RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 7:38am

Link

Edit

I like the article, but one problem I have is that your definition of universe is not what physicists use when debating if there is more than one. For them, the universe is not The Universe (the total sum and whole of all/was/is), rather it's used ratherly weakly to refer to the visible/measurable part of Nature within the visible/measurable part of spacetime. That's why you'll see the term multi-verse pop up in the literature, which is proper but it is not greater than Universe in terms of meaning. Multi, meaning many, and verse meaning a realm, you can have a multi-verse in a Universe (one realm, or total sum of all realms, which would probably be best defined as an Omni-verse?), which is known as a level 1 'multi-verse' where all the possible outcomes of spacetime are existent in all directions approximating to infinity (in that spacetime seems to have no end in such a multi-verse).

I can explain further, but I don't want to confuse the issue any further.

-- Brede

Post 1

Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 9:14am

Link

Edit

Quote from my website: http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com

"How was the Universe created? When did it begin?

It wasn't, and it didn't - the questions are falsely premised. But in deference to our inherent compulsion to personify the attributes of nature, conventional wisdom has concluded that the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The rules of cause and effect seem to govern everything - even the realm of thought, itself - so it's commonly assumed that the physical presence of the cosmos must have somehow been conjured into being by an instance of creation.

The existence of nothing needs no justification, it is considered essentially natural and intrinsically logical, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a dark and timeless primal void - a Universe completely empty. Presumably, this featureless vacuum reigned supreme until the dawn of time, when an extraordinary transformation brought forth the material manifestation we now call 'the cosmos'. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the earth in an act of divine inspiration. Many secularists espouse a version of Big Bang theory which envisions a Universe still spewing from the bowels of a spontaneously spawned singularity. But any act of creation logically requires an impetus or creator - the presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor - which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. Any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence always results in an endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy. No logical beginning is implied.

There are those who would claim that whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to the laws of nature. Beware the supernatural. In the absence of logic there can be no rational argument. When the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded then so can others - without limit.

The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a product of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a product of cause and effect.

Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of creation is contrary to logic. It is a popular myth precipitated by man's tendency to personify his world. The cosmos didn't suddenly pop into being nor is it likely to vanish in a similar manner.

So how do you explain the physical presence of the Universe?

Although the phenomenon of existence is not explained by the rules of cause and effect, it is still very much subject to the laws of nature. It is based upon a principle so simple and so obvious that it has remained undiscovered since the advent of human consciousness. Sir Isaac Newton almost recognized it when he codified the third law (the law of reciprocal actions) of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). He simply didn't carry the scope of his theory far enough. The answer lies at the root of cause and effect. It is locked inside the structure of every equation. It is the very cornerstone of logic, itself. But to be understood, it must be approached from the proper perspective."

The thesis is too long to post here. You'll have to visit the website to see how it comes out.
JMc

Post 2

Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 10:38am

Link

Edit

Jack, why are you calling that a Theory?

Post 3

Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 2:03pm

Link

Edit

Thanks Bridget. I have run into this kind of thinking since the '60's. In most cases, this is truly a matter of semantics. I.e., just what is it that you MEAN by "universe." Once one recognizes that the term is used differently by scientists than the term "Existence," for example, then the argument disappears. When one then insists that there is a problem and that the scientists who use the term their own way must be fools, then it simply makes one look foolish and prevents further effective communication.

I note a similar problem with Rand's use of the terms "selfishness" and "sacrifice," for which there has been much prior discussion both here and throughout the objectivist "universe." She did it for a reason - to make a point and shock people into awareness of very real issues, but that doesn't change the fact that most people used the terms differently most of the time.

I'm not saying that she did anything wrong with, for example, "The Virtue of Selfishness," which I treasure and recommend to people caught in the altruist psychological trap. Rather, some people have taken that position and used it as their own psychological bludgeon and thereby made the rest of us look bad.

