Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What does philosophy tell us about the universe?

Rate this topic


msb

Recommended Posts

For the benefit of RC, I'll make my presence felt in the theoretical physics topics some more.

That was me making a big deal of RC's shouting, and I still wish he'd stop. It's quite a pain reading his posts because for me as well caps signify significantly raised volume.

RC, do you include the nature of existence (including such things as geometry, or laws of physics) in your definition of universe? Kind of like (for those of you up on computers) how XML documents are supposed to be self-describing, ie their nature being a part of their contents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Matt

I don't know if it will help or not, but consider this: concept-formation involves two things - measurement and measurement-omission. A concept measures (specifies) some aspect of things and omits the rest.

Furthermore, remember what AR says about what is omitted:

"Bear firmly in mind that the term "measurements omitted" does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means that *measurements exist, but are not specified.* That measurements *must* exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurments must exist in *some* quantity, but may exist in *any* quantity."

She uses the definition of "table" to make this clear:

"An adult definition of "table" would be: "A man-made object consisting of a flat, level surface and support(s), intended to support other, smaller objects." Observe what is specified and what is omitted in this definition: the distinctive characteristic of the shape is specified and retained; the particular geometrical measurements of the shape (whether the surface is square, round, oblong or triangular, etc., the number and shape of supports, etc) are omitted; the measurements of size or weight are omitted; the fact that it is a material object is specified, but the material of which it is made is omitted, thus omitting the measurements that differentiate one material from another; etc."

So, considering all this, what is SPECIFIED and what is OMITTED in the concept "universe"?

(I made a similar, though more rudimentary statement and answer to this in a post to DAC on the 31st at 10:28am. If need be, you may reference the first half of that post that for a little further clarification.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radcap,

I'm familiar with concept-formation, thanks. :) On further thought, though, I think I may have been more on the right track at the beginning when I expressed doubts about the universe being an abstraction. It seems more like an all-inclusive mass noun than a concept...

By comparison: the solar system refers to a group of entities. It's distinguished, as you mentioned re: the universe, from other groups of entities. But that doesn't mean we have a concept of the solar system, nor that the solar system is an entity in itself. (Except in an extended sense, and I don't see off the top of my head why the same extended sense couldn't be applied to the universe as a whole.)

Anyway, I still have to think this through more, and I'm very backed up with work for the next few days at least. Feel free to respond, but I won't be posting much for a little while.

By the way, Radcap, I notice you've been cutting back on the caps. Thanks, it's definitely making your posts more clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confusing me again.

You are correct when you say that the concept "universe" is a noun. But it now appears you are suggesting that "nouns" are NOT concepts. If that is the case, I must again disagree with you. On the other hand, if that is not your suggestion, then I have no idea what you are trying to communicate in the above post.

I also don't follow what you mean when you say things like "...we don't have a concept of the solar system..." We don't? What is it you are referencing then when you say "solar system" if there is no concept for it?

As it stands, you are using the term "concept" in a manner I do not recognize. While I don't want to stray from the original topic, I believe this issue must be resolved before we can resolve the question about "universe" itself. And since I don't want to make the mistake of insulting your intelligence again, I will not simply remind you of the definition of the term. :)

So perhaps you could clarify:

What is a concept? And why is a noun NOT a concept?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RadCap

I said: I believe that every physical existent posessess temporally and spacial properties

"...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..."

Since 'quantity' is not a physical existent, your answer makes no sense... my question stands... Is there any physical existent that does not possess temporal or spacial properties?

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

No the 'universe' is not an existent, but what 'makes up the universe' is, and that was my point...

@Anyone who cares to answer

I believe the objection made by someone is that the universe may be made of things other than physical existents, so the question of whether 'mental' entities are included in the concept 'universe' is paramount to this discussion. Also RadCap, I am not asking for your analysis/speculation on this question, more specifically, I am asking if Rand has said anything on the subject, and if so, would you or someone post a reference...

@MinorityOfOne

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?

My objection to this in another post was:

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 [Matt, I know about your objection to matter and energy being all that exists, I will address this later]. Put simply, our inability to measure a thing accurately does not negate the possiblility of its finiteness (in this case our inability to measure [the] quantity [of all that exists] does not negate the possibility of an actual quantity [of all that exists])...

