The Universe Is All That Exists

[TruthSeeker]

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?

Yes, they do. But to deny the physical properties of the universe is to ask for disaster. You can't deny that the universe has a size.

not all that exist has physical properties, so not all that exist has a size.

Yes. But the universe has physical properties. That is pretty obvious.

if the universe is all that exists its totality is not measurable.

The only way that can be possible is if the universe is infinite, because the universe is physical and, therefore, has the physical property of size. The only way sie can be not measurable is if the universe is infinite.

although its physical manifetsations as presented to our physical experience, may in some way or other be measurable.

What do you propose? That the universe is only physical around here?

if something has a an infinite size it is continuous, in its totality it is unmeasurable.

Exactly the reason why, in the case you are describing, the universe must be infinite.

is infinite a definite number, i am not too good with math?

Nope, infinite is not a definite number.

how, why and so what....?

It would have because energy is spread out throughout the universe.
That would mean an infinite amount of energy and would break the law of conservation of energy.

how and why?

Physically impossible. The whole point of energy is to be limited and interchangeable.

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.

Uncontained mean an unlimited amount of energy.

 

[ellion]

Yes, they do.

you do recognize that we have not identified everything that exists physically and there may be existences that are not physical.

But to deny the physical properties of the universe is to ask for disaster. You can't deny that the universe has a size.

i dont. did you think i did? i said quite clearly earlier in
this thread

but space exist and can be measured therefore size is a property of the universe.

i also said this n.b.

space is not the only property of the universe and all that exists is not defined in spatial criteria

Yes. But the universe has physical properties. That is pretty obvious.

"pretty obvious" is an understatement.

The only way that can be possible is if the universe is infinite,

i dont have a problem with this.

because the universe is physical and, therefore, has the physical property of size.

not everything that exists is spatial.

The only way sie can be not measurable is if the universe is infinite.

i dont have a problem with existence being continuous.

although its physical manifetsations as presented to our physical experience, may in some way or other be measurable.

What do you propose? That the universe is only physical around here?

that is not what i have said. i dont know how you take that form what i have said. the sentence is complete and says exacly what i meant. i should not need to break it down any further. if i thought the universe was only physical around you, i would say that and i would try to make it as clear as possible.

Nope, infinite is not a definite number.

so infinite size is not a definite size.

It would have because energy is spread out throughout the universe.

how is this different when contained to when uncontained?

That would mean an infinite amount of energy and would break the law of conservation of energy.

are you saying that energy can only exist in a container and the universe being infinite cannot contain its own energy? why can it not contain its own energy?

Physically impossible. The whole point of energy is to be limited and interchangeable.

yes, so? the universe being limitless does not mean that energy is unlimited. there can be limitations within limitations, containers within containers.

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.

Uncontained mean an unlimited amount of energy.

which means what? you seem to think this is critical to something, i dont get your problem.

if the universe is all that exists then it has no boundaries and there is an unquantifiable ammount of energy in a variety of states including inert. where and what are the problems you identify in this?

 

[TruthSeeker]

you do recognize that we have not identified everything that exists physically and there may be existences that are not physical.

Yes, but that is irrelevant here. My point is that the universe is physical enough to have a shape. We know that there are stars even on the "boundaries" of the universe. That means that even if the boundaries themselves are not physical, the universe must have an overral physical tendency, shape and size...

i dont. did you think i did? i said quite clearly earlier in
this thread

Ha! I hadn't read those quotes. But I recall you saying that the universe does not have a size....

"pretty obvious" is an understatement.

Eh? What are you trying to say? That the universe doesn't have physical properties?

not everything that exists is spatial.

Yes. But it is self-evident that the universe IS spatial. Do you have any evidence proving otherwise?

i dont have a problem with existence being continuous.

That's fine. But you cannot have an infinite universe.

that is not what i have said. i dont know how you take that form what i have said. the sentence is complete and says exacly what i meant. i should not need to break it down any further. if i thought the universe was only physical around you, i would say that and i would try to make it as clear as possible.

Well, let's see:
"although its physical manifetsations as presented to our physical experience, may in some way or other be measurable. "

You are saying that the things we experience are measurable. So if you say that the universe cannot be measured, then you are saying that the universe in its totality is not like the measurable part which we experience here. So what are you really trying to say? The parts of the universe are measurable. Yes. The vacuum is also measurable, but defined by the things that are present in it. So what cannot be measured here?

so infinite size is not a definite size.

Precisely.

how is this different when contained to when uncontained?

It wouldn't be different. That's the point.

are you saying that energy can only exist in a container and the universe being infinite cannot contain its own energy? why can it not contain its own energy?

Of course it would contain its own energy, but we would obviously have an unlimited amount of energy.

yes, so? the universe being limitless does not mean that energy is unlimited. there can be limitations within limitations, containers within containers.

What are you proposing? Multiverses?

which means what? you seem to think this is critical to something, i dont get your problem.

Do you have an unlimited amount of energy at your house?

 

[superluminal]

ellion,

actually, all of these could possibly exist within the properties you identifiy as physical.

Yes, they could.

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.

Good for you. A small sign of intelligence at last.

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?"

Again, as you have noticed, I indeed did not say that they "definitely" don't exist.

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.

Nit pick if you wish.

but why say "no reason to speculate"

this is pathetic.

Is it? What evidence, after even casual investigation, leads you to want to speculate about the reality of any of the things I've mentioned? The only reason you don't speculate about the reality of gnomes in your backyard is because it's not popular to do so (as it was a few centuries ago), and everyone would think you were an idiot.

Your responses to my posts give rise to the question "is ellion the moron he seems to be?"

Yes. Quite pathetic.

