we don’t experience the universe, just conceptualise it. It’s hard ti see how it could matter - I also take “mattering” to be something which inheres in a relationship of some kind which we can’t have with the universe. Something “ultimate” like an overarching purpose or the state of being appreciated whole, or an ultimate value/meaning would strikes me as requiring a something other than it for that to work

we don’t experience the universe, just conceptualise it. — AmadeusD

Oh dear. And what does "conceptualise" mean?

we don’t experience the universe — AmadeusD

I’ve been trying to think if I believe this to be true or not. I think I’m right in saying that you mean we cannot experience ALL of the universe. That got me wondering if we can experience ALL of anything. To test out this idea, I was trying to think of an example of something people seem to experience, and for some strange reason, skydiving popped into my head. Okay so, can someone experience ALL of skydiving? Most people would assume that if they got in a plane, it flew up into the sky and they jumped out of it, then they had experienced skydiving. However, did they experience ALL of skydiving? I would say no because they would have had a different experience than someone else. In fact, they would have had a different experience than another time they did, or will do, skydiving themselves. Each time their experience would be different, to a greater or lesser degree.

Okay so, you may say that perhaps skydiving is not a good example, or not a fair comparison, to the universe because the universe is a place, not an activity. So, let’s apply this idea to a place. Can we experience ALL of a place? I suppose you could say that if there was a particular room you were in often, you could experience ALL of that room. But, well, if we are going to be really literal, then perhaps not because wouldn’t your experience of that room depend on what was in it, or perhaps how it was decorated, wall colour, curtains, flooring etc? What if someone redecorated the room and put in new furniture? Then to experience ALL of that room, you would have to experience all of every possible way and form that room could exist in.

But if we are to be not so literal, and we say, okay, we could possibly experience all of that room as it is currently, is that simply because of the size of the room? Of course, the universe is unimaginably huge, so this would mean it is unimaginably difficult, or impossible, to experience ALL of it. But where do we draw the line? Are we saying that no one can experience anything bigger than a room? What about a house? Okay, we could experience a house. What about a garden? Or a park you walk through often, or a city you live in and travel across daily? I guess we could say that nobody experiences the world because it is impossible for anyone to visit and know every part of that, in a similar way to how we cannot go to, and know, every part of the universe. But somehow, it seems to now come down to, well, perhaps we can experience things and places even if we do not experience ALL of them.

we don’t experience the universe, just conceptualise it — AmadeusD

Oh dear. And what does "conceptualise" mean? — Ciceronianus

This idea of conceptualising the universe, and therefore, perhaps it cannot matter, also got me thinking. Now, I could well be wrong, but there seems to be examples of things people cannot experience the whole of, and can only conceptualise, but that appear to matter very much to them. People conceptualise Heaven and Hell and this matters a whole lot to them, so much so that people—I think probably more in the past—chose to be burnt alive rather than renounce their belief in them. What about Plato’s World Of Forms? That mattered a lot to him, and to others. The environment also springs to mind. Many people are passionate about preserving the environment, and it matters a lot to them, and yet, they cannot experience all of it. It is just a concept.

From my point of view, I would definitely say that I have a relationship with the universe. I care about it, I want it to continue, I want it to be ‘healthy’, just as the environmentalists want our world to be ‘healthy’. I am also fascinated by it, as are many other people. It seems to matter to some enough to expend huge amounts of time and effort on discovering as much as they can about it. I imagine someone suddenly saying, "I know, let's get rid of the universe." If they were able to do that, I am sure there would be a fair few people who would answer, "Hold on a minute, let's not!" That would seem to indicate that the universe matters to those people.

But I am definitely open minded, and I absolutely love all the thinking that has come just from these ideas that I had never thought of before. If anyone can dissuade me from my perhaps foolish belief that I have a relationship with the universe, and that it matters to me, then I am open to that.

Thinking something, as an idea, under certain concepts. concept-ualise. I take this to mean a something made into an intellectual intuition by way of concepts.