When people challenge me on this or similar issues, I don't have to take the route of counterattack, which rarely convinces anyone worth convincing. I can take many paths. I might ask them, if they're not "selfish," then why DID they do what they did. Then I can reduce that to "well, in other words, you followed your standard of value... GOODNESS, how SELFISH of you!" Then we can move the discussion to the plane of what constitutes a proper standard.

My point being - not wanting to hijack this thread, despite appearances - that using language effectively to convey meaning and convince others of a position means making sure that you are using terms to mean the same thing to begin with. And if you think that the term's meaning should be changed, then that's a separate argument.

Post 4

Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 6:06am

Link

Edit

Bridget and Jack (THoR) McNally: My writing clearly explains what is meant by "Universe", whether scientists agree with the definition or not. If they don't, well, they have to check their premises, since their actual premises are wrong (they contain a contradiction in terms). On Chapter 8 of my writing you will see the definition of "Universe" which, by the way, is the same as dictionaries state (for example the Webster, clearly says: "The totality of all the things that exist".)

Should you require a further, fully Objectivist definition, totally in accordance with the above, please look it up at Leonard Peikoff's "The Philosophy of Objectivism" (Lecture 2, taken from "The Ayn Rand Lexicon"): "The universe is the total of that what exists - not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the "cause" of the universe� Is the universe then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe. What then, you ask, is outside the universe, if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase "outside the universe" has no referent. The universe is everything. "Outside the universe" stands for "that which is where everything isn't." There is no such place. There isn't even nothing "out there": there is no "out there".

And Ayn Rand nailed it all down in "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made": "Nature is the metaphysically given - i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition."

The next instalment, chapter 3 of my writing ("The Structure of the Universe") takes this totally in consideration.

Your comment and the inbuilt doubt, as well as Jack (THoR) McNally's, necessarily leads to the point that knowing the definition of "universe" and understanding it reveals - this may hurt but it can't be avoided - how well versed in Objectivism the reader of Objectivism really is, i.e. how deeply he has gone himself into connecting all the parts of Objectivism, leaving aside any external help.

Phil Osborn's last paragraph of Post 3 stated it absolutely clearly: "Using language effectively to convey meaning and convince others of a position means making sure that you are using terms to mean the same thing to begin with." To know what a word (a concept!!!) means is the start of the matter. (Bridget and Jack: PLEASE read Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and the Workshop-Appendix of it. After Atlas the Introduction is mankind's most important book, though everything Rand wrote should really be considered as most important.)

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 9/16, 6:09am)

Post 5

Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 6:45am

Link

Edit

"Is the universe then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe."

What is the reasoning behind your obvious assumption that the number of existences is limited?

If the existence of one entity can be stipulated, then unless you can somehow justify a denial, the possibility of the existence of an unlimited number of entities must be conceded. I would agree that each entity in the cosmos is finite; however, the Universe is the set of ALL entities. And if each entity has a volume and there are an unlimited number of entities, then the volume of the Universe is, indeed, unlimited.

At any given position in space, three independent values (coordinates) are all that is necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe - hence there are said to be three 'dimensions' (more accurately, three axes). If you want me to believe the universe is finite, then all you have to do is simply convince me that at least one of those independent values has a limit.

Post 6

Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 6:55am

Link

Edit

Dean -

Why do I call it a theory?

From http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/
"Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. "

It is an explanation based on simple, self evident principles. Did you care to dispute any of the arguments which led to the conclusion?

Post 7

Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 8:55am

Link

Edit

Manfred, I respectfully disagree on the assumption that the visible Universe is all that there is for two good reasons.

1) Relativity. We only see what the current lightcone allows. Which is about 12 billion years of progression. That's it, that's all. It will continue to expand, and it is expanding right now.

2) The assumption of absolute finiteness in the respect that Nature must be finite is not validated by any metaphysical statement either in Objectivism, nor in Aristotleanism, which Rand derived much of her metaphysics. Nature is. What Nature is, is very simple: the total sum of all that was/is/will-be and nothing more.

