In my opinion, the word "universe" is such an imprecise term that makes me wonder why physicists (at least the celebrity ones) keep using it. — Wheatley
Okay, suppose we define the universe as “all there is”. There’s the ambiguity concerning abstract objects (such as numbers); Some say numbers exist in the universe, others don’t. And that’s only one problem. The term universe isn’t restrictive enough, anything can be considered part of the universe. — Wheatley
It depends on what you mean by "material". I also don't like the word 'materialism' because most materialist include in their ontology things that ordinary people wouldn't call "material".I thought scientists are, first and foremost, concerned only about the material. — TheMadFool
Ambiguity is still not good for a scientific term (but that is another story). 'Universe' is a vague concept because there's so much we don't know. 95 percent of the so-called "universe" is made of dark matter and dark energy, to which scientists are clueless as to what they are. And it's no good to say that the 'universe' is merely an extension of space (bracketing all the unknown dark matter and dark energy); There's still the question of where the boundaries exist at the edge of the universe. I'm hoping that one day scientists will come up with a better word to describe what's out there.Also, I meant vagueness and not ambiguity. If it's the latter then it implies a word has more than one meaning but each of them may have a "precise" definition. — TheMadFool
What is imprecise about the word "universe"? — TheMadFool
It depends on what you mean by "material". I also don't like the word 'materialism' because most materialist include in their ontology things that ordinary people wouldn't call "material". — Wheatley
Ambiguity is still not good for a scientific term (but that is another story). 'Universe' is a vague concept because there's so much we don't know. 95 percent of the so-called "universe" is made of dark matter and dark energy, to which scientists are clueless as to what they are. And it's no good to say that the 'universe' is merely an extension of space (bracketing all the unknown dark matter and dark energy); There's still the question of where the boundaries exist at the edge of the universe. I'm hoping that one day scientists will come up with a better word to describe what's out there. — Wheatley
EVERYTHING.
Does it mean "everything that exists"...or does it mean "the stuff humans** are able to sense or detect?"
**Humans: The currently dominant species on a nondescript rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among several hundreds of billions of galaxies that humans can detect. — Frank Apisa
If you approach the issue from that angle, one in which you question the definition of existence as only those things that can be sensed or detected, you'll need to provide a sensible definition of "exist". How would you define "exist/existence"? — TheMadFool
How do you define "define?" — Frank Apisa
TheMadFool
6.2k
How do you define "define?"
— Frank Apisa
You wouldn't be able to ask this question without knowing the defintion of "how", "do", "you", and since you did ask the question, I'd like ask the question back at you.
If you must know, defining is simply the process of taking some aspect of experience and matching it to a word. — TheMadFool
Do the same with the word "exist." — Frank Apisa
Does it mean "everything that exists"...or does it mean "the stuff humans** are able to sense or detect? — Frank Apisa
TheMadFool
6.2k
Do the same with the word "exist."
— Frank Apisa
As far as I can tell, the conventional definition of "exist/existence" does have a matching experience - we can say of things that we can sense/detect that they exist but when you say...
Does it mean "everything that exists"...or does it mean "the stuff humans** are able to sense or detect?
— Frank Apisa
...you're entertaining the idea of existence that can't be sensed/detected i.e. you're tampering with the conventional, comprehensible, definition of "exist/existence" or, more accurately, you're proposing an altogther different definition. What is this new definition? That's all what I want to know. — TheMadFool
am saying that exists means to exist. ANYTHING that exists...whether we can detect it or not...EXISTS. — Frank Apisa
Surely you do not think that we humans know everything that exists, right?
There may be things and dimensions of time and spaces that EXIST...that we cannot detect.
Not sure if you are playing a game for some reason, but "what exists" is...WHAT EXISTS. — Frank Apisa
You've made the claim that a thing can exist "whether we can detect it or not...". An issue arises in your usage of the word "exist" because the conventional definition of "exist" has to do with detectability with the senses/instruments and since you're denying detectability - the necessary criterion for existence - you're essentially rejecting the definition of "exist/existence" as normally understood which implies that when you say "ANYTHING that exists...whether we can detect it or not...EXISTS, you're using a different definition of "exist". What is this definition? That's all I'm asking. — TheMadFool
If there are definitions of "exists" that require human confirmation...it is idiotic. And I suspect you are confusing "detectablility" with "detection."
If there is life on any planet in a distant galaxy ...it EXISTS regardless of the fact that we can detect it or not. If there are other dimensions of existence that we cannot detect...it exists whether we can detect it or not. The fact that we have not detected something does not mean it does not exist...nor that it cannot be detected.
Other galaxies exist...even though it was less than one hundred years ago that we discovered they did.
You said you were not playing a game.
I suspect you might be...even though you seem unable to detect that you are. — Frank Apisa
Firstly, you raise a good point. What's the difference between detectability and detection and how is it relevant to our discussion?
The conventional definition of existence is based on detectability but knowledge of existence is tied to detection. If I posit the existence of a thing, say, x then, that x has to be detectable but for me to go from ignorance of the existence of x to knowledge of the existence of x, detection of x is paramount. — TheMadFool
You said a thing can exist whether it can be detected or not i.e. you reject the feature of existence that has to do with detectability; — TheMadFool
in other words you're claiming something doesn't have to be detectable for it to exist and if so, if you were to claim something, say z, exists, you're not committed to z being detectable and that means your definition of "exists" is not the usual one we're familiar with, no? All I'm asking then is what's this other definition of "exists" you're using? — TheMadFool
So I ask: Can the word "universe" have a scientific definition? — Wheatley
I mean a rigorous definition. I bet 'universe' is used much less in scientific communities than it is used to communicate with the public. Take Cosmic Background Radiation for instance. It sounds much more rigorous than 'Background radiation from the universe'.What exactly do you mean by a "scientific definition"? It's certainly a word that scientists use in the course of their profession, so on that account it's a scientific term. Although as far as I know it doesn't have the same kind of formal definition within some mathematical model that something like an electron does within the Standard Model. — Michael
I haven't seen any philosophical position that states that numbers can be material.Ok. Are numbers material in any sense of that word? — TheMadFool
Between the universe and the emptiness/void. I know it's a little speculative (so bear with me).You mean to say there's some kind of hazy border, a gray area, between what a universe is and what a universe is not? What kind of things would you say populates this no-man's land between universes and not-universes? — TheMadFool
Are you saying it is impossible for things to exist that are not detectable by humans? — Frank Apisa
I'm only asking for the definition of "exist" as you've used in the question above.
Below is the philosophical definition:
Exist: Existence is the ability of an entity to interact (detectable) with physical or mental reality. In philosophy, it refers to the ontological property of being.
Since detectability isn't part of your definition of "exist" it means your definition is different. I only ask you to state your definition of "exist". — TheMadFool
So all definitions are in some sense circular. — EricH
First of all...that "definition" you offered is something taken from Wikipedia...and has the following disclaimer included:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. (March 2012)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2009) — Frank Apisa
Exist...is EVERYTHING THAT IS...regardless of whether it can interact (detectable) with physical or mental reality. — Frank Apisa
To be red (or even to be an apple) it must already exist, as only existing things instantiate properties. (This principle—that existence is conceptually prior to predication—is rejected by Meinongians.) — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosiphy (SEP)
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.