I think I’m right in saying that you mean we cannot experience ALL of the universe. — Beverley

Yes, but that is actually the same thing as 'we don't experience the Universe'. The universe is a single entity, which we do not experience in any sensuous way. I'm unsure whether noting that it's a statement about the 'whole' universe changes much, but ready to be corrected there.

a different experience than someone else. — Beverley

No one, ever, has experienced the universe. There aren't different experiences of it. So im unsure this analogy holds, though i saw/see where you're taking it. Onward...

But, well, if we are going to be really literal, then perhaps not because wouldn’t your experience of that room depend on what was in it, or perhaps how it was decorated, wall colour, curtains, flooring etc? What if someone redecorated the room and put in new furniture? Then to experience ALL of that room, you would have to experience all of every possible way and form that room could exist in. — Beverley

Different to the 'The Universe', the room only consists in it's actual dimensions. The universe, as an experience, to my mind, must contain all of manifold experience within it (at a given moment - which is partially why it's impossible). The experience of the room is extremely delineated in comparison - it has some extremely limitations in time and space that 'the universe' encompasses all of. You bring up a good point, and I've not much else to say ehre other than that i see a very bold, underlined distinction between a room, which is an extreme carve-out from 'the universe'. It isn't a different thing. It's one of the manifold experiences that must have been present to someone at that given moment to experience 'the universe'.

Then to experience ALL of that room, you would have to experience all of every possible way and form that room could exist in. — Beverley

I suppose this particular position (which i don't take) resists time as a meaningful dimension to experience. At any given moment (as above) one would need to experience the room, as it is, in its totality. However, the next moment is irrelevant. All 'other times' are another experience. So it seems someone a needless extension to my idea.

From my point of view, I would definitely say that I have a relationship with the universe. I care about it, I want it to continue, I want it to be ‘healthy’, just as the environmentalists want our world to be ‘healthy’. — Beverley

I think they are misguided int eh same sense, but obviously on a much smaller scale. Though, we can at least grasp at information about our world. The universe is.. elusive, to say the least.

I imagine someone suddenly saying, "I know, let's get rid of the universe." If they were able to do that, I am sure there would be a fair few people who would answer, "Hold on a minute, let's not!" That would seem to indicate that the universe matters to those people. — Beverley

Neither camp know what they're talking about, to my mind. You can say whatever you want, but actually having the capability of caring about hte universe is, imo, beyond the human capacity. We want our lives to continue, and this is apparently contingent on the Universe. If we could survive without hte universe i'm sure most people would want to know what that looks like/consists in.

the room only consists in it's actual dimensions. — AmadeusD

Do you mean that the room only consists of its dimensions? Like the universe, wouldn’t the room have to consist of its contents too? But anyway, take any object in that room; it consists of the total number of atoms that make that object. Therefore, I guess that again, you could say we cannot experience anything totally because we cannot directly experience atoms. As with the universe, we have problems with size.

Then to experience ALL of that room, you would have to experience all of every possible way and form that room could exist in.
— Beverley

I suppose this particular position (which i don't take) resists time as a meaningful dimension to experience. — AmadeusD

I have just had an odd thought…

If everything around us changes constantly— and this is why no two people can experience those things in the same way— then strictly speaking, the universe is potentially the ONLY thing that we can experience. (I am basing this on the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and E=MC^2 tells us that mass and energy are the same physical entity, then mass cannot be created or destroyed either. This would mean that, if we take the universe in its totality, then nothing in it changes, and if nothing in its totality changes, then this is the only thing we could all potentially experience in the same way.) But, if you were to say, nonetheless, we cannot experience the universe, then we are back to, then we cannot experience anything. This seems problematic to me.

I think the problem I have with this idea of not being able to experience the universe, and hence, it not mattering to us, (and I think I did not express this clearly before) is that, if the universe includes everything around us, then the rules that apply to the universe must also apply to everything around us. Therefore, if we cannot experience the universe, then we cannot experience anything. And if we cannot experience anything, then nothing matters. BUT… something doesn’t seem right here. Is there any way of untangling ourselves out of this?

