The Universe Is All That Exists

[TruthSeeker]

For the moment, let's put that aside.
You said it begs the question, "How big is the Universe?"
I am not sure how it does.
How is that relevant to the point of the article?
Or are you just taking it off on a tangent?

If the universe is all that exists it must have a size since all that exist has a definite size. If you claim that the universe is infinite, that is an answer (and the only possible one) to the claim that the universe is all that exist. However, if the universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe, which does not make any sense according to the laws of physics which we know off.

To put the fallacy in a clear form, we can analize the argument carefully.
The first premise states that all that exist is the "universe"
The second, says there is nothing other then the universe, which is equally defined as "existance.
The obvious conclusion that we come to is that if the universe is all that exist, then there's nothing "outside" of the universe, which means that the universe is infinite. If the universe was finite, then it would have a size. Since you said it doesn't have a "size", that means it must not be finite.

The argument works fine philosophically, but when you take physics into consideration, it has its flaws...

 

[one_raven]

If the universe is all that exists it must have a size since all that exist has a definite size.

This is where I am getting tripped up.
"The Universe" is what needs to be defined.
If you consider "The Universe" to be a container that encapsulates all that exists, then the immediate assumption is that it must either have a size or be infinite.
If, however, you consider "The Universe" to be all that exists, "size", then, becomes meaningless, since "The Universe" is not simply a container.
Space, then, would be the container, but what if "things" exists other than what is in the container of space?
"Things" that are not matter and do not take up space?

I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but a necessary evil.

If you claim that the universe is infinite, that is an answer (and the only possible one) to the claim that the universe is all that exist.

Again, if you consider "The Universe" to be all of existence, then size is meaningless.
It is akin to asking how big dreams are.

If you consider the Universe a container, however, I disagree with your statement.
The Universe can be of finite size and still contain everything that exists.
Why not?

However, if the universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe, which does not make any sense according to the laws of physics which we know off.

That is if:
A.) Again, you consider the Universe to be a container.
B.) Every inch of the Universe has energy in it.
C.) We are correct in our measurments of energy in the Universe (which I am not so sure of).

The first premise states that all that exist is the "universe"
The second, says there is nothing other then the universe, which is equally defined as "existance.
The obvious conclusion that we come to is that if the universe is all that exist, then there's nothing "outside" of the universe, which means that the universe is infinite.

That does not follow.


The problem is that you are mixing definitions.
If the Universe IS all that exists, then size, as I said, becomes meaningless.
If the Universe CONTAINS all that exists, why does it have to be infinite?

Bear with me. I have had a headache for hours and my powers of reason are suffering.

 

[superluminal]

If the Universe IS all that exists, then size, as I said, becomes meaningless.

Why? Modern cosmologists speak of the universe as the extent of space, i.e. all that exists or can exist. It's extent is most likely infinite. The "size" we measure is the size of the portion of the universe that is visible to us, limited by the Hubble horizon.

If the Universe CONTAINS all that exists, why does it have to be infinite?

It dosen't. It just seem that it is likely.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I don't think it is backpedaling away from defining it, it is simply equating it with "existence".

Saying "the Universe and everything in it" attempts to define the Universe as some sort of container for existence, which I think is fairly meaningless and abstract.

Not at all. In fact, if you define the "universe" as "all existance", then you would not have anthing to compare "existance" with, which would render it meaningless.

Though I am not sure I DO agree with the definition, I certainly agree with the intention of the post -the argument against the absurd Cosmological Argument.

Oh yeah, the intention is absolutely valid. Doesn't mean it works out though.

What is the Universe?
Is it space?
What, then, is space? Some people believe that space was generated as part of the Big Bang, which would mean that space is still being created at the outer edges of matter ejected from the Big Bang. What is beyond that? Nothingness?
If so, then what happens if you live on a planet at the outermost fringe of teh expanding Universe and take a rocket out towards the "end of space"? What happens when you hit the end?

What happens when a ship reaches the horizont?

By defining The Universe as "all that exists" these speculative arguments don't get in the way.

That's an easy way out, which doesn't work logically.

Hmmm.... Let me go back and read again...

Indeed... it's good...

 

[superluminal]

You guys are missing the modern understanding of the universe.

 

[one_raven]

Not at all. In fact, if you define the "universe" as "all existance", then you would not have anthing to compare "existance" with, which would render it meaningless.

Explain, please.

That's an easy way out, which doesn't work logically.

