Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Wossname]

Jack D Ripper » November 17th, 2020, 10:51 pm

I say, the shape of the universe is like a the shape of a dog.

We Brits have always understood we are the dogs-bol*ocks.

[Sculptor1]

The universe is not dog shaped. The meaning of the universe is.

[Sculptor1]

Since the universe is expanding continuously from all points simultaneously, it cannot have a shape, since no shape can accommodate that complexity.

[Jack D Ripper]

I believe the correct response to the opening question is, we don't know.

I'd say the correct response is that it depends what our purpose is in using the concept of shape as a device for describing the observed properties of the universe.

It could also be that the universe has no shape, or that its shape is constantly changing, or changing intermittently.

I am not sure how useful it is to try to think of the shape of the universe, or whether it has a shape or not. But if physicists have a reason to do so, I will not stand in their way (as if I could!). However, I do not see any particular usefulness to the question. Certainly, most people don't need to have any idea what the shape, if any, of the universe is.

So, until someone proves it one way or another, I will stick with my theory above.

Fair enough, although the reasons for proposing the shape of a pit bull aren't immediately obvious to me. Is the character of the pit bull a factor, or is it just the shape? Would, for example, a poodle serve just as well?

Don't be silly! I wouldn't be caught dead in a universe in the shape of a poodle!

[Steve3007]

I am not sure how useful it is to try to think of the shape of the universe, or whether it has a shape or not. But if physicists have a reason to do so, I will not stand in their way (as if I could!). However, I do not see any particular usefulness to the question. Certainly, most people don't need to have any idea what the shape, if any, of the universe is.

Most people don't need to have any idea about the universe at all, except the small part of it that affects their lives. But for the small number of odd people who care about such things, making use of the concept of shape serves the same purpose as making use of any other piece of abstract mathematics. They look at the observed properties of the universe, they look at the observed properties of various geometries and they see whether the latter is in any way useful for describing the former.

For example, Pacman might look at the 2D universe in which he lives (and the curious fact that if he goes off one side of it he comes back on the other, and that therefore if the walls and pills weren't in the way he could probably see the back of his own head) and conclude that it's useful to think of himself as running around on the 2D surface of a 3D donut. Or he might not. He might be one of the overwhelming majority of Pacmen who are too busy running away from ghosts and eating pills and fruit to worry about such esoteric matters. So to speak.

[Jack D Ripper]

I am not sure how useful it is to try to think of the shape of the universe, or whether it has a shape or not. But if physicists have a reason to do so, I will not stand in their way (as if I could!). However, I do not see any particular usefulness to the question. Certainly, most people don't need to have any idea what the shape, if any, of the universe is.

Most people don't need to have any idea about the universe at all, except the small part of it that affects their lives. But for the small number of odd people who care about such things, making use of the concept of shape serves the same purpose as making use of any other piece of abstract mathematics. They look at the observed properties of the universe, they look at the observed properties of various geometries and they see whether the latter is in any way useful for describing the former.

For example, Pacman might look at the 2D universe in which he lives (and the curious fact that if he goes off one side of it he comes back on the other, and that therefore if the walls and pills weren't in the way he could probably see the back of his own head) and conclude that it's useful to think of himself as running around on the 2D surface of a 3D donut. Or he might not. He might be one of the overwhelming majority of Pacmen who are too busy running away from ghosts and eating pills and fruit to worry about such esoteric matters. So to speak.

The thing is, caring about something does not give one knowledge of that thing. So regardless of whether you care what, if any, shape the universe has, that does not mean that you are going to know what it is.

[Steve3007]

The thing is, caring about something does not give one knowledge of that thing.

I agree.

So regardless of whether you care what, if any, shape the universe has, that does not mean that you are going to know what it is.

"...know what it is" is, in my view, the wrong way to put it. See various earlier comments about what it means to use the concept of shape/geometry, or any other mathematics, in describing the observed properties of the universe.

[evolution]

For people who do not know what that shape is like:

https://www.barkspot.com/wp-content/upl ... 6x1024.jpg

And what are the, alleged, 'obvious' reasons, exactly?

[evolution]

I agree with your tongue-in-cheek praise of that contributor. The poster you're talking about ("A Poster He or I", which was a play on the term "a posteriori") was a person who I got to know quite well when he was here. He was definitely one of the more lucid and sane posters on this site and we had some interesting conversations on the philosophy of science particularly.