Do you mean that the room only consists of its dimensions? — Beverley

*in.

It consists of plenty of stuff I didn't mention (per my understanding of these terms - could always have misapprehended!). But you can have the experience of being in a room, noting it's limitations. You cannot do this with the Universe. You cannot experience it's limits, and note that it is a Universe, in the way you can do for a Room. So, perhaps our discussion about 'all' is misleading. I don't intend, and hope I didn't come across as intending, that the requisite of 'experience' is to somehow empirically come across everything about the object.

My point is that you can empirically undergo the experience of being in a room, and know about it.

You can't do that for the Universe. We assume, or take for granted the opinions of experts. But I digress, somewhat.

If everything around us changes constantly— and this is why no two people can experience those things in the same way— then strictly speaking, the universe is potentially the ONLY thing that we can experience. — Beverley

I have literally no idea what you're pushing for with this one - apologies.

This seems problematic to me. — Beverley

It is.

if the universe includes everything around us, then the rules that apply to the universe must also apply to everything around us. — Beverley

Why? They are different things. An apple is within your grasp. The Universe is not. I'm unsure I can get a thread of thought out of this paragraph, tbh.

then nothing matters — Beverley

I happen to arrive at this, whenever I have these thoughts.

This seems problematic to me.
— Beverley

It is. — AmadeusD

I've just thought of an even bigger problem, quite a huge one actually. If we take the universe as a whole, then it would seem that nothing exists. But since things do appear to exist, if we cannot experience those things as a PART of the universe, then it would seem that we are not part of that universe.

For example, if we say that all positive energy is cancelled out by all negative energy (or gravity), then as a universe in its totality, there is no energy. And, as stated previously, if E=MC^2 and energy is equal to mass, then if there is no energy, then there is no mass either (which we may understand from matter and antimatter.)

I will try to explain the above a bit more clearly. So, as part of Einstein's theory of relativity— which is what we base our understanding of the universe on— E=MC^2 or, energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, tells us that energy and mass are equal to each other. But, when considering the universe in its totality, it would seem that all the positive energy is cancelled out by the negative energy, gravity. I seem to remember it being explained by Stephen Hawking as something like, if we are to pull two objects apart, then the energy that counters the energy we expend comes from the gravity between those two objects. If, in the universe as a whole, all the positive energy is cancelled out by all the negative energy, then the same applies to mass, or matter and antimatter. But this only applies when we take the universe as a whole.

Thinking something, as an idea, under certain concepts. concept-ualise. I take this to mean a something made into an intellectual intuition by way of concepts. — AmadeusD

And in what way is this supposed to differ from experiencing the world? Do you claim that thinking somehow removes us from the universe?

It seems to me that if we're part of the universe, we think, and conceptualise as you call it, as a living organism interacting with the rest of the universe, necessarily. It's what we do as parts of the universe. In other words, it's a function of our existence and is part of experiencing the rest of the universe.

Or perhaps you think that we're not part of the universe; we're somewhere else, thinking.

I've just thought of an even bigger problem, quite a huge one actually. If we take the universe as a whole, then it would seem that nothing exists. But since things do appear to exist, if we cannot experience those things as a PART of the universe, then it would seem that we are not part of that universe. — Beverley

This doesn't strike me as anything like a problem.

Why would that 'seem that nothing exists'? I'm not following at all there. And, it follows, that I'm not following the next two deductions.

For example, if we say that all positive energy is cancelled out by all negative energy (or gravity), then as a universe in its totality, there is no energy. — Beverley

I don't see how this is a coherent trail..

energy and mass are equal to each other — Beverley

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but hte equation you've noted shows this is not the case. Energy is equal to Mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Not Mass as it is. Very much either i'm missing something or this is totally wrong.

it would seem that all the positive energy is cancelled out by the negative energy — Beverley

Why? What negative energy? Im totally lost as to what you're really referring to..

en the same applies to mass, or matter and antimatter — Beverley

No idea how that's the case..?