The Universe, on the other hand, is the visible part of Nature we can see. It's the "One Realm" which we exist in. You argue that definitions are absolute in this respect, but that's a faulty assertion due to the fact that definitions, like Universe and Nature require context (read ITOE 1st or 2nd edition on concept formation) to be understood. And more importantly, for each context the definiton is a bit different, but it never invalidates the other definitions in that each definition is subsumed into the other.

So, Universe as physicists rightly point out, is all the visible part of the lightcone we can observe, subsumes under the philosophical/metaphysical definition of Universe, which is analogous to Nature/Existence. One does not invalidate the other, as I stated before. But one does subsume under the other (scientific subsumes under the metaphysical definition).

This is important, because all knowledge, especially in regards to concepts, and assigned definitions to words, follow this pattern of inheritance, where one definition can imply the other without explicit declaration. If, I or anyone else had to make explicit declarations in our definitions for words and the assigned concepts, then our list of knowledge would be very flat, and very slow to grow. Yet, the reality is, due to our makeup, our knowledge is dynamic, contextual (relational), and fast growing. Not flat, and not absolute in the respect of without context.

-- Brede

Post 8

Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 9:24am

Link

Edit

I am, for one, finding your series very well written, and am glad ye doing the proper using of 'universe' in spite of others seeking to limit it to less than what it really is.....certainly was how always viewed the matter even back when a kid, to say nothing when took physics long ago.....

Post 9

Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 1:39pm

Link

Edit

Jack (THoR) McNally,

"repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"

Where are your references to repeated tests showing your claims as true (making your claims repeatedly tested)? Where are the other people who accept your ideas (making your claims widely accepted)? In what ways are your equations used to model reality? Where are your equations being used to make predictions about natural phenomena?

Did you care to dispute any of the arguments which led to the conclusion?

No. So far all I have done is wasted my time reading your wild claims that were labeled by you as theory. Your integrity is ruined. I don't care to put any effort into listening to any you have to say. If anyone else references you in the future with high esteem, then maybe then I'd take a look at what you have to say.

Post 10

Monday, September 17, 2007 - 1:32am

Link

Edit

To Robert: I'm certainly not immune (never was nor will be) to praise. Thus, thanks so much for the kudos.

To Jack (THoR) McNally: "What is the reasoning behind your obvious assumption that the number of existences is limited?" You don't seem to have read my article in all its details, for I gave already all the reasons by defining the universe. The definition of the universe is an absolute. Hence, it is an axiom. As such, it is proved deictically as every other axiom.

Further on, I never opposed the notion that the universe can be made up by a very large number of entities. The universe is all that exists and once you've read what I say about "space" in the next instalment (Chapter 3: The Structure of the Universe) you'll see that there is ample "space" available. There's another example of how "infinity" (which, besides, is a false concept and, thus, not a "concept" at all) can exist together with "limit". Think of a soccer ball or a sphere: it's limited in size and yet, a bug has an infinite surface to crawl over it. Moreover: can an unlimited object, such as a ball (don't forget: every curve includes Pi, an unlimited number!), be contained in a limited space? Of course it can, just place the ball in a square box (thus limited, for it doesn't depend on Pi). You can also put an infinite (a ball) into a finite place (a square box). Here we speak, as mathematicians would do too, for instance when they speak of "infinite points existing in space" (old Euclid), of perfect shapes and forms. Which ends the discussion.

To Bridget: "1) Relativity. We only see what the current lightcone allows. Which is about 12 billion years of progression. That's it, that's all. It will continue to expand, and it is expanding right now." Against what relativists would want it to be (the trend runs worldwide since decades if not centuries), i.e. that everything can be true or false in relation with a given framework, Einstein spoke of relativity specifically meaning that all measurements are relative to the observer (the individual!). Thus, relativity doesn't mean (in George Gershwin's enchanting melody) "It ain't necessarily so", i.e. any of endless possibilities of which the one existing is just active by chance. Besides, what has your citing relativity to do with the universe's expansion (it's 14,5 billion years right now), a fact I never denied? But, due to entropy this expansion will stop (see my next instalment - Chapter 3: "The Structure of the Universe" where I have a surprise in store for you).

