merged, whatever they do. Somebody dies in the next state over. Their body, over time, dissolves into its constituent chemicals. Now that one entity is a *whole bunch* of entities!

Plus, you'd have to assume you could count all the entities at a given time, at all. But how are you gonna apply a single standard of time to the entire universe at once?

Right, so I think that's enough on that, but there's plenty more to be said. (I'm not going to take the time.) Similar issues would apply to questions like "how large is the universe" -- how large, measured from where? And how, when entities have a habit of *moving*, and it takes time for any method of measuring to occur?

Some other implications. DAC, you said that the universe is the sum of all matter and energy. That's a big leap. How do you know that all there is, is matter and energy? One need not suggest, arbitrarily, that there *is* (or even possibly is) another form of existents in order to say that it's inappropriate to define anything else out of existence. Another obvious implication is that RadCap is wrong in saying that the concept "universe" means the number of existents. In fact, the idea "number of existents" doesn't make much sense. In what sense is the universe finite? Whatever it is, it's that and nothing else.

[RadCap]

Matt

I disagree with your assertion about my argument. I stated the concept "all" refers to quantity - meaning it is numeric in nature. While you might claim I should have used a different term in place of numeric (algebraic is more accurate, and mathematical is more encompassing), I was very specific when identifying the CONCEPT I associated with the term (ie - the concept I was trying to convey).

I specifically said the concept deals with quantity. I further stated the concept does NOT identify a specific number, but INSTEAD identifies the sum of each and every existant.

This is the reason, in the question I put to DAC, that I did not include JUST specific numbers, but aslo non-specific 'numeric' concepts (ie mathematical/algebraic terms) such as "few", "many", etc.

Unless you wish to deny the mathematical nature of the term "all", I do not see how you can claim the *concept* "universe" as I identified it, is wrong.

[MinorityOfOne]

Ok, but I still think your emphasis is wrong. You said that the concept universe identifies quantity and only quantity. That's not right, though. Maybe you mean that it *retains* only quantity? It's hard to tell from what you wrote. The concept "universe" identifies *everything* -- all things. The referents are the things.

This is important, because I think it explains why you can apply some concepts to the universe and not others. You can apply basic philosopical concepts, because it would be an axiomatic contradiction for there to be anything that violates them. By their nature, they apply to everything -- they are true of something simply by virtue of the fact that it exists. You can't apply scientific concepts (like space, time, boundedness) to the universe as a whole, because the same is not true of them. They apply to things because they have specific characteristics, discovered scientifically. Nothing about the fact that something exists, per se, for example, says that it must have a specific location. (And, in fact, some things don't: mental entities.) The problems that arise from applying these -- the ones we've been discussing -- are a further development, an identification of the problems that arise if you do try to apply them inappropriately. It's very much like the difference between rejecting the notion of God as arbitrary, and then later relating it to a body of evidence to give positive arguments about why the concept leads to contradiction. It's arbitrary in the first place to apply such concepts to the universe as a whole; if you want, you can then go on to show what happens when you do.

[MinorityOfOne]

Another thought here. I was going to comment before to the effect that there are two different uses of "universe", but for some reason didn't. Well, there are, and I think they're both valid in certain contexts. In physics, the universe is generally considered to be precisely what DAC (I think) said earlier: the total collection of all matter and energy, regardless of its forms. I don't see a problem with physicists using the concept this way, since that's their field of study. But it's important to know which way you're using the concept. If you're using it that way, don't expect your conclusions about the universe to apply to the philosophical conception of the universe. A physicist studies what is true of things by virtue of the fact that they exist as matter or energy. There is no philosophical reason to think that these categories are exhaustive -- and, I think, there are reasons to think they're not. Is my experience of contemplating a great work of art just matter and energy in a particular form? The *experience*? I don't see how. It can be related to it, it can result from it, but it can't *be* it. So again: two categories. The philosophical one is broader and encompasses the other, because "all things" is a hierarchically higher genus than "all things matter and energy". The conclusions of the former can be applied to the latter, but they're going to be few and very general, because they'll essentially be either axiomatic or directly derivative. The conclusions of the latter can't be applied to the former. The reason is *not* that it is a fallacy of composition: by saying that, you grant that the (philosophically conceived) universe is in fact composed as they say it is.

I'd like to propose a terminological distinction for the purposes of this conversation. So that we can be clear on what we're talking about at a given time, could we refer to the philosophical conception as "universe" and the scientific conception as "cosmos"? (If there's some reason not to use the latter term, fine, but I think it's appropriate; a lot of what we've been discussing is more properly cosmology than metaphysics.)

[RadCap]

You said that the concept universe identifies quantity and only quantity.  That's not right, though....The concept "universe" identifies *everything* -- all things. The referents are the things.

It seems you are suggesting I define "universe" as quantity WITHOUT "referent" - ie quantity unrelated to THINGS. This is false. As I have CLEARLY stated numerous times, "quantity" is a RELATIONSHIP. As such, it NECESSARILY references 'things' - ie existents (for one does not validly reference NON-existents).

In other words, you say the referent is "things". I do not disagree. But that still leaves unanswered the question: "what ABOUT "things" is being referenced? What ABOUT "things" is being "identified"?

Simply put, what ABOUT "things" is BEING measured?

You do not explicitly answer that question (though by using the terms "every" and "all" you do IMPLICITLY answer it). It is the concept "all" which identifies what ABOUT "things" is being measured. It tells us that QUANTITY is being measured. ADDITIONALLY, the concept "all" tells us WHAT things are being measured - ie what things are being quantified. As you yourself pointed out - it tells us that EVERY thing is being quantified (as opposed to some LESSER quantity of things is being measured).