And in what way is this supposed to differ from experiencing the world? Do you claim that thinking somehow removes us from the universe? — Ciceronianus

We don't experience the world(is my personal response). My question would be how do you describe experiencing 'the world'?? Not possible, best i can tell.

the rest of the universe, necessarily. — Ciceronianus

Hmm. I don't think this is the case. We interact with an extremely, infinitesimally small sliver of the Universe (if that, tbh... ) but not the Universe.

I can't understand your position. How are you experiencing the Universe? Describe it for me. Happy to hear something new.

This means that if just one atom that was present then, was not present right now, then the universe, as we know it, would not exist. Now, considering how many atoms just one person consists of, then it makes sense to me HOW MUCH JUST ONE SINGLE PERSON MATTERS. Of course, you could say, well, does it matter if the universe exists or not? But, I would say that most people would answer: yes. — Beverley

That simply seems to be the butterfly effect. Obviously, the oldest know object in a causal chain is going to be the most important one. Without the invention of the wheel, we would never have the internet. But is the wheel more important than the internet? No way, the transformation caused by the internet was unforeseen.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but hte equation you've noted shows this is not the case. Energy is equal to Mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Not Mass as it is. Very much either i'm missing something or this is totally wrong. — AmadeusD

I’m pretty sure this part is not wrong. Admittedly, we are all to some extent relying on theories in these discussions, but these theories are pretty well known and widely accepted, and E=MC^2 has been tested and proven to be accurate.

Basically, energy and mass are equivalent because energy can change into mass, and mass can change into energy. But in a closed system, such as the universe, there is a set amount of energy, (The Law of Conservation of Energy = energy cannot be created or destroyed) and hence, a set amount of mass too—or I suppose, to put it more accurately, whatever state the mass/energy is in, there is only a set amount of it.

The reason that there is C^2, or the speed of light squared, also in the equation is because energy travels at the speed of light, and the reason that this is squared—which makes it into an incredibly huge number— is because a tiny amount of mass/matter can be transformed into huge amounts of energy. We see this when we split atoms, as huge amounts of energy are generated out of only a tiny amount of mass. But, as stated before, it doesn’t matter how much mass, energy and speed combo we have, or at what stage the mass or energy is, because if we take the universe as a whole, there is always a set amount of mass/energy. Mass and energy are basically the same thing, just at different states.

We can understand how the amount of mass, or matter, in the universe is very small compared to the amount of energy when we consider that there are vast areas of space which are virtual vacuums, hence, why we call it 'space', whereas in just one star, enormous amounts of energy are converted. Stars are one example of where mass/matter is converted into energy btw (through the process of nuclear fusion.)

Why? What negative energy? Im totally lost as to what you're really referring to.. — AmadeusD

Okay, it was late last night, and I didn’t explain this properly at all; I was being lazy, and for that, I apologize. Hopefully, this will explain things a bit better:

If two objects are apart, then there is a store of gravitational potential energy in them, which ‘wants’ to pull them together. (This is what keeps the planets in our solar system) If those two objects are then moved closer together, then the gravitational potential energy decreases negatively as the positive kinetic energy increases. The two are opposites, one positive energy, and one negative energy. Due to balancing of forces and charges—and other equilibriums we see in the structure of the universe— it is believed that the total positive energy must equal the total negative energy. This would mean, if we take the universe in its totality, then the positive energy cancels out the negative energy, leaving overall zero energy….and mass.

Hopefully this makes more sense now????

The reason — Beverley

Sure, i more-or-less understand how the equation works, but your explanation betrays your initial position. I'm unsure how to take that.. Mass and energy can be considered equal, but that's largely because of the below considerations...