The universe - again, see my definition and also my reply to Jack (THoR) McNally - does NOT require a context, for it IS the ultimate context itself (all that exists). As a matter of fact, you must read "Introduction" again. There it states: a) "A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept." (We could say - beware, for I said "could say" - that "all that exists" are the units subsumed under "universe", universe being another word for "Existence exists") and b) "An axiomatic concept (Universe IS an axiomatic concept) is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e. reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest."(Chapter 6: Axiomatic Concepts - "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).

Of course, our knowledge grows continuously (not everything is already invented, as the Director of the Office of Patents of the US thought at the beginning of the 20^th century) but this ALSO means that certain parts of this growing

amount of knowledge is already definitively established (as Isaac Asimov showed in his article "My Built-In Doubter").

Post 11

Monday, September 17, 2007 - 7:33am

Link

Edit

Maybe when you run out of ad hominem slurs, you might find you have no logical counter argument.

Post 12

Monday, September 17, 2007 - 7:44am

Link

Edit

Manfred -

It's often posited the cosmos is finite but unbounded, and a balloon or - in this case - a soccer ball is put forth as a three-dimensional example of cosmic expansion in a four-dimensional configuration. But in order for there to be more than three dimensions, there must be locations in the cosmos which cannot be specified within those three aforementioned coordinates. I find no evidence for this.

At any given instant, three independent values (coordinates) are all that is necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe. If the Universe is finite, then at least one of those independent values has a limit. With reference to any two points in the cosmos, there must exist a point at which travel in any given direction will not increase the distance between the two.

Excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical.

Post 13

Monday, September 17, 2007 - 6:14pm

Link

Edit

Finite yet Unbounded

The normal formula is not that the surface of a sphere is infinite, but that it is "finite yet unbounded." This is the most common view of those who support a finite cosmos. It is finite in size, yet nothing external to it bounds it. There is no edge or wall.

Mr McNally, you complain about ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you should also familiarize yourself with the equal invalidity of the argument from incredulity.

Ted Keer

Post 14

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 5:21am

Link

Edit

Mr Keer -

I would call a disparaging statement which simply utters disbelief an 'argument from incredulity', but to put forth a dissuading issue does not fit that definition. It is my understanding that such argument is the purpose of this forum. I don't adhere to the 'Conventional Wisdom' when it flies in the face of reason. If my positions make you unconfortable, that is unfortunate, but I have yet to see anyone seriously address the points I have put forth.

I am simply pointing out something very obvious: If the Universe is finite then there must exist a finite distance at which travel in any direction will not increase the distance between two given points. If no such point exists, the Universe is infinite...Unlimited in spatial extent: as per American Heritage dictionary. Do YOU have another definition of infinite?

Unless you are referencing some 4th dimension, to pose the cosmos is limited but has no border is great mind candy but so is Lewis Carroll. I see no evidence of a 4th dimension and to give it credence on the basis that pundits with alphabet soup after their names say it may exist is a little too far fetched for me. Mathematicians use time as a 4th dimension for the sake of convenience, but time is nothing more than the measurement of change...but that is another thread.

It appears the given definition for this thread is -
UNIVERSE: All that exists

It should be -
UNIVERSE: Everything that exists

There is a difference. 'Everything' is all inclusive and 'All' is exclusive. When it comes to infinity, there IS no 'All' - there is always MORE - and the fact that no 'point of infinity' exists only serves to prove the argument

(Edited by Jack (THoR) McNally on 9/18, 11:23am)

(Edited by Jack (THoR) McNally on 9/18, 11:46am)

Post 15

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 5:25am

Link

Edit

Oh, by the way my ad hominem comment was directed at Mr Gores, not Manfred.

Post 16

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 12:24pm

Link

Edit

May I call you Jack? Please call me Ted. Thanks for spelling my last name correctly. I have nothing further to add regarding the finitude of the cosmos than my already stated distinction between infinite and finite yet unbounded. I don't have any trouble grasping this concept, but it is a cosmological issue in any case, it can be left to mathematicians and astronomers.

But the fact that you so strongly state your feeling that such things as the fourth dimension are absurd is not a valid proof of anything - it refers only to your disbelief or lack of understanding. This is called the fallacy of the argument from incredulity. If you understand that this is a fallacy, then my mission is accomplished. (And, of course, the fact that you or anyone else uses the argument from incredulity doesn't prove that your opponent is incorrect, just that you haven't demonstrated it.)

Ted

Post 17

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 1:03pm

Link

Edit

Against what relativists would want it to be (the trend runs worldwide since decades if not centuries), i.e. that everything can be true or false in relation with a given framework, Einstein spoke of relativity specifically meaning that all measurements are relative to the observer (the individual!). Thus, relativity doesn't mean (in George Gershwin's enchanting melody) "It ain't necessarily so", i.e. any of endless possibilities of which the one existing is just active by chance. Besides, what has your citing relativity to do with the universe's expansion (it's 14,5 billion years right now), a fact I never denied? But, due to entropy this expansion will stop (see my next instalment - Chapter 3: "The Structure of the Universe" where I have a surprise in store for you).

(Warning: You're not the only one that's an avid physics geek.)

Here's an error in your statement, you state that all measures are relative to the observer, but that is not completely correct. The measurements are relative as to the local state (velocity) of the observer. In this case, if you were flying away on a beam of light (at the speed of light in the vacuum), everything would seem to be stand still, because everything else can only approximate the speed of light in the vacuum. But, equally, the measurements from one frame of reference to another frame of reference (different velocities) the local measures would always match up exactly for all references to c. So, that means Martians would be able to get the same measures for c as an Earthling as an Alpha Centaurian would, and so on.

So, before you claim that my statements are from relativism and not Relativity, you best prove it and not state it. ;)

-- Brede

(Edited by Bridget Armozel on 9/18, 1:08pm)

Post 18

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 5:14pm

Link

Edit

Ted. I understand the concept of finite and unbounded - it is not all that abstract - but with the soccer ball illustration there exists a finite distance at which travel in any direction only DEcreases the distance between the two given points. Would you assume the same attribute applies to our 3-D Universe.

Einstein certainly opened a can of worms with his description of space as a curved, non-linear phenomenon. But there is more than one explanation for the seeming curvature. Space is, of course, NOT nothing. It occupies physical presence in the Universe and therefore exists. Rarification of space (or the excitation of space and a resulting venturi effect) in the presence of matter is one alternate explanation for the illusion of curvature. There are others.

(aside: We spend a lot of time measuring how much energy it takes to move matter around in space. What does it take to move something that does not have the property of mass - an ethereal particle? And can it be called energy?)

If something exists, it has a physical reality. It has a presence in the Universe. You can't point to the 4th dimension and say "It is there." I see no such references when pundits reference the 4th (or higher) dimension(s). The 4th dimension seems to be invisible and undetectable - sort of like a scientific deity that governs unseen. I'm afraid I need at least some kind of proof that such a critter may have a nest in my cosmos. And for the sake of terminology, this is not an argument, it is a request.

Post 19

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 12:43am

Link

Edit

Bridget:

"Here's an error in your statement, you state that all measures are relative to the observer, but that is not completely correct. The measurements are relative as to the local state (velocity) of the observer."

This is hairsplitting. Besides: prove that velocity can measure itself and report that it has measured itself and in what amount without any man-made (the observer) instrumentation.