When I speak of matter and energy, I include elementary particles and elementary waves in that term... This is not meant to spark a physics discussion but is instead added for clairity...,

@MinorityOfOne

...It seems more like an all-inclusive mass noun than a concept...

This sounds similar to the objection I made earlier (maybe in the last thread) about the universe being a 'collective noun'... Would you read that again, I would be interested in hearing your comments and determine if we are trying to say the same thing...

Also, Rand says:

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.

Is this be similar to the argument that you cannot PROVE axioms, because proof presupposes them, and for that reason the axioms are beyond 'proof'... could similar logic be applied to the temporal and spacial properties (or lack thereof) of the 'universe' as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DAC

You say:

my question stands... Is there any physical existent that does not possess temporal or spacial properties?

Actually I DID answer it. I said "NO existant - NO thing - NO entity - exists which does not have properties of some sort." I will now be even more explicit with my answer:

I know of NO "physical" entity which does not have some spatial properties. However, since, as has been stated, "time" is a RELATIONSHIP, then I know of NO individual "physical" entity which has some "temporal" properties (even "age" is a measurement in RELATION to another entity. Age is not something possessed BY an entity).

Now perhaps you will return the courtesy and answer the question *I* have asked multiple times now.

You say you "... believe the properties of existents that make up 'all that exists' are transferable to the concept 'universe'."

You pointed out an example of this premise:

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

Since "universe" is "all that exists" then your example statement means "the age of ALL existents is as old as the oldest existent."

As I pointed out, this is demonstrably false. And I used YOU as an example. I said "You are NOT as old as the oldest existant. Therefore all existants are NOT as old as the oldest existant."

This is simple logic. Yet you ignored this refutation of your premise (which I quoted above), and have continued on as if the premise is still valid. To make my case clear - I asked for OTHER examples of your premise, in order to demonstrate how the premise from which you proceed is false. Those requests went unanswered.

I ask you to answer them now.

(Oh - and as to your claim that my statement about your "expressed BELIEF" referred to your statement about "every physical existent" possessing "temporally and spacial properties", I hope it is now evident that you were mistaken. The referent was not *that* belief, but your *previously* stated belief (your FUNDAMENTAL premise) that "...the properties of existents that make up 'all that exists' are transferable to the concept 'universe'." Thus my answer DOES make sense. You simply have to assign it to the proper *context*. :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt

That makes much more sense and makes clear your argument. But I must disagree with that argument. A name identifies something. And that something is identified by a concept. For instance, take the name "Bobby". "Bobby" identifies a particular thing. WHAT thing though? In this example "Bobby" identifies a particular "man". And man IS a concept. So when one references a name one is ALSO referencing a concept as well.

"Bobby" is the name. "Man" is the concept.

This is true of all proper nouns (names):

"Moscow" is the name. "City" is the concept.

"Rose" is the name. "Flower is the concept.

etc

Now there are some instances when the name (proper noun) which identifies a particular entity is also the same as the concept which identifies the class or catagory to which that entity belongs. For instance, take the word "sun". "Sun" is a concept defined as "a star that is the center of a planetary system." "Sun is also a proper noun. It is the name of a PARTICULAR star - ours (ie the one that is at the center of the planetary system which includes the Earth." This means:

"Sun" is the name. "Sun" is the concept.

This is true of other things as well, such as "moon" or even your example "solar system" ("solar system" IS a concept: "a system of planets or other bodies orbiting a star". It is also the name of a particular solar system - ours.)

Therefore, while one *might* consider "universe" a proper noun, it is also a concept.

(Note: While I say "one *might* consider..." I believe such a consideration would be invlaid. A proper noun serves to distinguish a particular unit from the other units subsumed under a specific concept. Since there is only ONE "universe" there is nothing else - no other units - from which to distingush it.)

What this means is, even if you *do* consider "universe" a proper noun, you must still define the concept "universe" as well. Which brings us back to my original statements and questions.

