I know I'm not qualified to judge, but I suspect Sean Carroll, nice guy that he might be, is basically pretty crap at philosophy. — Wayfarer

:lol: Well, he's the only scientist I know who thinks philosophy is a legitimate field/discipline. Too bad you have a dim view of him. Have you seen

I read David Albert's review of Lawrence Krauss Universe from Nothing. It is relevant to the OP.

The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

Krauss was furious at this review and apparently launched into a massive hissy fit at the NY Times. Never mind that David Albert is a professor of philosophy, and lectures and has published books on quantum physics and philosophy. I don't think the episode reflected well on Krauss.

The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields

The wisdom of the ancients simply turns a leaf and emerges in the now. Nice commentary, though the NYT paywall is annoying.

The Big Bang is not so much the beginning of the universe as it is an end of our [current scientific] understanding.
— Sean Carroll (physicist) — Agent Smith

:up:

:lol:

David Albert's just jealous that Lawrence Krauss thought of the idea first. Happens to all of us. :smile:

:up:

I have one browser (Firefox, as it happens) which can be set to ‘purge all history when quitting.’ It’s very useful for sites that allow one or two articles before requiring membership, of which there are quite a few. (I never have to purge my Chrome memory using this method.)

What is the precise meaning of 'cosmos' in Greek philosophy? — Wayfarer

The ordered whole.

What is the precise meaning of 'cosmos' in Greek philosophy?
— @Wayfarer
The ordered whole. — Fooloso4

In my Great Lexicon of the Ancient Greek Language, the main definition of the word "cosmos" (κόσμος, kosmos) is simply "order". The secondary definitions also refer to "order" (but also to "beautiful"). So, this is the only "precise meaning of 'cosmos'", as a word in ancient Greek language. I don't think that there is such an exact meaning in philosophy, however. The first philosopher to refer to "cosmos" --not to the term itself but to the subject-- was Anaximander, who tried to explain the origin of the universe. It is said that Pythagoras, not much later, was the first to use the term "kosmos" to refer to the universe itself. And not much later, Anaxagoras introduced the concept of "cosmic mind". And so on.

So, I believe this is as far as the "precision" of the word "cosmos" can go in Greek philosophy. :smile:

Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon lists several meanings, under IV:

The world or universe, from its perfect order and arrangement

Given the context of the discussion, my statement about cosmogony from Timaeus, I took it that this is what Wayfarer was referring to. But yes, more generally it means order.

In my Great Lexicon of the Ancient Greek Language, the main definition of the word "cosmos" (κόσμος, kosmos) is simply "order". The secondary definitions also refer to "order" (but also to "beautiful"). So, this is the only "precise meaning of 'cosmos'", as a word in ancient Greek language. I don't think that there is such an exact meaning in philosophy, however. The first philosopher to refer to "cosmos" --not to the term itself but to the subject-- was Anaximander, who tried to explain the origin of the universe. It is said that Pythagoras, not much later, was the first to use the term "kosmos" to refer to the universe itself. And not much later, Anaxagoras introduced the concept of "cosmic mind". And so on.

So, I believe this is as far as the "precision" of the word "cosmos" can go in Greek philosophy. — Alkis Piskas

Interesting! Greek is such a beautiful language. We can learn a lot from your lexicon because of the origin of many words that complement our vocabulary, but I guess that's could be a subject of other thread: Specifically, philosophy of language!

I did a research in the R.A.E (Real Academia de la Lengua Española/ Real Academy of Spanish language), and it says about cosmos: From lat. cosmos 'universe', and this from Geerk κόσμος kósmos 'universe' and 'ornament'
1. Universe
2. Space outside the Earth
3. Plant of the family of compounds that comes from Mexico and has spread as cultivated in many varieties.

LMAO the third meaning of the word! :rofl:

Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon lists several meanings, under IV:

The world or universe, from its perfect order and arrangement — Fooloso4

Interesting too! Thanks for sharing the equivalence of English-Greek lexicon :up:

What is the precise meaning of 'cosmos' in Greek philosophy?
— Wayfarer

The ordered whole. — Fooloso4

Right. Accordingly, I suggest that current culture does not have a cosmology as such.

