the universe and space....?

truth
C.I., Bug off? Not at all, unless, of course, it's abroad.

truth
Yes, Frank. It's the "why" of it all that has inspired religion most of all. I have no doubt that fear of death is a major foundation of religion, but the philosophical instinct, if I can call it that, is also a major foundation. But with the advance of science and philosophy the question of why, while never answered, has been refined to the point that it is less naive, less dangerous in its effects. I'm thinking of dangerous effects like the Inquisition and the Crusades. Unfortunately, our fundamentalists and many Muslims are still finding dangerous answers to that question.

JLN, It's obvious we do not understand the MACRO picture, but how about the MICRO picture? How much do we really understand? c.i.

BTW, IMHO, I think this is where we have it over the ants. LOL c.i.

truth
C.I., yes. The mere fact that we are talking about this as an issue says SOMETHING for us. On the other hand, what if there were some superior mind or minds somewhere watching us and ants and concluding that the ants have it all over us because they do not fret about such things? Interesting point about the MICROpicture. But doesn't it seem to you that smallness is a finite matter, whereas bigness extends to who knows how far? The macro picture seems more mysterious and unfathonable than the micro picture, although the latter is no pushover for sure.

That "something" is still questionable isn't it? We really don't know how much communication ants are capable of. .

truth
C.I.,

JL and Robwill, particularly.
I am not skeptical of my (or rather humanitys) ability to understand anything reasonable. (assuming that we exist of course).
A few pages back I briefly described a Universe that apparently agrees with observations and with most cosmological theories.
It seems that I
a. PO"d ILZ and ebrowne. OR
b. Am too dense to understand. OR
c. Caught their Gods (theories) with their pants down. OR
d. They do not understand either. OR
e. The finite expanding universe is an impossibility. OR
f. They take the "truth" for granted and find discussing it boring. OR
g. ILZ is working out his "description", and will get back to us.

I sincerely hope that it's the latter. We could learn something. M.

truth
AKAMechaSmith. I must confess that my orientaton or perspective is very subjective, and it reflects my strong conviction that our worldviews--all of them--are grounded not just in empirical observations but in verbal categories by which we direct our observations and interpret them. Language and the thought that reflects it are human artifacts. This includes all the metaphysical assumptions upon which cosmological theory rests, e.g., truth, space, time, infinity, finitude, beginning and ending and on and on. All these and every other notion (including the one's I'm using here) have evolved etymologically from points and grunts of our ancestors. To assume that our linguistic categories are pictures of the objective world is to believe that we ARE in fact made in the image of God, that our categories are God's categories. I can't accept that.

Terry,
Upon rereading the thread--
Your posts of Jul 21, 9:33 and 9:34 Seem to be contradictory as to the resolution of "Olbers paradox".
Please elucidate. I'll try to understand. Best M.

JLN,
I have a different view. I try (not always successfully) to view language as a stepladder.

If one takes two stepladders, and then places a third atop them one will be able to see a bit further.

If we can use language to blend all the knowledge of the ages into a coherent idea then IMO we have gained something.

This is why I asked to start off with some definitions. If we step off into what may be an infinity it'd be nice if we knew where the next ladder was, what it was made of, and how it was constructed.

I am sure (maybe) that if we can blend the languages of philosophy, religion, physics, cosmology, mathematics, and mechanics that we can model an acceptable Universe. It may also help make it a better place to live.

Mech, I would like to suggest that we start with the basics, and forget about saving the universe. If we can establish some basic understanding of what life is all about, maybe we'll hit onto something worth while. It requires understanding everything on your list and more. We must understand history, cultures, anthropology, biology, chemistry, zoology, evolution, and geology. Maybe we'll end up with more ideas about life than the ant. c.i.

truth
AKAMS and C.I., If we can blend all the languages of the disciplines listed (by this I understand AKAMS to mean to synthesize our knowledge of all the disciplines) we'll not only gain a position ahead of the ant (C.I.) but also "model" a more acceptable universe, a better place to live in. These statements indicate very clearly your awareness that WE are MAKING, not just discovering, our universe. We are expanding not only our knowledge of it (in an objective sense) but our metaphorical construction of it (in a subjective sense). And there's nothing wrong with that; that is what I've been suggesting is all we ever do and can do. Science (in its pure sense, not just its engineering sense) is the handmaiden of philosophy.

JLN, I doubt that any modeling of life is going to replace religion to transform human existence into a "better place" to live in. It will be purely philosophical in nature. We may come up with some good sounding theories, but that's about it. c.i.

truth
C.I., when I refer to modeling the universe I'm thinking more of our metaphorical construction of it at a very theoretical (almost metaphysical) level. The way we "picture" the universe and our place in it, does affect our quality of life. THAT (the making of worldviews) has been an important function of religion, and it is, FOR ME AT LEAST, the principal function of philosophy and art. Moreover, when we spend millions of dollars to raise and answer cosmological questions about the MACROVERSE, issues that can have no practical utilitarian application to our lives (like the age, size, and direction of the universe), you know the goal is ultimately worldview construction, or knowledge for its own sake.

And in who's mind is all this synthesising suppose to take place?

Is not knowledge individual in nature, i.e. it resides in individuals, well okay apparent individuals.

And JLNobody points out these apparent individuals create some or all of what they discover,.......including themselves. But who or what is doing the creating if the individual is part of the creation? Does it not lead to the transpersonal or transindividual ?

truth
Twyvel, I should think the synthesizing is done by individual specialists competing in the scientific and philosophical market place. The project in a way is cultural (the specialists are sponsored by social institutions such as universities and publishing companies and rejected or accepted by the public as a collectivity), but ulitimately--you are right--the LOCUS of culture, of all experience and action, is in the (apparent) individual.

I think the best place to start is with conception. Any other ideas? c.i.

truth
I agree, C.I., even those empiricists who argue that the best place to start is with perception (observational data) must admit that all observation of this sort is guided by IDEAS of where to look and what kinds of things to look for. It's never random looking; it's conceptually structured looked.

CI esp,
Already we need definitions.

Conception=Self Awareness -Understanding:?:

Moment of the union of two discrete DNA

Physical "Creation" of the Universe

Discussion of "The Big Bang", "String Theory" "Quantum Foams"

Einsteins postulate(?) of the equivalency of matter and energy

The beginning of time

For these reasons IMO first we need to define what conception will mean for the purposes of this thread.
(Language is indeed a shaky ladder to base our conceptions on, but its the best tool we have)

If you mean "Lets start at the beginning". Beginning of what