You have explained why he would leave.



I believe the correct response to the opening question is, we don't know.

But some of 'us' DO KNOW.

So your, believed, "correct response" is actually NOT correct at all.

(Even if the post under discussion gives the best guess.) Due to people being troublesome things, they don't tend to like that as a response to something, so they tend to just make stuff up when that is the case. So, until someone proves it one way or another, I will stick with my theory above.

[evolution]

Since the universe is expanding continuously from all points simultaneously, it cannot have a shape, since no shape can accommodate that complexity.

But there is NO actual proof that the Universe is expanding continuously from all points simultaneously.

This is only a theory and a presumption based upon previously held views and beliefs.

Thee actual Truth IS thee Universe could NOT 'expand', in ANY way, other than in the learning and the thinking within human bodies.

This is because of what thee Universe actually IS and how It actually works.

[evolution]

I'd say the correct response is that it depends what our purpose is in using the concept of shape as a device for describing the observed properties of the universe.

It could also be that the universe has no shape, or that its shape is constantly changing, or changing intermittently.

I am not sure how useful it is to try to think of the shape of the universe, or whether it has a shape or not. But if physicists have a reason to do so, I will not stand in their way (as if I could!). However, I do not see any particular usefulness to the question. Certainly, most people don't need to have any idea what the shape, if any, of the universe is.

Having an 'idea' though helps in understanding, (or better understanding as may be the case), thee Universe, Itself.

Fair enough, although the reasons for proposing the shape of a pit bull aren't immediately obvious to me. Is the character of the pit bull a factor, or is it just the shape? Would, for example, a poodle serve just as well?

Don't be silly! I wouldn't be caught dead in a universe in the shape of a poodle!

This still does NOT answer what the, alleged, "obvious" reason is.

[Sculptor1]

Since the universe is expanding continuously from all points simultaneously, it cannot have a shape, since no shape can accommodate that complexity.

But there is NO actual proof that the Universe is expanding continuously from all points simultaneously.

If you think that, then you cannot answer your question.
If you are to so easily dismiss the findings of science you have left yourself no evidence upon which your question can even be asked, let alone answered.

[Jack D Ripper]

But there is NO actual proof that the Universe is expanding continuously from all points simultaneously.

If you think that, then you cannot answer your question.
If you are to so easily dismiss the findings of science you have left yourself no evidence upon which your question can even be asked, let alone answered.

He likes to just make stuff up and does not care about reason and evidence. But he does like to preach his nonsense, which is a common thing for people who make things up and do not care about evidence.

[Sculptor1]

If you think that, then you cannot answer your question.
If you are to so easily dismiss the findings of science you have left yourself no evidence upon which your question can even be asked, let alone answered.

He likes to just make stuff up and does not care about reason and evidence. But he does like to preach his nonsense, which is a common thing for people who make things up and do not care about evidence.

Indeed it would be frustrating were it not just so empty headed.
Make you wonder why hes bothering to ask the question if he's not willing to consider the problem based on the facts.
If all he has is fantasies he ought to be qite capable of answering the question from his imagination. He could then have a Winchell's Doughnought "Bear Claw" shaped Universe with chocolate sprinkles!!!

[Jack D Ripper]

He likes to just make stuff up and does not care about reason and evidence. But he does like to preach his nonsense, which is a common thing for people who make things up and do not care about evidence.

Indeed it would be frustrating were it not just so empty headed.
Make you wonder why hes bothering to ask the question if he's not willing to consider the problem based on the facts.

If I wanted to spend my time thinking about mental illness, I would have majored in psychology.

If all he has is fantasies he ought to be qite capable of answering the question from his imagination. He could then have a Winchell's Doughnought "Bear Claw" shaped Universe with chocolate sprinkles!!!

That is from your imagination and not his. If you left out the part about it being specifically Winchell's, and then thought of that universe merging with a universe in the shape of a cup of coffee, then you would have something. Not something as good as a universe in the shape of a pit bull (obviously!), but still one worth considering. I think you have the right kind of thinking for speculation about the shape of the universe.

Certainly, your ideas about the shape of the universe are more interesting than most.