So, what in the concept "universe" is being specified - and what measurements are being omitted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You pointed out an example of this premise:

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

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

Was intented to show that your statement:

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.

was ambiguous... not that I agreed that all existants are the same age...the operative words being 'could be'

(Oh - and as to your claim that my statement about your "expressed BELIEF" referred to your statement about "every physical existent" possessing "temporally and spacial properties", I hope it is now evident that you were mistaken.  The referent was not *that* belief, but your *previously* stated belief (your FUNDAMENTAL premise) that "...the properties of existents that make up 'all that exists' are transferable to the concept 'universe'."  Thus my answer DOES make sense.  You simply have to assign it to the proper *context*. :)  )
I don't think so, read the post above it, it establishes the context (I'll included it here, for ease of reference)

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...

Context established... My answer to your question included... If all of x possess spacial boundaries, x is a physical existent, relationships between existents include the temporal, therefore the 'universe' (not in its collective noun sense, but its actual sense, all existents (each and every existent)) has a finite size and a temporal relationship with other existents.

Also, again this question of the concept 'universe' cannot be finalized until we answer the questions from my previous post...

Also, a question about your first post, you say:

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:

[a]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.

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

a) Are mental entities included when you use the concept 'entity' above?

b] I agree with a,b, and c above (when used in the collective-noun sense)... do you make any distinction between the referents of the concept 'universe' (e.g.- individual existents) and the collective-noun usage? Could a comparision be drawn, a hypothetical [d] above which relates all but one entity to that specific entity?

The reason I ask is that I seem preoccupied with the fact that the concept 'universe' in one sense is epistemological (e.g.- being mathematical in nature) , but when used another way is metaphysical (e.g.- a finite number of existants).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Was intented to show that your statement:

"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."

was ambiguous... not that I agreed that all existants are the same age...the operative words being 'could be'

The statement is not ambiguous whatsoever. There is NO way to speak of the age of the universe for the reasons I gave (including that age of one does not equal age of all). Those reasons have not been refuted. As such, the statement stands and it stands with one meaning ONLY.

In your next point, you suggest that MY context is not the one I identified. REALLY? On what basis do you tell me what *I* was referencing when I made a statement? While it is QUITE possible for you to not to have grasped what I referenced - or possible that my connection to that reference was not clear - it is NOT possible for you to claim I was NOT making that reference. So I really have to LOL at this part of your post. :)

If all of x possess spacial boundaries, x is a physical existent, relationships between existents include the temporal, therefore the 'universe' (not in its collective noun sense, but its actual sense, all existents (each and every existent)) has a finite size and a temporal relationship with other existents.

This part of your post makes no logical sense. You start with an "if", provide no "then", go to a "therefore", and repeat the original premise. It is both incomplete and circular. I simply can't follow it. Please clarify.

Because of the confusion over what you are trying to communicate here, I will not, as I have said in the past, proceed to additional ideas or premises until this one is resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap,

Still thinking this through somewhat. One question, though. Your argument is that the universe is a concept which, roughly, integrates all existents, abstracting away all characteristics other than that they exist. Right? So what makes it different from the concept "existent"?

(I know there's an obvious difference between the universe and the concept of existent. But I don't see how *your* idea of the universe is different from it. The difference can't be in the "all", because the concept entity integrates all entities too.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt,

See the AR quote posted above. The concept "existence" (not "existent") is similar to the concept universe. I'm not certain exactly what the distinction would be, but I would think that at least in some contexts, the two terms are completely interchangeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assumptions about all that exists as it pertains to the concept 'universe'...

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

x is a physical existent

relationships between existents include the temporal

The sum of all that exists is synonymous with all the matter and energy that exists in whatever form. This does not delimit existence, it just states that at current, the best knowledge states that everything is matter, energy, or a mixture of both. If we find something new someday, I am confident that it can be classified in one of these categories (I.e- new knowledge does not contradict old)

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

Matter possesses spacial properties, and relationships between matter include the temporal.

Energy possesses spacial properties, called wavelength, which is generally specified in nanometers. I'm thinking of electromagnetic energy in particular, but this could also be applied to elementary waves. This is included, not to spark a physics discussion, but to show that energy has spacial properties (namely wavelength). Since energy has spacial properties, it also has temporal relationships.

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.

All that exists is finite. (I.e.- has identity, is limited in quantity, etc.)

There is a finite amount of matter and energy that exists.

Matter and Energy or a combination of the two is all that exists at a fundamental level, not a human perspective level. These are the 'building blocks' of every existent, every entity, etc.