We can understand how the amount of mass, or matter, in the universe is very small compared to the amount of energy when we consider that there are vast areas of space which are virtual vacuums, hence, why we call it 'space', whereas in just one star, enormous amounts of energy are converted. Stars are one example of where mass/matter is converted into energy btw (through the process of nuclear fusion.) — Beverley

As best i can tell, all this speaks to is the distribution of energy, Matter is, from what I understand, just really dense energy. This is why an atom bomb works (i think you mentioned similar)

Mass and energy are basically the same thing, just at different states. — Beverley

I agree with this, as above, but you've been more precise and I thank you for that!!

Hopefully this makes more sense now???? — Beverley

Certainly does. But I can't see how it relates to experiencing the total Universe. I see you parsing out different aspects of hte Universe which we can conceptualise and understand through certain observations.

I can't 'experience' the USA. I could 'experience' The Vatican. I can understand, and hold in my mind, its total limits, as it appears to me empirically. It's a boring thing to point out, i'd say, but I don't see how one can experience the Universe anymore than they can experience 'all possible pain'. It includes things you aren't able to experience (the pain of others - and that problem exists in both the 'possible pain' and 'the universe' scenarios).

I assumed you were referring to what philosophers have called "the external world" (those parts of the world we interact with everyday), not the entire world or the entire universe.

Ah - well, that's fair enough. I'll try to be more precise in future.

But I can't see how it relates to experiencing the total Universe. — AmadeusD

What I've been trying to demonstrate in different ways is that if you cannot accept that we can experience the universe without having to be everywhere all at once, then everything turns very odd and nothing seems to make sense, such as, in the same way as we cannot experience the entire universe, we cannot experience the entire of anything, or the fact that nothing appears to matter, or that, if we take the total of the universe, nothing exists.

But maybe there is a different way of looking at it whereby we can have our cake and eat it, as in, we can experience all of the universe, and it can all make sense too. (Or… maybe not because, let’s face it, nothing is ever certain, but I am up for trying if you are up for listening.)

I need to address this comment first though:

if the universe includes everything around us, then the rules that apply to the universe must also apply to everything around us.
— Beverley

Why? They are different things. An apple is within your grasp. — AmadeusD

As a very simplified example of how my comment relates to the apple you can grasp, it obeys the rule of the universe that, if someone is close enough to an apple, and there is an apple there, then it can be grasped. This applies anywhere in the universe. Just because you are not on the other side of the universe (if there is another side of it) and cannot grasp an apple there, or anything else that is there, it doesn’t mean that the same rules don’t apply. It is just a case of you being somewhere different that, at the moment, is too far away for you to go. The laws that we have discovered over centuries come from huge numbers of observations and experiments to find constants that we can observe here on earth, but that we can also deduct applying out there in space. Until a new idea is deemed to be universal, it is not accepted.

Bearing that in mind, this occurs to me: we can experience the universe here on earth, or at least, it is not impossible… or, it is possibly not impossible. The reason is because we can see the laws of the universe playing out here on earth, and this allows us to know, or experience, what is happening out there as well. By experiencing these laws here on earth, we are actually experiencing the essence of the universe, the essence being the core of something or what makes that thing, that thing. If you experience something's essence, you have experienced something even more profound than just its surface features. Surely this means that you have experienced it very deeply. Maybe that is why the universe matters so much because it relates ultimately to everything we know and everything we are.

Hi Beverley :) Thanks a lot for this exchange.

What I've been trying to demonstrate in different ways is that... then everything turns very odd and nothing seems to make sense — Beverley

(underlined is my edit) And i have disagreed, in the form of the below response..

we cannot experience the entire of anything, or the fact that nothing appears to matter, or that, if we take the total of the universe, nothing exists — Beverley

These simply don't follow from my assertion. I can't actually see how the any of these follow from each other. How would not experiencing the entire of anything mean nothing matters? That wasn't the position. The position was that we can't experience the Universe in it's entirety, and therefore is isn't even 'a thing' to us, and so cannot matter. That, to me, is not the same as what you're objecting to - though, i admit freely I f'd up in a previous post misusing that phrase so apologies.

