The Universe Is All That Exists

[enton]

outside the boundary exists outside. all that exists outside or inside is the universe.

Universe, according to dict.die.net is

n 1: everything that exists anywhere;
2: the whole collection of existing things

What about the multiverses, the polyverses and the pluriverses? Remember the thread is "The Universe Is All That Exists".

 

[Sarkus]

Well, yeah. So what's outside?

Meaningless question. (see below).

Well, that's an assumption, though...

No - it's by definition. We can know nothing BY DEFINITION. The Universe is ALL there is for us to experience.

If we manage to "exist" outside the universe as we currently understand it then the "universe" suddenly gets that much bigger for us - like opening the door to your small room and finding a larger city for us to exist in.

I don't get it. What's the difference between a "concept of the Universe" and "the properties of the Universe"? It sounds like you are saying "A is not equal to A".

Apologies for any confusion. Let me clarify....
We exist within our Universe - and as such "existence" is a concept within our Universe. We can say nothing about that which is not within our Universe. It is meaningless to do so.
All our concepts ("existence", "inside", "outside" etc) are thus only valid for objects within our Universe.
A "property of the Universe" is something that can be ascribed to the Universe. We can only apply concepts of this Universe to that which exists within our Universe - not to that which does not - as we can have no concepts about that which does not exist within.
"Outside" our Universe is a property of the universe that is, by definition, not within the universe and is thus meaningless.

Well, at this point in time, yes. But if there is an outside, then that already implies that there is an outside, since you cannot have a boundary without having two different "substances", which the boundary separates. It would be like saying there's a boundary in the middle of the ocean, when all that there is is ocean.

Just because it's outside our sphere of experience, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or is not logical. The Universe is all that we know of. But that doesn't mean that there's something which we don't know. We cannot make such assumption...

If the Universe has a physical boundary (i.e. a wall) that we can not ever cross such that we can not experience what is "outside" - then there is nothing meaningful outside that boundary - and we have defined our Universe.
The Universe may have an "outside" but we can not say. We can know nothing about what is not inside. In this instance the Universe is defined by the physical boundary (i.e. everything within the boundary).

But the boundary can also be one of "existence".
i.e. with the physical boundary we can not exist beyond the wall - but if the wall was not actually there, but existence still reached no further, then the universe is still defined by what exists.
Thus there really is no difference between a Universe that is bound by a wall and one that is bound by existence.
i.e. we define the Universe as all that exists.


As for polyverses, multiverses etc - remember, we can only define OUR universe. When we say "the Universe is all that exists" we can only apply our concept of "existence" as it is in our Universe.
We can say nothing meaningful about other universes.
We can theorise, we can speculate - but ultimately, unless it "exists" in our universe we can say nothing meaningful about it.

So I suppose I would amend the thread and say "The Universe is all that meaningfully exists." and by meaningful I mean that which is not meaningless.

I think

 

[TruthSeeker]

Sarkus, you are defining the universe as "all that we can experience", not "all that exists".

 

[TruthSeeker]

"Outside" our Universe is a property of the universe that is, by definition, not within the universe and is thus meaningless.

Meaningless for us. Doesn't mean there's nothing outside.

 

[ellion]

And what is outside?

by your defintion there is nothing outside. by my definition there is no outside.

So the universe is whatever is outside AND inside the universe?

yes. what i mean is; there is no inside/outside there is just existence, which is the universe. although, something feels wrong with that, what is it?

maybe i will find it myself, i am going to go over your earlier larger post soon.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, you are defining the universe as "all that we can experience", not "all that exists".

We can not experience that which does not exist.
And if it exists we can experience it.

Thus all that exists IS all that we can experience.
They are synonymous.

 

[TruthSeeker]

by your defintion there is nothing outside. by my definition there is no outside.

You don't get it. If there's no outside, then it must be infinite. By my definition, there is no outside.

yes. what i mean is; there is no inside/outside there is just existence, which is the universe. although, something feels wrong with that, what is it?

maybe i will find it myself, i am going to go over your earlier larger post soon.

I-n-f-i-n-i-t-e U-n-i-v-e-r-s-e........

 

[TruthSeeker]

We can not experience that which does not exist.
And if it exists we can experience it.

Thus all that exists IS all that we can experience.
They are synonymous.

Ahhh... nope. Not necessarily. If there is existance outside our known universe, we might never be able to experience. Not all that there is we can experience....

Regardless, even our own sphere of experience seem to be expanding with the universe.

 

[ellion]

truthseeker,

i dont have a problem with infinity. i also dont understand why you do?

 

[ellion]

a. The universe is a physical thing, with physical properties. <---you seem to disagree with this. It might be an area of major discussion.

it is physical in so far as we expereince it physically. what about the properties of the universe that dont present themselves to us physically, do they exist?

b. A size is a physical property
-------------------------------------------------------------------
C: Therefore, the universe has a size.

not all that exist has physical properties, so not all that exist has a size. if the universe is all that exists its totality is not measurable. although its physical manifetsations as presented to our physical experience, may in some way or other be measurable.

a. Whatever has a definite size can be either finite or infinite

if something has a an infinite size it is continuous, in its totality it is unmeasurable.
is infinite a definite number, i am not too good with math?

