The world doesn't seem to be moving in that way or physically in motion. — Corvus


Except it is. — Darkneos

There are some objects in the universe in motion, but the universe itself is not. You seem to be in confusion in telling between the objects in the universe, and the universe itself.

I asked what do you mean by real, when you say X is real. Is all that you see real? Is all that you know real? You think something is real, but later it turns out to be something else, or it disappears from your sight.

Is the universe real? What is the universe? Where does it start and end? If you don't know what universe is, then how do you know it is real — Corvus

You're the one questioning the world.. I'm saying that to doubt the sky is blue and the suns shines is a pointless exercise unless you get to a higher philosophical stage from the doubt. We all know what it MEANS to say your body is real

You're the one questioning the world.. I'm saying that to doubt the sky is blue and the suns shines is a pointless exercise unless you get to a higher philosophical stage from the doubt. We all know what it MEANS to say your body is real — Gregory

My body is real of course, but my body is not the world. Here again, you are confusing body and the world.

It is not the case I am denying the world as not real. The case is that whether you could say the world is real or not, without knowing what the world is.

The world is not an abstract concept like moral good or numbers. The world is physical entity, but we don't know its boundaries to outside of it. How did it start, when, and where does it end, and does it have an outer world, which this world is contained, or is it the only world existing?

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but one theory (link here) seems to be that spacetime emerges from a network of entangled bits of information, qubits. This network has no spatial properties, nor temporal durations, and as such it is possibly ubiquitous and eternal, i.e. a domain of the physical reality which doesn't require a first cause. However, as such it allows spatiotemporal and causal phenomena to emerge, and by way of being part of such a domain also spatiotemporal particles can be entangled and act in spooky ways at a distance :cool:

You don't have to know everything to know something. You might know what a rock is but not a cloud, but at least you'd have some knowledge. You say your body is real but maybe not the clothes you wear, or maybe not your hair because it's not alive? Where do you think this line of questioning will lead you? Maybe you are on to something, but such doubt is not a destination

it is possibly ubiquitous and eternal, i.e. a domain of the physical reality which doesn't require a first cause — jkop

Isn't this just a modern version of eternal "potential"?

There are some objects in the universe in motion, but the universe itself is not. You seem to be in confusion in telling between the objects in the universe, and the universe itself. — Corvus

The universe is in motion. It’s more like you have a limiting notion of movement.

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but one theory (link here) seems to be that spacetime emerges from a network of entangled bits of information, qubits. This network has no spatial properties, nor temporal durations, and as such it is possibly ubiquitous and eternal, i.e. a domain of the physical reality which doesn't require a first cause. However, as such it allows spatiotemporal and causal phenomena to emerge, and by way of being part of such a domain also spatiotemporal particles can be entangled and act in spooky ways at a distance — jkop

Holographic principle, already junk out of the gate.

The universe is in motion. It’s more like you have a limiting notion of movement. — Darkneos

If something is in motion, it requires space and time. If the universe is in motion, then which space and time is it in motion? Space and time within the universe cannot be motion in itself. They require space and time which is external and separate to themselves in order to be in motion.

The kind of non-realism Gnomon expresses about position and momentum is the same kind of non-realism as in the non-realism / non-locality issue. — Apustimelogist

Why should we think that the microworld must be real in the same sense, that is behave in the same way, as the macroworld?

If something is in motion, it requires space and time. If the universe is in motion, then which space and time is it in motion? Space and time within the universe cannot be motion in itself. They require space and time which is external and separate to themselves in order to be in motion. — Corvus

Very interesting. Peoples' thoughts starting changing when Galileo started saying things like dropping something on the moon should follow the same physics as here on earth.

Under certain conditions, time separates from spacetime. Or not.

Under certain conditions, time separates from spacetime. Or not — jgill

If it wants to be eternal

What do you mean?

I mean the counter-intuitive, puzzling nature of QM phenomena should be no surprise given that our expectations regarding how things should behave have been conditioned by our experience of macro phenomena.

Galileo started saying things like dropping something on the moon should follow the same physics as here on earth. — Gregory

We are not denying the existence of the universe, but saying the end point of the universe is not known. It could be the proof or ground for the existence and validity of the concept of infinity i.e infinity exists, but the end of infinity is unknown.

Therefore we could deduce The Principle of Unknowability in existence i.e. there are entities which do exist for certain, but the details of the existence is unknown.

Yes, definitely true; but I guess the exact ways people say the microworld is strange depense on their interpretation of quantun mechanics.

We are not denying the existence of the universe, but saying the end point of the universe is not known. It could be the proof or ground for the existence and validity of the concept of infinity i.e infinity exists, but the end of infinity is unknown.

Therefore we could deduce The Principle of Unknowability in existence i.e. there are entities which do exist for certain, but the details of the existence is unknown — Corvus

Yes i think there are infinite things we don't know about existence. We are connected by our bodies to the physical world and both are connected with God, Heavenly Father, or whatever you want to call it. I guess i'm agnostic about whether there is literally another consciousness beyond those in the physical universe. Descartes said his finite consciousness could never be infinite so he thought God must be *just there* and uncreated. But how can "the good" subsist without going from potential to actual? Where is will? Pure actuality seems so illogical to me. I would say we could be infinite consciousness and not be aware of it, and so there is no need to posit a Father who lives above us instead of saying we are one with Him, and there is the physical, the organic, and the spiritual, but we know too little on this side of death to say enough about it to satisfy everyone. "I and the Father are one. He who sees me [literally] sees the Father" (Jesus in Gospel of John). We are the essence of what we make ouselves. Sartre ect. Life is spirit

Yes i think there are infinite things we don't know about existence. We are connected by our bodies to the physical world and both are connected with God, — Gregory

Yes, I accept the fact the universe exists, but a large part of it is unknown. From that premise, I can further infer that there are entities which solidly exist, but unknown to us.

It logically and deductively validates the concept of infinity. However, I am not sure if it can validate the existence of God too.

Yes, definitely true; but I guess the exact ways people say the microworld is strange depense on their interpretation of quantun mechanics. — Apustimelogist

I agree, but I think all interpretations are, in their different ways, attempts to imagine what is observed in terms of our macro world understandings of phenomena. Of course we have nothing else to work with, but for me the point is that there is no reason to think that we must be able to make the microworld phenomena intelligible to us in ways we can visualize.

And I think the implications of that for philosophy are pretty much nothing beyond the realization that we cannot expect to be able to visualize the behavior of microworld phenomena in ways that make intuitive sense to us. So, "shut up and calculate" is a good sense attitude, it seems to me. Although I also think there is some value in the kinds of speculation QM brings up in a creative imagination sense. It might be a fertile ground for fiction for example.

Of course we have nothing else to work with, but for me the point is that there is no reason to think that we must be able to make the microworld phenomena intelligible to us in ways we can visualize. — Janus

Not sure I agree. Someone might only think that because there is no consensus on quantum interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily mean a reasonable one cannot be found eventually and ways of visualizing it.

I don't think we are disagreeing. I did say " no reason to think that we must be able to...". not "there is no reason to think it is possible that we might ...".

space and time within the universe can be motion, obviously.

The universe is in motion due to its own space and time.

It’s not hard to understand.

Action at a distance might be momentary separations of time from spacetime. If space only exists all things are connected instantly.