To put this all as simply as possible, the concept "universe" IS the (unspecified) whole QUANTITY of things.

Even your own words acknowledge this fact. By saying 'ALL things' or 'EVERY thing', are you identifying the COLOR of those things? No - even though the things each have a color. Are you identifying the HEIGHT of those things? No - even though the things each have dimension. Are you identifying the AGE of those things? No - even though the things each have an age. By using the term "all" you are not identifying ANY quality of those things whatsoever. You are identifying a QUANTITY - and ONLY a quantity - OF those things.

It is for THESE reasons one CAN reference the "finiteness" of the universe (because finiteness is ALSO a quantitative reference) but one CANNOT reference the "size" or "shape" etc of the universe (because those things are NOT quantitative references - they are QUALITATIVE references - and are thus outside the bounds of a quantitative discussion).

[RadCap]

Concerning your second post, I do not necesssarily agree with your statements. However, they ultimately touch upon an altogether different subject matter (somewhat similar to the one DAC introduced which I stated I did not want to address until the current discussion was resolved). As such, I will not address it directly either.

I will simply state that the concept "universe" - defined as "all that exists" - is the concept currently under discussion here. Attempts to limit "that which exists" solely to matter and energy will be (and has been) considered straying from the topic and will not be tolerated - since this is a philosophic and not a physics discussion.

[MinorityOfOne]

I don't think you intend to disconnect the concept "universe" from its referents, and as I said, I had some trouble picking out exactly what you meant. (Your use of capitalized words makes your posts difficult to read. It makes you come across as perpetually agitated, so it becomes difficult to see exactly what you mean to emphasize. Seriously, please use italics, and not so damned many of them.) I intended to warn against doing so accidentally. Maybe I didn't need to.

The main difference between what I'm proposing and what you're proposing, I think, is this. You take the essence of "the universe" to be that it refers to all things. I take the essence of it to be that it refers to things by virtue of their existence; that this means all things is obvious, but secondary, because it's not where you get the cash-out value of the concept. (See above for that.)

Look, let me put it this way. The concept "man" refers to all men. Does that mean that "man" is fundamentally a concept of quantity? No -- it just means that, because of what it refers to, it *has* to mean all men. All concepts refer to "all" of something, but that's not enough to make their essence quantitative. I think it might help to remind you one way in which I think this concept is related to existence. With existence, you're not dealing with a measurement, but with isolation: you're dealing with a characteristic that all things have, so it's an issue of selective focus. I think it's the same deal here.

[MinorityOfOne]

I take back what I wrote in that last post. This is *not* just an issue of selective focus; that was a pretty stupid thing to say. I'll think this through some more and get back to you.

[RadCap]

I agree with your sentence which identifies my position. However, the summary of YOUR position makes no sense to me.

To identify a thing as a thing, one necessarily says that the thing exists. Why? Because one CANNOT validly refer to the NON-existent. Existence exists - and ONLY existence exists. Thus ANY reference to a thing AUTOMATICALLY and IMPLICITLY states that it DOES exist.

This means your statement "...the essence of ["universe" is] that it refers to things by virtue of their existence" is simply repetition. It merely says "...the essence of "universe" is that it refers to existents according to the fact that they exist" - or more simply "it refers to existents which exist". Since an existent IS something WHICH EXISTS, the statement is redundant - its circular. Not only that, but it also *implies* a contradiction because the phrase 'which exists' is used to modify 'existent' - and the only reason you would need such a modifier is if you believed there were also "existents which did NOT exist" and that the concept "universe" which "refers to existents by virtue of their existence" needed to be distinguished from some other concept which "refers to existents by virtue of their NON-existence." Obviously no such distinction needs be made, because there are no existents which do not exist.

So - once the redundancy is removed from your statement, all you have left is: "...the essence of "universe" is that it refers to things." Obviously that is not a useful statement. Nor is it a definition, for it contains NO differentia. It still leaves the question I said needed answering UNANSWERED.

This is why I say my position is valid, and yours, as far as I can understand it, is not.

--

As to my writing style: CAPS = bold; * * = italics. I do that because coding in the styles for the individual words simply slows me down and disrupts my thought processes. Im sorry if it is distracting, but it shouldnt be any more distracting that bold letters or italics (at least it shouldn't now that you know the 'code' ).

[MinorityOfOne]

Now I'm even less clear on what you mean. You say my position was invalid because I didn't provide a differentia. What do you think the genus of the universe is? (I don't see how it can have one. And if it doesn't, it can't have a differentia either.)

[MinorityOfOne]

Oh, and re: your style... I understand and agree that it's a pain to use the bold/italic buttons. That's why I don't. The *'s don't distract me at all, but the caps do. The reason for it is that, generally, when caps are used online they're read as a shout. I can try not to read them that way when you use them, but it's pretty automatized. (I suspect this is the case for other people, too. I recall somebody else mentioning this once, but I don't know who or exactly what they said.) If you must use them, could you at least try to be a bit more sparing with them?

[RadCap]

Your question confuses me. It appears you are claiming that the definition of the concept "universe" has no differentia (nor even a genus). This would mean then that the concept universe has NO definition (because a definition REQUIRES both a genus and a differentia). If that is indeed your position, I have to disagree with it.

It was my understanding that we agreed the definition of "universe" is "all that exists". If that is the case, the genus would be "existents" and the differentia would be "all". Put simply, the definition of "universe" distinguishes the concept "all existants" from OTHER quantitative concepts, such as "some existents" or "many existents" etc. In each case, the genus is "existent" (with all qualitative measurements omitted) and the species is "quantity."

[MinorityOfOne]

I just posted something, but I'm going to nuke it and think it through further. I had thought of what you posted and dismissed it, but I'm not sure my reasons were very good.