If every existent is spacially bound, then all existents are spacially bound, and all that exists has a spacial boundary (I'm visualizing a 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*, does not negate the possiblity of a finite quantity that exists, it just means we can't measure it at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt

I would say "existence" is distinguished from "universe" by context. And I would say that context is distinguished by referent.

First, I would say that the contextual difference is that of the difference between philosophy and science. "Existence" relates to metaphysics and epistemology (philosophy). "Universe" relates to the derivative arena - that of science.

Philosophy uses the term "existence" to, among other things, identify 'a' from 'non-a' (to distinguish 'that which exists' from 'that which does not exist'). Science deals ONLY with 'that which exists'. As such, it uses the term "universe" to identify something ABOUT that which exists, as opposed to WHETHER it exists.

That is HOW the context is different. WHY they are different is because the scope of philosophy is wider than the scope of science. Philosophy deals with ANY existents. Science deals ONLY with that which exists. (This is a refinement of my previous statements). In other words, philosophy includes any existent. Science includes only actual existents. Or put more succinctly, philosophy deals with "existents" whereas science deals only with "facts".

In the aforementioned ItOE, in the chapter on Axiomatic Concepts, AR identifies the distinction between "existents" and "facts". She says, "Now, "fact" is merely a way of saying, "This is something which exists in reality" - as distinguished from [something which exists in] imagination or misconception or error."

All of the others "imagination," "misconception," and even "error" would fall under the catagory "existent" because, as AR states, the concept "subsumes entities and attributes and actions and even mental events. They exist...everything that exists on which you can focus, anything which you can isolate, whether it is an entity, a relationship, an action, or an attribute."

As one of the Prof's in the discussion summarizes it: "Facts" designates existents, but is used in a context in which it is relevant to distinguish knowledge from error. In other words, "fact" identifies a particular kind of "existent".

In other words, "existence" encompasses conceptual existents as well as real existents. "Fact" includes only real existents.

As AR stated, "fact" is "a concept necessitated by our form of consciousness - that is, by the fact that we are not infallible. An error is possible, or a lie is possible, or imagination is possible. And, therefore, when we say something is fact, we distinguish it primarily from error, lie, or any aberration of consciousness."

Thus it is interesting that you originally chose the word "existent" as the comparison for "universe" because there is a connection between the two.

"existence" is to "universe"

as

"existent" is to "fact"

And the reason for that connection is "existents" are the referent of "existence" whereas "facts" are the referent of "universe".

In other words, the subject matter of philosophy encompasses conceptual existents as well as actual existents. The subject matter of science encompasses only actual existents. As such, "existence" is a broader concept than "universe" just as "existent" is a broader concept than "fact".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DAC

This is the last time I am going to respond to the mere repetition of the exact same argument.

First - since this is NOT a discussion of physics, drop the references to specific constituents of existence (matter and energy). You have been advised of this previously. Not only are they inappropriate to the topic, but your statements are based on false assumptions and proceed from logical fallacies. Please do not reference them again.

Second - if you are going to insist on referencing "universe" as both a concept and a proper noun, then I am going to reassert my original objection to the use of the term as a proper noun. If you still assert it is both then ALL other discussion on the topic between us must be dropped and we MUST resolve that issue FIRST and ONLY (because to speak of something we MUST know what is referenced - ie terms MUST be defined). Otherwise NO rational discussion can occur.

Third - dropping the above, your argument now looks something like this:

Assumptions about all that exists as it pertains to the concept 'universe'...

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

x is a physical existent

relationships between existents include the temporal

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

Each and every existent possesses spacial properties, and relationships between matter include the temporal.

The concept 'universe' is 'the sum of all that exists'.  The concept 'sum' by its nature is limiting.

All that exists is finite. (I.e.- has identity, is limited in quantity, etc.)

If every existent is spacially bound, then all existents are spacially bound, and all that exists has a spacial boundary (I'm visualizing a 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.  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*, does not negate the possiblity of a finite quantity that exists, it just means we can't measure it at present.

If this is your argument sans the aforementioned references, then we can proceed. If it is not, you need to correct whatever is missing or inaccurate. If you refuse to drop those elements, we must either address what I said needs to be addressed before continuing further - or we are at an impasse, and can continue no more.