I think, rather, it is avoiding confusing the issue by not bringing the irrelevant into it.
If you are having a discussion about gun control, it is silly and pointless and tends to obfuscate the issue if you get into a metaphysical argument over whether or not guns even exists in the greater sense.

 

[one_raven]

Why? Modern cosmologists speak of the universe as the extent of space, i.e. all that exists or can exist. It's extent is most likely infinite. The "size" we measure is the size of the portion of the universe that is visible to us, limited by the Hubble horizon.

Like I said earlier...
How big is a dream or a thought?
Yet they exist.

Unless you want to limit the definition to all matter that exists, then size is rendered meaningless.

You guys are missing the modern understanding of the universe.

I agree.
That's the problem.

 

[superluminal]

one raven

I just responded to a post of yours over in phys/math.

 

[TruthSeeker]

This is where I am getting tripped up.
"The Universe" is what needs to be defined.
If you consider "The Universe" to be a container that encapsulates all that exists, then the immediate assumption is that it must either have a size or be infinite.
If, however, you consider "The Universe" to be all that exists, "size", then, becomes meaningless, since "The Universe" is not simply a container.
Space, then, would be the container, but what if "things" exists other than what is in the container of space?
"Things" that are not matter and do not take up space?

I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but a necessary evil.

Indeed. Well, how would you define the universe then? If it's not a container of existance, what is it then?

Again, if you consider "The Universe" to be all of existence, then size is meaningless.

I know that. That is why it is considered infinite.

If you consider the Universe a container, however, I disagree with your statement.
The Universe can be of finite size and still contain everything that exists.
Why not?

Ahhh... please explain. If it is finite and is all that exist, what would you propose to exist outside this finite "space-time"?

That is if:
A.) Again, you consider the Universe to be a container.
B.) Every inch of the Universe has energy in it.
C.) We are correct in our measurments of energy in the Universe (which I am not so sure of).

The point that I'm making all the time is the fact that if it is not a container, then it must be infinite, which does not really make any sense.

That does not follow.

How?

The problem is that you are mixing definitions.

What about you?

If the Universe IS all that exists, then size, as I said, becomes meaningless.

I know that, and in fact, I'm saying the very same thing. If there is no "size", then it must be infinite.

If the Universe CONTAINS all that exists, why does it have to be infinite?

Because if it is finite, there is SOMETHING outside it, even if it is NOTHINGNESS. And then, we are back to the beginning!!!!

Bear with me. I have had a headache for hours and my powers of reason are suffering.

I totally understand man. Here. Smoke some weed :m:

 

[TruthSeeker]

You guys are f***** fast! LOL!

Explain, please.

Ahhh.... that was self-explanatory...
If you only have "existance", then you cannot define what "existance" really is because you don't have "non-existance" to comapre it with.

I think, rather, it is avoiding confusing the issue by not bringing the irrelevant into it.

Everything is relevant to some degree. If you dismiss something that is relevant as "irrelevant", then you have a problem with your logic.

If you are having a discussion about gun control, it is silly and pointless and tends to obfuscate the issue if you get into a metaphysical argument over whether or not guns even exists in the greater sense.

This is not the case. All that I'm discussing is relevant to the discussion. If you think it's not, then point out exactly what it is and why.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Like I said earlier...
How big is a dream or a thought?
Yet they exist.

Ah! That's what you were saying... I just got it.
Ok. Can you really compare something as physical as the universe to something as abstract as a dream or a thought?

 

[one_raven]

Indeed. Well, how would you define the universe then? If it's not a container of existance, what is it then?

I don't know.
I thought that was the point of this little exercise.

I know that. That is why it is considered infinite.

Infinite does not mean sizeless.
Thoughts are not infinite in size or weight, size and weight simply does not apply to them.
They are properties they do not have.

Ahhh... please explain. If it is finite and is all that exist, what would you propose to exist outside this finite "space-time"?

I don't.
Infinite implies that if you travel in a straight line it will never end, nor will it repeat (such as a ship over the horizon).
It means it never ends.
It could conceivably have an end, and still contain all that exists.
Why not?

How?

How DOES it follow?

What about you?

Me too. I'm not denying it.

I know that, and in fact, I'm saying the very same thing. If there is no "size", then it must be infinite.

Again, infinite means endless, not that it does not have a property of size.

Because if it is finite, there is SOMETHING outside it, even if it is NOTHINGNESS. And then, we are back to the beginning!!!!

Is there?
How can you be so sure.
Nothingness is not something it is the lack of something, no?