It's quite hard to understand the other objections, in this light, to respond to - but I will try!

As a very simplified example — Beverley

I'm sorry, I'm really not seeing how this example has anything, whatsoever, to do with 'experiencing the Universe'. You have pointed out that an Apple can be grasped, if adequately proximal, everywhere in the universe. Barring some weirdness yet to be discovered, I agree with that - seems fairly clear.
This says nothing about my contention. Which is about experiencing the Universe, not an apple. The rules are not the same. They couldn't possibly be the same. Because we cannot 'grasp' the Universe, in any sense of the word. That said, let me try to illustrate why they are not even comparable, let alone the same:

The Apple is an object, graspable, in some sense. Some people can't grasp apples. Some can.

Absolutely no one, of any kind, can 'grasp' the Universe. It isn't possible. It's not even conceivable. It's not an object in the way an Apple is. How could we assume the same principles apply? Fwiw, I wouldn't say an apple 'matters'. Its functional, as far as humans are concerned imo. but that's a digression.

The reason is because we can see the laws of the universe playing out here on earth, and this allows us to know, or experience, what is happening out there as well. — Beverley

To me, no it doesn't, and I can't grasp how your getting there.

the essence of the universe, — Beverley

This one just has me scratching my head. Can't understand what you're trying to say because 'essence of the universe' is meaningless in and of itself. What are you saying with that phrase?

Maybe that is why the universe matters so much because it relates ultimately to everything we know and everything we are. — Beverley

Again, it doesn't matter. It can't matter (on my account). I have to say, quite a bit of this response seems to be a bit mystical. Is that how you are writing?

I don’t think I was trying to compare and necessarily say that atoms closer to the time of the big bang are more important than atoms now. I think I was trying to say they would be equally important, as in, if we were to suddenly take you out of the universe, or make it so that you don’t exist anymore in the universe, then the universe wouldn’t exist because you constituted a part of it. That would make both the atoms that you are made up of, and those same atoms in whatever state they were in at the time of the big bang, equally important for the existence of the universe. I guess there is a difference with the wheel and internet example because the internet doesn't consist of what the wheel used to.

That, to me, is not the same as what you're objecting to — AmadeusD

Objecting? I'm not objecting at all. We are not in a court of law! lol I don't see this as a competition or something. I am just expressing ideas, which clearly don't make any sense to you. Ooops, sorry for that. It is my fault for not speaking clearly. I just like to hear other people's ideas and views on things and to converse about it all. I see it as something we all benefit from by learning from each other. (Even though you probably didn't learn much from me because I have not been making sense, eeek!) All the more kudos to you for carrying on with the exchange.

Objecting? I'm not objecting at all. We are not in a court of law! lol I don't see this as a competition or something. — Beverley

An objection is just how philosophers discuss ideas. It's not a competition or anything. Its just a term used for when you 'push back' on a theory or position (sorry if that comes across condescending - the link will do a better job :) ) You've been pushing back quite adequately, to my mind, and that's a good thing! Objections are how we sort these things out.

It is my fault for not speaking clearly. — Beverley

It is more likely that one of us is making an error somewhere either in our position, or our responses. I don't think you are being unclear, other than using words with fairly mysterious meaning. Keep in mind:

It is entirely possible to speak clearly, concisely, and be wrong.

Even though you probably didn't learn much from me because I have not been making sense, eeek! — Beverley

You are selling yourself too short. You have brought up plenty of good points.

The reason is because we can see the laws of the universe playing out here on earth, and this allows us to know, or experience, what is happening out there as well.
— Beverley

To me, no it doesn't, and I can't grasp how your getting there. — AmadeusD

Do you think no one had any idea of how things would go on the moon, before people went to the moon?

Is there mostly an issue here, of you not knowing how the laws of the universe play out?

No, and no - that's a perplexing and genuinely odd response.