 

[ellion]

truth seeker please pick a defintion of the univesrs and stick to it.

A) is the universe all that exists, every where under all conditions?

B)is the universe all that exists within a contained system only?

 

[ellion]

superluminal.

i wont waste any more of my time with you.

 

[superluminal]

ellion,

Why not? What did I ever do to you? You attack, I respond.

 

[ellion]

why not?

you are closing your mind, i wont help you do that.

 

[ellion]

My point is that the universe is physical enough to have a shape. We know that there are stars even on the "boundaries" of the universe. That means that even if the boundaries themselves are not physical, the universe must have an overral physical tendency, shape and size...

if the universe is all that exists all that exists is not defined by spatial criteria, all that exists does not have a size.

Ha! I hadn't read those quotes. But I recall you saying that the universe does not have a size....

you are not paying attention to what i am saying then.

what i have said and i have said many, many times now, all that exists is not defined by spatial criteria, if the universe is all that exists, then all that exists does not by necessity have physical size.

Eh? What are you trying to say? That the universe doesn't have physical properties?

no! you consistently read things that i have not said. if that is what i wanted to say you would not have to geuss at what i am trying to say.

Yes. But it is self-evident that the universe IS spatial. Do you have any evidence proving otherwise?

i would like tpo not have to repeat myself so much.
what do you understand by "all that exist"?

if the universe is all that exists al that exists is not defined by spatial criteria

Do you have any evidence proving otherwise?

i dont think otherwise, nor do i know anything. we are playing a game here based on the proposals of the thread, that proposal being; the universe is all that exists.

i dont have a problem with existence being continuous.

That's fine. But you cannot have an infinite universe.

i would have thought that continuous spatiality equated with infinite size.

You are saying that the things we experience are measurable.

no, i am saying that the physical manifestations that are expereinced by us physically may in some way be measured.

So if you say that the universe cannot be measured, then you are saying that the universe in its totality is not like the measurable part which we experience here.

yes!

So what are you really trying to say?

i said what i was tyring to say and you have understood it, to some extent. how much you have understood it cannot be measured and that is something which is more important than the measurable qualities of what i have said. does that make sense?

The vacuum is also measurable, but defined by the things that are present in it. So what cannot be measured here?

existences that do not present themselve to physical experience?

so infinite size is not a definite size.

Precisely.

how is this different when contained to when uncontained?

It wouldn't be different. That's the point.

so if the universe can be inifnite size and contain energy in the same proportional dispersion as when finite, why do you think it breaks the law of conservation of energy?

Of course it would contain its own energy, but we would obviously have an unlimited amount of energy.

so? we have an unlimited amount of space throughout which it is dispersed.

What are you proposing? Multiverses?

no, the proposition is the universe is al lthat exists. a multiverse is a system within a system which would mean the universe is not all that exists. in a universe all systems are one system of interrelated principles.

 

[superluminal]

Ellion,

Explain how my mind is closed and how you could possibly be "helping" me close it? Show me evidence of anything you wish and I will consider it. Note that I've already seen the evidence for all of the items in my list and rejected it as spurious. If you have new evidence that hasn't been thoroughly evaluated and found wanting, please share it.

Or just put me on ignore. It's easier that way.

 

[ellion]

i dont want to ignore you i value your opinions, but when you say there is no reason to speculate, it is like saying dont even think about it. i have been thinking about such things for a long time now and they have given me great rewards. by me creating a wall of oppostion for you to kick against you will close the door of your mind to knowledge that does yeild fruitful contemplative material. if you are willing to speculate and discuss your thoughts and opinions thats fine, if not we are wasting our time.

 

[superluminal]

When I say "no reason to speculate" translate that to "no reason to seriously speculate". I speculate casually all the time. I was a UFO enthusiast. I was a paranormal enthusiast. I was a god enthusiast. I looked at these things very seriously. But once I saw the state of the evidence and digested it (years) it became clear that further serious speculation was pointless. Throw some amazing new evidence my way and I'll look at anything.

This is all probably very off topic.

 

[TruthSeeker]

truth seeker please pick a defintion of the univesrs and stick to it.

A) is the universe all that exists, every where under all conditions?

B)is the universe all that exists within a contained system only?

B, of course.

 

[ellion]

okay, and outside the contained system....what is there?

 

[superluminal]

The answer is A until proven otherwise.

 

[TruthSeeker]

okay, and outside the contained system....what is there?

Nothingness

 

[ellion]

how does this "nothingness" have the capacity to contain the universe?
that is, what properties does nothingness have that enables it to contain this universe?

also is nothingness contained?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Very good questions. The "right" ones, in fact.

how does this "nothingness" have the capacity to contain the universe?

Everything comes from nothingness. Nothingness has no "space-time" as we know it. It can contain "space-time". Size is relative. You can see a planet from close up and you will perceive it as something big. If you go far away, you will perceive it as small. The same thing works in nothingness. There is no size, size is just an illusion, a way that our brain relates existance to existance. Just like time...

You may want to take a look at my The Size Dimension and the Theory of Everything thread.

that is, what properties does nothingness have that enables it to contain this universe?

It contains the seed of "space-time". You see... space-time is only relevant to a size. This "nothingness" is a "substance" which contains all space-time in all infinite points of its "space-time" continuum. It's the seed of existance.

also is nothingness contained?

No. It's infinite, it does not have a "size".


PS: "styleforums"? Wtf!?

 

[TruthSeeker]

That thread really didn't live long enough.....

 

[ellion]

well what you call nothingness i would call the universe. i would not say it contained the universe, i would say it is the universe which contians our experience. it exists it has existence, and the universe is all that exists.

this how our definitions are different.


styleforums???? you talking to me?