I suggest that current culture does not have a cosmology as such. — Wayfarer

Elaborate please.

If the Cosmos is an 'ordered whole' then the current speculative model of multiple universes does not conform to that description.

I don't see how you can generalize from speculative physics to "current culture" as a whole. That doesn't follow at all. Given that the predominant influence in culture is still Judeo-Christian, it's much more reasonable to assume that "current culture" consists of a "Biblical cosmology" (that is seen by many to be "at war" with non-Biblical "evil" alternatives).

Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon — Fooloso4

Yes, this is the dictionary I was talking about :up:
I have the monolingual version (Greek). But the term "kosmos" contains no reference about or hint about a "whole". It mainly means simply "order", which has different applications (e.g. for goverrnment.) (Some secondary meanings of the word are used as derivations. E.g. the verb "kosmein" means "decorate". And the adjective "kosmios" means "well-behaved, decent".)
Anaximander expanded the application of the word "order", as he talked about the "cosmic order", which most probably was evolved into the concept of term "universe", the corresp. of the Greek "sympan", a word that did not exist yet at that time.

Interesting! Greek is such a beautiful language. We can learn a lot from your lexicon because of the origin of many words that complement our vocabulary, but I guess that's could be a subject of other thread: Specifically, philosophy of language! — javi2541997

True. The "magic" of the ancient Greek language was --and still is!-- that the words themselves most often contain their meaning. This can be easily seen by examoning their etymology. (The Modern Greek has lost this magic of course.)

I did a research in the R.A.E (Real Academia de la Lengua Española/ Real Academy of Spanish language), and it says about cosmos: From lat. cosmos 'universe', and this from Geerk κόσμος kósmos 'universe' and 'ornament' — javi2541997

This interpretation does not only convey misinformation but it is totally stupid ... "cosmos" coming from Latin "universe"! This is a real pearl! Moreover, as I just mentioned to @AgentSmith, the word "universe" did not exist at that time. How could "kosmos" mean "universe"?
Godssake. What do these guys smoke?

3. Plant of the family of compounds that comes from Mexico and has spread as cultivated in many varieties.
LMAO the third meaning of the word! :rofl: — javi2541997

This is quite laughable, indeed.

Xenophanes used the language of wholes and preceded Parmenides in speaking of the One:

1. God is one, supreme among gods and men, not at all like mortals in body or in mind.

2. It is the whole of [of God] that sees, the whole that thinks, the whole that hears.

3. Without effort he sets everything in motion by the thought of his mind.

4. He always abides in the selfsame place, not moving at all, it is not appropriate to his nature to be in different places at different times.

5. But mortals suppose that the gods have been born, that they have voices and bodies and wear clothing like men.

6. If oxen or lions had hands which enabled them to draw and paint pictures as men do, they would portray their gods as having bodies like their own: horses would portray them as horses, and oxen as oxen. — Xenophanes, the collection of Philip Wheelwright.

I think the use of Kosmos in relation to ornament and decorum plays a part in how a Logos of Kosmos came to be discussed. There is this from Heraclitus:

78. When defiled they purify themselves with blood, as though one who had stepped into filth were to wash himself with filth. If any of his fellowmen should perceive him acting in such a way, they would regard him as mad. — ibid

I read a little more about "kosmos" to see why Pythagoras used that word and what it meant to him. According to his biographer Iamblichus, "Pythagoras was the first to name the area of all the cosmos, from the order in it." (Translation)

Also, in the same article, from the Greek Wikipedia (https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82), we read:
"The World, which according to Anaxagoras was put in order and decorated by Mind [Nous] is so wonderful that he clearly states that any sufferings of mortal life are nullified before the privilege of being able to 'consider the sky and the surrounding the whole world in order'" (Translation)

The connection of the concepts of "whole world" and "universe" with "order" --via the Greek word "kosmos"-- is clearly explained here.