I can't see how either of these questions have anything to do with what i'm positing. Having an understanding of, let's say, gravitational laws that can be (pretty much accurately) extrapolated to other , particular and specific, parts of hte Universe which we can observe - has nothing to do with whether or not we can empirically have any grasp of the 'entire Universe'. Which is it plain and simply the case that we can't. I really don't understand what's going on in these objections... You can't experience a concept. Experience informs concepts with content - content you simply do not have to argue that your experience is of the Universe.

Under what notion are you suggesting we can experience the Universe? Gigantic eyes? ectoplasmic Universe-sized hands? Have you ever seen the Universe? Grasped it? Conceived of it's dimensions? Or are you necessarily restricted to an extremely, pathetically small sliver of potential experience which precludes you from anything in the above which might constitute 'experiencing'? Because I can't connect what either you or Beverley are saying to anything i've said - I thought it might be worth understanding what you actually contend challenges my contention

Under what notion are you suggesting we can experience the Universe? — AmadeusD

Under the notion that a fish experiences the universe through the water it swims in. You seem to place great significance on the idea of somehow experiencing the universe as a whole thing. I don't understand why. We are experiencing the universe as we can, right here and now.

For all I know, we are in one, of several possible types of multiverse. However, I don't see my inability to know the truth about such a situation to be a good reason to think that we aren't experiencing the universe.

Appreciate you continuing to engage - It's a weird position, I know.

Under the notion that a fish experiences the universe through the water it swims in. — wonderer1

This seems bizarre and untrue to me. It experiences the water it swims in, along with a number of other discreet elements of it's world (plankton, sharks, coral, whatever..). But, that's a digression and another thing to talk about. Is the idea here that anything within the Universe 'experiences the Universe'? I can't understand that, if so, and that might be the issue.

Again, I'm finding it really, really hard to connect these objections (that I don't out-right disagree with, though i have comments) with my contention so I'm refraining from responding in that vein. I understand this probably comes across as a smug "You just don't get it" which I don't intend at all. Here's an attempt to clarify: it seems to me as if you're both conflating these two

A. Experience of the entire universe (requires being everywhere all at once - which is plainly not open to humans)

B. Experiencing the universe in it's entirety (having any empirical concept of the total scale and dimension of the Universe as an object - which is plainly not open to humans)

It seems to me that both of your sets of objections have to do with (A.). I am not suggesting that (A.) is a problem (though, it is clearly impossible). I am arguing that the lack of (B.)'s possibility is the problem for us in so far as we cannot 'experience' the Universe. I am not seeing any objections playing with this notion, and rather all of them appear to be playing with (A.). Though, I should probably at this stage point out that the Universe mattering isn't something I'm particularly hung-up on. I don't think it does, or can, but that's not like an important follow-on from the above position. It was partly a throwaway and partly while, I do actually think that, It's never occurred to me that anyone would claim otherwise.

This seems bizarre and untrue to me. It experiences the water it swims in, along with a number of other discreet elements of it's world (plankton, sharks, coral, whatever..). But, that's a digression and another thing to talk about. Is the idea here that anything within the Universe 'experiences the Universe'? I can't understand that, if so, and that might be the issue. — AmadeusD

I would think that only parts of the universe with some sort of 'brain' and sensory organs could experience the universe.

The following might help convey my perspective somewhat:

It is more likely that one of us is making an error somewhere either in our position, or our responses — AmadeusD

It’s sad to think of it as an error on anyone’s part because the way I see it is that we all turn to this philosophy forum in our free time for the pleasure it brings us to connect and explore the subject that we all love: philosophy. I am guessing that no one comes here to experience feeling bad in any way. And yet, I sometimes get the feeling that this is what happens: when there is too much conflict and feeling of ‘you are wrong, and I am right’ then suddenly it becomes more of a power struggle than a joy.