II. An infinite universe would have an infinite amount of energy

how, why and so what....?

III. We know that the universe does not have an infinite amount of energy

how and why?

what is the difference between contained and uncontained, in terms of capacity to contain energy? i am not scientifically minded so please bare with me.

 

[superluminal]

ellion:

...it is physical in so far as we expereince it physically. what about the properties of the universe that dont present themselves to us physically, do they exist?

There are no properties of the universe that are not physical.

- matter
- light (electromagnetic radiation)
- gravity (spacetime curvature)
- Strong nuclear force
- Weak nuclear force
- Higgs field (theorized)

These are the only physical properties of the universe. They are real, measurable, quantifiable things. All other phenomena arise from these 6 fundamental entities. What about ideas, you ask? The realm of the imagination? Electrochemical patterns (possibly even some quantum involvement) resulting in action or inaction in the host mechanical system (body).

That's it bub. There is no reason to even speculate on the existence of "mystical" forces or realms since there is zero valid evidence for them. This includes, but is not limited to, god(s), angels, ghosts, poltergeists, UFO's, telekenesis, telepathy, precognition, dowsing, astrology, witchcraft, chi...

What have I missed?

 

[Sarkus]

If there is existance outside our known universe, we might never be able to experience. Not all that there is we can experience....

By "experience" I mean experienced by anything else that exists within this universe. We, as humans, might not experience it, but the thing that exists next to it does.

To put it another way - if we, humans, filled every "space" within this Universe, then the Universe would be limited by what we could experience.
We can say nothing meaningful about that which does not exist within our Universe.
Speaking about that which does not exist within our Universe is meaningless.
One can say nothing about that which has no meaning.
So please don't.

You might say "but what lies outside our Universe". Meaningless.
There is no evidence, and CAN BE NO EVIDENCE for anything that lies outside our Universe. That is the boundary by which our Universe is bound.

"But it still might exist outside our sphere of Evidence?"
It might. But as far as our term "existence" is concerned, it MUST and DOES lie within our Universe. The term "existence" has no meaning outside our Universe.

To exist it must be experience-able.
To be experience-able it must exist.

So to say "The Universe is all that exists" is correct - as the term "Existence" is only applicable to the inside of our Universe. It has no meaning in relation to anywhere else.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I will respond when my EXTREME FUCKING HEADACHE go away.

Thanks for your understanding...

 

[ellion]

There are no properties of the universe that are not physical.

how do you know that there is nothing non-physical? since you are only identifying the physical and all your tools are constructed with, for and by physical identifications, how have you managed to look beyond the physical to identify that nothing else exists?

 

[superluminal]

ellion my friend.

how do you know that there is nothing non-physical? since you are only identifying the physical and all your tools are trapped by your physical identifications, how have you managed to look beyond the physical to identify that nothing else exists?

I consider this to be completely mystical thinking. If you read my post carefully:

There is no reason to even speculate on the existence of "mystical" forces or realms since there is zero valid evidence for them.

I did not say that nothing else exists. But if it does, and it manifests itself as an entity/action in our universe, then it becomes, by definition, a physical phenomenon subject to analysis.

 

[ellion]

UFO's, telekenesis, telepathy, precognition, dowsing, astrology, witchcraft,

actually, all of these could possibly exist within the properties you identifiy as physical. now, i am not saying they do or do not, for if i did it would evoke the question "prove it?" which i have no intention of doing in this lifetime. however by saying they definitely do not exist you are, asserting an unknown to be known, and you are narrowing your field of potential expereince. these two facts then give rise to the question, "is superluminal of credible intellignece?"

whitch craft and astrology do exist and have existed for a long time. whether the results of such pracitces are valid or not is a different matter.

 

[ellion]

but why say "no reason to speculate"

this is pathetic.

 

[TruthSeeker]

truthseeker,

i dont have a problem with infinity. i also dont understand why you do?

I don't have a problem with inifnity. You don't? How do you define infinity?

 

[ellion]

camera obscuras definitio!!

How do you define infinity?

i would agree with all of these from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infinity

in·fin·i·ty / in·fin·i·ties

1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.
4. Mathematics. The limit that a function is said to approach at x = a when (x) is larger than any preassigned number for all x sufficiently near a.
5.

 

[ellion]

these are good too. same page http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infinity

infinity

n : time without end [syn: eternity]


infinity



1. <mathematics> The size of something infinite.

Using the word in the context of sets is sloppy, since
different infinite sets aren't necessarily the same size
cardinality as each other.


2. <programming> The largest value that can be represented in
a particular type of variable (register, memory location,
data type, whatever).



infinity

n. 1. The largest value that can be represented in a
particular type of variable (register, memory location, data type,
whatever). 2. `minus infinity': The smallest such value, not
necessarily or even usually the simple negation of plus infinity.
In N-bit twos-complement arithmetic, infinity is 2^(N-1) - 1 but
minus infinity is - (2^(N-1)), not -(2^(N-1) - 1). Note also that
this is different from "time T equals minus infinity", which is
closer to a mathematician's usage of infinity.