Which of these is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please allow a newbie to ask a clarifying question. In an earlier portion of this thread I found the following:

****************

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.

*****************

I apologize for selecting only a portion of the argument, but I can't follow the logic here and would appreciate assistance. This response suggests to me that a two-hundred year old oak tree can not be an existant since not all of it's parts are two-hundred years old. Conversely, although I'm not suggesting this, if the universe began as some sort of large single particle that "popped" into existance and exploded in a "big bang", creating what we recognize as the observable universe, why isn't the age of all existants the same as the age of the universe? With this admittedly contrived premise, even the thoughts and actions I put into this question are validly as old as the universe since they were generated internally by electrical pulses derived from matter originating from this oldest existant item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the quote does not speak to whether a thing can be an existent at all. Whether a thing is made up of same age or different aged units does not define whether a thing is an existent or not. And the quote does not try to make such a claim.

Given your last sentence, I have to conclude you are not making a distinction between individual entities and the units from which they are built. Essentially your claim is 'because everything is starstuff, everything, including the thought you had a second ago, is actually billions of years old.'

That is a logical fallacy. Components (units) are not the same as the combinations they form. You are not a star, even though the constituent elements may be the same, or may have even previously constituted a star.

Finally, your suggestion that the universe "popped" into existence, even as a mental exercise, is invalid. Some thing cannot come from no thing. That is a violation of identity and thus existence.

These questions pertain to more than just the concept of "universe". As such, if you wish to pursue them further, it would likely be more appropriate to address these issues in a different thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say "existence" is distinguished from "universe" by context.  And I would say that context is distinguished by referent.

First, I would say that the contextual difference is that of the difference between philosophy and science.  "Existence" relates to metaphysics and epistemology (philosophy).  "Universe" relates to the derivative arena - that of science. 

Philosophy uses the term "existence" to, among other things, identify 'a' from 'non-a' (to distinguish 'that which exists' from 'that which does not exist'). Science deals ONLY with 'that which exists'.  As such, it uses the term "universe" to identify something ABOUT that which exists, as opposed to WHETHER it exists...

In other words, the subject matter of philosophy encompasses conceptual existents as well as actual existents.  The subject matter of science encompasses only actual existents.  As such, "existence" is a broader concept than "universe" just as "existent" is a broader concept than "fact".

Thanks for this post, RadCap, it helped me clarify my own thoughts on the issue.

The only objection I have is a minor terminological one. Rather than referring to the different contexts as those of philosophy and "science," you should probably specify that it is the physical sciences to which you're referring. After all, the humanities are sciences, and taken in its widest sense, "science" could even subsume philosophy itself. And sciences like psychology and epistemology do deal with conceptual existents as well as actual existents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHOA.

Somehow I missed the post you put up, Radcap, in which you discuss the relationship between proper nouns and concepts. I think you're way off there, but I'm not sure I understand you properly, so lemme ask you a few questions to clarify.

1. Do you think that all proper nouns are also concepts? Or do you think that concepts and proper nouns are separate categories?

2. Do you think that identifying something with a proper noun presupposes having already discovered a concept into which it fits?

3. If your answer to 2 is yes, then why do babies say "mama" before "woman"? Do you think they couldn't label their mother "mama" without having first at least some implicit concept of woman?

4. You say that even if it's true that there is a proper noun usage of "universe", that you would still be required to form a philosophical concept for "universe". (At least, I assume this is what you were getting at: otherwise you probably would have said "existence" -- which is the position I'm leaning toward.)

Other questions from later posts:

5. Do you really think there's a distinction between what "exists" and what "actually exists"? I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying, but you need better terms here.

6. I don't think you're quite getting the point of the discussion in ITOE. The point is that "fact" is useful to distinguish error from knowledge, not mental entities from physical entities. That's a whole different point. For example: it's a fact that I have a concept of dogs. It's not a fact that I've met a unicorn. So I don't think your analogy (existence-existent:universe-fact) works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the last time I am going to respond to the mere repetition of the exact same argument.
I was responding to your request for clarity in a previous post.

First - since this is NOT a discussion of physics, drop the references to specific constituents of existence (matter and energy).  You have been advised of this previously.  Not only are they inappropriate to the topic, but your statements are based on false assumptions and proceed from logical fallacies.  Please do not reference them again.