I first became aware of what philosophy entails around two years ago, when I was asked to do a philosophy course for my first semester at university. I didn’t have a clue what the subject entailed, but I soon discovered that I had been ‘philosophizing’ for as long as I could remember and just hadn’t been able to put a name to it. I was studying in Canada at the time, but still working online in the UK, so sometimes I would have to work at 4 am Canada time (which was midday UK time) and then get up and be in Uni for 8 am for a philosophy lecture and seminar. I didn’t care though because I loved it so much that, despite having such little sleep, I was so energized by the discussions we had and the connections and friendships I made. I am trying to think if I ever felt like we were in a competition in the discussions and seminars, and I honestly do not remember feeling like that. We simply talked and laughed and told stories about our experiences, and related them to philosophical concepts. I am sure I probably didn’t necessarily agree with everything everyone said, but it didn’t matter somehow. I never really thought about it because I was so engaged and thinking in ways I had never thought before.

I think I was somehow trying to emulate that here. The problem is, when someone feels as if someone else is trying to compete, or show them up, or better them, then they automatically feel defensive, but then this makes the other person feel defensive in return, and this continues. I am seeing this often in discussions on philosophy forums, and I think it is a shame because, to me, that is not what philosophy is all about. To me, it is about the pleasure of discovery and connecting with other minds, so that we are not all alone in our own heads (Like Descartes was, I guess)

I think in these exchanges, I was trying to find a common ground, to see if we could work together to find a way to make the universe ‘matter’, because it just seems so depressing to think that it doesn’t. But I do realize that not everyone sees eye to eye. I wasn’t feeling my usual positive self yesterday, and I think it showed in my responses. Sorry for that.

I’ve just realized how much I have written, and now I’m worried that I’ve gone totally off subject, and I am going to be in trouble for it! If so, and I did something bad, I am sorry, but somehow, here seems to be the best place to say this because these exchanges prompted me to express all of this.

It is so late again here (UK time), but one thing that is now making me smile is this:

I have to say, quite a bit of this response seems to be a bit mystical. Is that how you are writing? — AmadeusD

I have never thought of my writing like that, but I asked my husband today, “Do you think I am mystical?” and he replied, “Never before in your life have you been mystical.” Lol But he is from Yorkshire and the most down to earth person you could ever meet. I, on the other hand, live my life in the clouds, or floating around the universe mystically! But, now you’ve mentioned it, I think I’ll keep that label for a while; I quite like the idea of being a little mystical!

You are selling yourself too short. You have brought up plenty of good points. — wonderer1

Thank you so much for your positivity and encouragement. I was having a bit of a bad day yesterday, as we all sometimes do, and just a little positivity is what i so needed to hear. It is not even so much about agreeing with someone, it is just being able to appreciate someone else's point of view and seeing that it too has value. It is funny how we often do not realize how much just a few positive words can so greatly affect someone else. Thank you.

someone else is trying to compete, or show them up, or better them, then they automatically feel defensive, but then this makes the other person feel defensive in return, — Beverley

This may apply to you, abs explain your attitude. I don’t get that feeling from many forum meme bets and certainly don’t feel that myself.

Errors are inevitable. I have no idea why you would conceptualise that as combative tbh.

I think in these exchanges, I was trying to find a common ground, to see if we could work together to find a way to make the universe ‘matter’, — Beverley

I think that is misguided. We disagree. There’s nothing wrong witn that and no reason or need to force”common ground” imo. I just can’t grasp why this is an issue…

Sorry for that — Beverley

I cannot understand why you would apologise for discussing ideas. I find it quite bizarre that the fact we’re going back and forth is an obstacle. That’s what philosophy is.

And I agree with wonder - you’ve brought up good points that I’ve had to address. I’m having a good time and appreciate you interacting. Perhaps it’s high time you reassess your personal formulation. I don’t think anyone sees you disagree as anything but good.

et. I, on the other hand, live my life in the clouds, or floating around the universe mystically! — Beverley

Well there we go! Nothing wrong with that. But it will come up :)