***
On a second plane, but outside the current topic, we see a very interesting connection of the Universe with Mind [Nous], in fact a suggestion that the Universe was created by the Mind. This of course relates to "In the beginning was the Word" in the Book of Genesis, which is so much debated and misinterpreted in the English language, since the original word "Λόγος" ("Logos") at the place of "Word", besides "speech", it also meant mind (nous) and reason (hence logic) and, by extention "pneuma" (spirit). Of course, the idea that the universe was created by Mind cannot be easily grasped and it is open to different interpretations, but the idea that the universe was created by "speech", well, I personally cannot grasp it at all!

:up:

Interesting information and yes, it seems that Greek lexicon is more effective for describing kosmos as "order". To be honest, we only use such word in poetical expressions. We tend to use "universe" with more intensity whenever we want to refer to "order", so I looked into RAE again and it says about universe (translated by me :lol: )

Universe: From lat. universus.
1. adj. universal.
2. world (set of everything that exists)
3. Set of individuals or elements in which one or more characteristics are considered to be submitted to statistical study.

Then, I searched about "universal" and it says: From latin universālis, and this formed on the Greek καθολικός katholikós.
That comprises or is common to all in its kind, without exception of none. That comprises everything in the species of which it is spoken.

It seems that my language opts to understand universe and cosmos as "whole world" etc...

Il est facile de voir que ... arche is of great importance; of course some disagree, like Siddhartha Gautama for example. Gautama "disliked" speculation and it's obvious he tried (his best) to keep imagination out of his weltanschauung. Hats off to the Buddha for his decidedly anti-metaphysical stance.

It seems that my language opts to understand universe and cosmos as "whole world" etc... — javi2541997

I think this interpretation is correct. The Greek word for "universe" is "σύμπαν" (sympan), which comes from the preposition"συν" (= with, together) and the name "παν" (= all, everything), i.e. "everything together".
And as you see, it doesn't mean just everything, but everything together, which makes a whole. And a whole is different than (all) its parts.

BTW, go back to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/780871 because I have added something quite interesting during the time you composed your post.

And as you see, it doesn't mean just everything, but everything together, which makes a whole. And a whole is different that (all) its parts. — Alkis Piskas

:up:

Il est facile de voir que that arche is of great importance; of course some disagree, like Siddhartha Gautama for example. Gautama "disliked" speculation and it's obvious he tried (his best) to keep imagination out of his weltanschauung. Hats off to the Buddha for his decidedly anti-metaphysical stance. — Agent Smith

It looks like "arche" is indeed very important in philosophy. But only in a general sense,. E.g. for me, it isn't.
And of course I undestand why you brought up Siddhartha Gaudtama. who was against speculations and abstract ideas in general. Yes, hats to him!

(BTW, I like that you are addressing to him by his name, as a person, and not as "Buddha", which is too general, or even as "The Buddha", which kind of deifies him.)

:grin: He was proud without being proud. Sometimes facts can seem condescending/haughty/belittling.

He was proud without being proud. Sometimes facts can seem condescending/haughty/belittling. — Agent Smith

Why do you say all this about Siddhy? :smile:

Why do you say all this about Siddhy? :smile: — Alkis Piskas

:lol:

Please pardon my sulk of yesterday.

What I was trying to say about the use of a beginning in John is that it is different from how arche is used in the narratives about the primary elements. The latter attempts to see the order that brings about the changes we observe. The primacy of one or the other is presented against the backdrop of cycles that continue from the past and will continue in the future. In Heraclitus, for example:

34. Fire lives in the death of earth, air in the death of fire, water in the death of air, and earth in the death of water. — Heraclitus, Philip Wheelwright collection

Heraclitus is interesting for actively cancelling a creation story where arche is understood as the beginning:

29. The universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any man or god, but it always has been, is, and will be---an everlasting fire, kindling itself by regular measure and going out by regular measures. — ibid.

No problemo! It's interesting how chronos is the X factor.