I realize this is not a physics discussion and even included a disclaimer in my post. To quote you "Universe" relates to the derivative arena - that of science.". I think it is fair to discuss the universe in terms of science, when necessary for clarity, since that is its proper arena. I agree that we need to keep it on a philosophical level, but the use of science can help the understanding. If you notice, my discussion of science was kept on the broadest possible level, showing thought, I was keeping this from drifting into what became of the previous thread.

Also, what false assumptions and what logical fallacies. I proceed from the premise that whatever those constituents are, they exist and exist finitely, even if at present we cannot measure them... Where is the fallacy or false assumption in this... But, if that is the desire of the forum administrators, I will not reference them. But I know an objective reading of my posts will show that I am not trying to form a strawman of science or the concept universe, your implications notwithstanding.

Lets remember that this thread originally (the first one that was closed) was a critique of the Alex essay. In particular dealing with questions I had about it and the concept 'universe'. Understanding, not combativeness, is my goal... How is understanding acheived, by asking questions and asking for clarity...

Second - if you are going to insist on referencing "universe" as both a concept and a proper noun...

Actually, my objection was to the 'universe' being a used as a collective noun, not a proper noun...

Since my goal is understanding, if the references bother you, I will remove them for the purpose of continuing the discussion, not because I think they don't belong... Here is the argument again, refined...

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)

x is a physical existent

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, let's proceed with the discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt

1. All names are not concepts.

A name identifies ONE particular unit subsumed under a specific catagory or class (which is why I claim naming "all that exists" is improper. Since there is only one 'unit' - "all that exists" - there can be no class or catagory which subsumes "universe").

A concept is a mental integration of TWO or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics, with their particular measurements omitted (and the concept "universe" mentally integrates *all* that exists, which definitely qualifies as 'two or more' :) ).

2. No. Of course, not having discovered that concept has nothing to do with whether the conceptual catagory exists and/or is valid.

3. The answer to 2 was no, so no response is required.

4. Yes, because a proper noun distinguishes a thing from other things in a particular catagory or class. In other words, it is a relational term. A concept, on the other hand, speaks to the nature of each unit subsumed in the particular catagory or class (it speaks to the distinguishing characteristics identified in the concept).

5. If you have "better" terms for the concepts being expressed in their context, please suggest them.

6. As is stated in ItOE,:

"..."fact" is merely a way of saying, "This is something which exists in reality" - as distinguished from imagination [something not existing in reality] or misconception [something not existing in reality] or error [something not existing in reality]."

In other words, while they are all existents, they do not refer to anything which actually exists.

I believe part of the problem you have with this is that you frame your examples in the first person possessive. These do not apply because they speak to your state, not about an existent or an attribute or relationship etc etc in reality. For instance, in the "dog" example you provide it is appropriate to say "true" (or "false") not "fact". For it may be true that you have a concept. However, merely possessing the concept does not mean that it is a fact. Holding, formulating, even believing in a concept does not tell us whether that concept is knowledge about reality or if it is a lie, an error, or an aberration of consciousness.

In other words, it doesnt tell us whether the concept's reference is existence or just itself - consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DAC

Ok - now that we have most of the extraneous stuff out of the way, we can focus on the confusion in your primary assertions themselves. So let us deal with your "Assumptions about all that exists as it pertains to the concept 'universe' "

You state:

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

x is a physical existent

relationships between existents include the temporal"

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.)

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".

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap,

Thank you for the clarification, it has helped my understanding of the flow of the discussion.

One last point relative to your comments, although this may not be the proper thread to ask (and I could use instruction on how to address O/T items):

Is your assertion that "something can not come from no thing" purely a philosophical point you use for the purpose of this discussion, or is this a fact you assert is a part of general knowledge?

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lb

I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make when you separate "a philosophical point" and "a fact [asserted as] a part of general knowledge". However, I will state that it is a fact of reality (because of the law of identity) that *some* thing cannot come from *no* thing - ie that existence cannot come from non-existence. I will further state that there is in fact no such thing as nothing. That nothingness does not exist (for to say nothing exists is a contradiction in terms). To exist is to *be* some thing.

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...