I totally understand man. Here. Smoke some weed

I wish!
I'm at work.

 

[one_raven]

one raven

I just responded to a post of yours over in phys/math.

Thanks.
I replied.

 

[one_raven]

Ahhh.... that was self-explanatory...
If you only have "existance", then you cannot define what "existance" really is because you don't have "non-existance" to comapre it with.

I disagree.
Why do you need something to compare it to to define it?

 

[TruthSeeker]

I don't know.
I thought that was the point of this little exercise.

If it is the point of this exercise, why is all that you answer is "I don't know"?

Infinite does not mean sizeless.

Oh really? So then, what is the size of "infinite"?

Thoughts are not infinite in size or weight, size and weight simply does not apply to them.
They are properties they do not have.

Indeed. Is the universe a thought?

I don't.
Infinite implies that if you travel in a straight line it will never end, nor will it repeat (such as a ship over the horizon).
It means it never ends.
It could conceivably have an end, and still contain all that exists.
Why not?

That's not the issue. The point is that if it is finite, it has something outside it, even if it is nothingness.

How DOES it follow?

I don't know! That's your opinion! LOL!!

Me too. I'm not denying it.

Silly!!!

Again, infinite means endless, not that it does not have a property of size.

Again, what is the size of infinite?

Is there?
How can you be so sure.
Nothingness is not something it is the lack of something, no?

Nothingness is something. It is the abscence of existance. If the abscence of existance exists, then abscence of existance is something!

I wish!
I'm at work.

At work! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE THEN!!!!!?!?!?!?!?

LOL!

 

[TruthSeeker]

I disagree.
Why do you need something to compare it to to define it?

How would you define something without its opposite?
How can you define "existance" without "non-existance"?

 

[ellion]

Whatever happens, I hope the path you choose leads to peace.

it has, thanks, i hope you find it too.

How do we know if there's nothing outside our universe? That sounds very much like an assumption...

the assumption is that the unviverse is all that exists. if this is true then the something "outside" is not "outside" it is "inside" our universe. this doesnt help much because if we say something is inside our universe we create an outside which cannot be. the universe is all that exists. in these terms the universe is existence itself.

However, that begs the question: how big is the universe?

if the universe has a size then it would have an outer edge. if it had an outer edge it would have an outside and an inside. if you define a the univesre as such you are in to the system within a system concept which means the universe is all that exists inside our circumference of expereince.

Oh, so we don't live in a place!?

the place we live is within the existence.

It doesn't have a size. Does that mean it is infinite?

not being limited or contained would mean unlimited or uncontained.

What is the Universe?
Is it space?
What, then, is space? Some people believe that space was generated as part of the Big Bang, which would mean that space is still being created at the outer edges of matter ejected from the Big Bang. What is beyond that? Nothingness?

if the circumference of "our universe" is expanding into "nothingness" then the "nothingness" is an aspect of the unversal exapnsion that "our universe" is expanding into. if this is the case this "nothingness" is part of "our existence" (our universe) if the "nothingness" is a container of "our universe" there is the possibility that "other universe" are expanding their circumference into that nothingness. this would be a system within a system. if this where the case our univesre is not all that exists, it would be all that exists with in the circumference of our experience.

However, I think it may have been more accurate to stick to using "existence" rather than "The Universe"...

yeah! words get in the way.

However, if the universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe, which does not make any sense according to the laws of physics which we know off.

how would this be different to a contained universe with a contained amount of energy? please, bear in mind i am not a scientist.

 

[ellion]

Not at all. In fact, if you define the "universe" as "all existance", then you would not have anthing to compare "existance" with, which would render it meaningless.

we would have non-existence to compare it with. we know what non-existence is because non-existence exists. how so?

there is no door in my ceiling.
the door in my ceiling is non-existent.

the moon on my lawn does not exist because there is no moon on my lawn.

What happens when a ship reaches the horizont?

if it has the potential it continues its course. this is what happens when the shuttle continues outside earths atmosphere.

If it's not a container of existance, what is it then?

perhaps it is uncontained existence?

If you only have "existance", then you cannot define what "existance" really is because you don't have "non-existance" to comapre it with.

but we dont only have existence we have non-existence also.

 

[one_raven]

Truthseeker,
How much does the a musical note weigh?
Does it have infinite weight, or is weight simply not a property of musical notes?

 

[superluminal]

How much does the a musical note weigh?

Man, you really love these sorts of questions, don't you? :m: