Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Present awareness]

We don't move "through" time but rather "within" time.

In a sense, I agree with your statement. We don't move through the present moment, but rather within it. The present moment is always here, and so are we. Although the present moment seems to move into the past and the future moment seems to move into the present, it is only an illusion. The present moment moves within the present moment, because it is always the present moment, there is no other time.

[Obvious Leo]

P.A. You're in good company. Hermann Minkowski came to same conclusion and the entire community of physics bought it. Nowadays many of them are beginning to smell a rat and suspect that Hermann might have sold them a pup, if I can mix my metaphors in such an un-literary way.

Regards Leo

[Present awareness]

P.A. You're in good company. Hermann Minkowski came to same conclusion and the entire community of physics bought it. Nowadays many of them are beginning to smell a rat and suspect that Hermann might have sold them a pup, if I can mix my metaphors in such an un-literary way.

Regards Leo

There may be others whom think along the same lines, but it is only philosophy. Like they say, one should never take life too seriously, because you will never get out of it alive.

[Obvious Leo]

but it is only philosophy.

This is a red rag to a bull to a philosopher. Do you think philosophy is just a silly game, like Wittgenstein did and like most physicists do, or is it supposed to be a tool of enquiry in a quest for knowledge, like I do?

Regards Leo

[-0+]

It seems this question has no solution. Scientists say that since the Big Bang, the universe has been expanding. Okay I can buy that one. But then the question turns on inside of what? Another universe possibly? Or nothingness?

It may be easier to consider the other direction.

If a virtual universe (VU) is simulated on a computer with its own virtual space and virtual objects which interact with each other in this space in obedience to the VU's "laws of physics" (as defined by the program), this could potentially seem as real to any VU inhabitants as the physical universe (PU) seems to humans.

If VU inhabitants don't have access to anything beyond their VU, they can only imagine what may or may not exist beyond their VU. Any humans who observe the VU from the PU can know more about the VU and the PU that exists beyond the VU, but what can be said about the space and positioning of the VU relative to the PU?

The computer hardware used to simulate the VU occupies space in the PU. This may be a single device at a single location or multiple devices distributed around the world.

The exact locations of the software and physical representation of the VU within the memory of the hardware may be less clear, but the physical space it occupies is unlikely to bear any resemblance to the VU space it represents. VU information may be output graphically on monitors and other physical devices which may help to give human observers a better sense of VU space.

If distances between objects in VU space are generally increasing (suggesting VU started with a "big bang"), it may seem like VU space is expanding, whereas VU space may be constant, perhaps limited by computing capacity, and positions of outer objects are just getting closer to the limits.

The VU may depend on the PU for its existence, but where is the VU space in relation to PU space? Is it within the PU space, in the minds of human observers, in the minds of VU inhabitants, or in a completely different plane of existence?

If a human can create virtual space (or entertain imaginary space) which exists on a different plane to physical space, then this opens up all sorts of possibilities about what could exist beyond physical space.

[Present awareness]

but it is only philosophy.

This is a red rag to a bull to a philosopher. Do you think philosophy is just a silly game, like Wittgenstein did and like most physicists do, or is it supposed to be a tool of enquiry in a quest for knowledge, like I do?

Regards Leo

Philosophy is not a game, by any means, but rather a way of looking at things and making sense of the world. By exchanging ideas and points of view, insights may be gained, which otherwise may not have been considered. When I say that it is "only philosophy", it was not meant to diminish the purpose of philosophy but rather to point to the fact that ideas are just that, ideas. Philosophy is not based on fact, but rather assumptions and theory. Ideas may change over time and philosophy may change, but reality remains real, regardless of how we look at it.

[Teralek]

There could be stuff outside space yes. This is not impossible. It's probably inaccessible though.

My only problem is with people saying that NOTHING can BE outside the UNIVERSE because the term means EVERYTHING.

Well my problem with this is that scientists often talk about a multi-verse reality. Implying that other space/time continuum(s) may exist which are not connected to this one. Whatever it is that separates them it is not space/time.

So basically we need to come to terms with the "terms" or we would not be able to communicate efficiently about this, as everyone is talking about a different thing when they say "Universe", including scientists. I am an apologist of adopting the terms "Cosmos" for a connected space time and Universe for the collection of Everything - Every connected space/time and everything else that may theoretically exist in a non space/time existence.

[Obvious Leo]

Yes Teralek. We need to define the terms we use and we need to start with this one. Is the universe a place in space or is it an event in time which we perceive as a place in space? It can't be both.

Regards Leo

[Teralek]

Yes Teralek. We need to define the terms we use and we need to start with this one. Is the universe a place in space or is it an event in time which we perceive as a place in space? It can't be both.

Regards Leo

Well... I think we had this conversation before... I don't think that should be the options to define Universe because the commonly accepted thesis is that Universe is not a "place in space"; whatever you choose to define Universe. First of all space/time is one single unit. Thus one cannot happen independently of the other. In the same continuum (uninterrupted) they are the same structure that had the same "beginning"; commonly accepted as the Big Bang that you described as an event before.

Although this was not just an "event". According to theory this is the ultimate event that created all events in this space time continuum because before it there was no space time continuum.

Thus we must decide simply if by Universe we mean OUR space time continuum OR all space/time continuum(s) and all other possible realities, whatever they may be.

[Obvious Leo]

I'm afraid that's not true, Teralek. Special Relativity simple treats time as a Cartesian dimension orthogonal to three arbitrarily chosen spatial ones. Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional thus the models of physics are time invariant. This means that to say that effects are preceded by causes is meaningless in physics and this explains why their models make no sense. They imply reverse causation and this litters their models with absurdities and paradoxes.

Regards Leo

[DarwinX]

An atom is a universe. Is it expanding? Expansion is only relative or measurable against something that is not expanding. If a universe is expanding uniformally, then the inhabitants of the universe will be totally unaware of this expansion. The Earth is expanding for example. Yet, 99.999 percent of all scientists can't or refuse to accept this fact despite all the obvious clues and evidence. This is because science is consensus and religious based and facts generally run a poor second or may be totally disregarded if these facts interfere with ego, career or religious agendas. But, don't let my annoying facts get in the way of your discussion. Consensus is an unstoppable locomotive which must run its course of ignorance and destruction.

[-0+]

There could be stuff outside space yes. This is not impossible. It's probably inaccessible though.

If one can only experience what one has access to, then accessibility may be significant.

If we reconsider the relationship between a virtual universe (VU) simulated on a computer and the physical universe (PU), a VU may or may not have some access to the PU.

If the VU has a user interface, then it may receive input from a human inhabitant of the PU. However, even if a VU inhabitant has a "sense" that this input is from beyond its "universe", how can it know this isn't a false sense provided by the program - unless it has access to the program which defines its nature? Even if it receives detailed images from the PU via a roving camera, how can it know these images are "supernatural" in origin, and not just a weird dream?

A human observer with total access to the VU program and data can be in a position to know everything about the VU and distinguish between VU and PU, but can this human tell where VU space is located relative to PU space?

Likewise, the PU could be virtual relative to a "super universe" (SU) which hosts the PU, with its own nature and space. A human may or may not have access to input from the SU. How can this human know without having access to the program that defines the nature of the PU?

If a man is unable to tell where knowable VU space is located relative to PU space, how can he hope to tell where PU space is located relative to conceptual SU space?

My only problem is with people saying that NOTHING can BE outside the UNIVERSE because the term means EVERYTHING.

Which dictionaries suggest 'universe' means everything?

Well my problem with this is that scientists often talk about a multi-verse reality. Implying that other space/time continuum(s) may exist which are not connected to this one. Whatever it is that separates them it is not space/time.

Again it may be easier to consider virtual universes which can be more accessible and knowable. A program could manage multiple space-times to simulate a kind of virtual multi-verse, or the same program (or different programs) can be run multiple times to simulate multiple virtual universes. If on the same computer or network, information can potentially be shared allowing greater connectivity between multiple VUs. If they are run on totally separate computers then how are they connected? Perhaps they can be connected in the mind of a single human who observes more than one of these? Ultimately they are connected to same physical universe which hosts them all, but if they are virtual are they considered to be part of the physical universe or separate?

So basically we need to come to terms with the "terms" or we would not be able to communicate efficiently about this, as everyone is talking about a different thing when they say "Universe", including scientists [...] Thus we must decide simply if by Universe we mean OUR space time continuum OR all space/time continuum(s) and all other possible realities, whatever they may be.

This is the definition I go by: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universe which is different from others definition. Here I'm saying that our universe is finite in length and time (relative to the Big Bang). There may be a space beyond our universe into which our universe is expanding into.

The first dictionary.com definition (similar to definitions in other dictionaries and Wikipedia) and the original question seems to suggest "universe" in this topic means physical universe - all physical matter and energy and the space it occupies - all that is believed to have originated from a BIg Bang at a single location and appears to be expanding - not necessarily everything.

Anyone who is not comfortable calling this "the universe" could call this "cosmos" (if accepted that it is an orderly system) or another name.

[Present awareness]

If you define the universe as all there is, and all there is, is getting bigger (expanding), then clearly the universe was not all there is, if it's getting bigger.

That which is, is expanding into that which isn't and that which isn't is infinite.

[Obvious Leo]

If you define the universe as all there is, and all there is, is getting bigger (expanding), then clearly the universe was not all there is, if it's getting bigger.

That which is, is expanding into that which isn't and that which isn't is infinite.

A good argument, P.A., and one for which physics has no answer. Since physics quite literally defines the universe as everything that exists they're left with two simple choices. Either everything is not everything or the observed expansion is an optical illusion. This latter option is the one which every major philosopher in history has claimed, and the one supported by neuroscience and those sciences concerned with the psychology of perception and cognition. Bearing in mind that the models of physics not only contradict simple logic but also contradict each other one is left to wonder why they cling so religiously to their ridiculous paradigm.

This is the view of a man who has dedicated his life to science and regards it as the only legitimate route for the advance of human knowledge, along with its Siamese twin discipline, philosophy. One is impossible without the other.

Regards Leo

[DarwinX]

Either everything is not everything or the observed expansion is an optical illusion. This latter option is the one which every major philosopher in history has claimed, and the one supported by neuroscience and those sciences concerned with the psychology of perception and cognition. Bearing in mind that the models of physics not only contradict simple logic but also contradict each other one is left to wonder why they cling so religiously to their ridiculous paradigm. Regards Leo

You have disregarded my comments and then miraculously promoted my ideas all within the parameters of 2 posts. Amazing!!! You apparently do a lot of contradicting yourself.