the universe and space....?

truth
I know what you mean and agree, C.I., but I would like to make a modification of the dictum. Perception+concepton+feelings are everything.

ci -- JL

Hope you both have enjoyable trips.

Can't tell you how impressed I am that you guys can say what "everything" is. I have trouble with almost anything.

Certainly can't ignore "feeling." c.i.

Frank, We're not talking about "everything." We're barely trying to get a nibble into this very complex subject, and you are 'cordially' invited to provide us with your ideas. c.i.

So I posit, I guess,

There may be things which exist independently of our perceptions.

Meaning, a rock as previously defined, exists regardless of humans percieving it.

IMO the Universe also exists without any need for Intelligence.

Intelligence comes into play when we attempt to define the Universe so this whole thread (somehow) seems to be about defining those parts of it which would exist without any comprehension by any intelligence at all.

Ie, "a beginning of time" has been hypothesized by several astute theoretical cosmologists.

Would such a thing happen in a non comprehending Universe?

Damned if I KNOW, but lets see if it can be worked out. Might be fun,
but so is golf!!
Might be educational. M.

truth
Yes, Frank, it is meant loosely, almost as a figure of speech. Sloppy I know.
AkaSM, Yes, at some level (perhaps Kant's level of the directly unknowable thing- in-itself/Noumena) the World of things exist independently of our perception, but in a complex way. "Rock" exist IN PART (o.k.?) as functions of our mental processes. The "rock" is not a figment of our imagination (I'm concerned that you think that's what I mean); it is a mental construction, constructed out of the COMBINATION OF our neural capacity for perceiving and conceiving "things" AND the mysterious (electrical?) world of materials occuring at the atomic and subatomic levels that we process to be known as "rocks."

I think we all(?) agree, that we live in a world of representations,....and as JL has quoted Kant, "We cannot know the thing-in-itself", .....that is if there is a thing-in-itself.

What we 'know' of ourselves are thoughts, yet thoughts (and of course language) are representations to the extent that a thought is not a thought. It is an occurrence in awareness that we call a thought, but it has the same fate as the rock; (the rock, as the thing-in-itself), it is unknowable for what it actually is, and so apparently is all else.

To know your 'self' conceptually is to know your 'self' as representation. We are representations to ourselves; the thing-in-itself that you (I) are is unknowable, (through thought). To know ones 'self' as the thing-in-itself is to not know yourself through thought or as thought.

Since naïve realism, and/or material dualism separates the perception of the rock, from an apparent 'real' rock; the thing-in-itself, to comprehend the rock or universe is also to comprehend a representation not the rock or universe for what they are, whatever that is, and whatever that is it cannot be comprehended or understood, because they are NOT universes and rocks.

Most of us apparently cannot perceive or observe without creating meaning and the meaning we create metaphorically is the 'map' not the territory.

If one could observe without creating meaning, without thought, without imagination, without assigning value, and therefore without comprehending or understanding, just pure observing, I think one would observe the thing-in-itself. And of course this "observing", also includes 'without' self , since 'self (body thoughts) is also a construct.

Just observe.

And when one 'just observes' one goes beyond naive realism, for the 'thing-in-itself' is no longer a thing-in-itself, it is a self-in-its-self, or better put, there is no longer a separation of a subject and object, the distinction between the perception of the thing and the thing itself, becomes no distinction at all.

truth
Bravo, Twyvel. Yes rocks, universes and selves are representations. Indeed, that is what cultural systems are: systems of representations. An anthropologist goes to another society to see how its members do culture, how they represent their things, events and actions to themselves. But she tends not to see her own cultural life that way. Her life is natural; the Others' lives are cultural. Your description of the meditation of "immaculate perception" ( ) is very clear, just to observe WHATEVER APPEARS in consciousness, without comment, without trying to understand, evaluate, or categorize its content is, I think, to BE the Universe, Reality or God (whatever one chooses to call it). But more accurately one does not acturally BECOME one with the X (in the sense of the merging of distinct things). One realizes (all at once or little by little) that one was never distinct in the first place. This meditation is, I believe, that of the Buddha, a mental posture of absolutely (?) passive awareness. The awareness that obliterates dualism. This sounds very easy, looking passively, but it is very, very, difficult--we have a very bad habit of trying to do something; even doing nothing is done in the spirit of doing something. Achieving totally passive awareness is not something done "on purpose." It is a paradox that must eventually fade away. Pardon my preaching. But I think it is worth saying, even in a thread on astrophysics.

Mech,
Thanks to your directions, I have just arrived here, but I never left home (I <think> that's true, but I don't <know> whether that's true or not).

Can time exist within a space that lacks stuff (matter and energy)?

I don't understand how time can exist in a space without stuff (i.e., zero stuff). How could time intervals occur if there zero stuff to exist in time?

So I guess that the existence of stuff in space is necessary for the existence of time in space.

Based on the ol' coin toss game, I guess there is a 50% probability that space is infinite, and a 50% probability that space is finite.

In an infinite space, I guess there is a 50% probability that stuff is infinite, and a 50% probability that stuff is finite. Without an infinite space we can't have infinite stuff. So I conclude that there is a 25% probability that stuff is infinite. But if space were finite, stuff would have to be finite also. So there is a 50% probability that stuff is finite.

Can time be infinite in an infinite space containing finite stuff?
I guess time has a 50% probability of being infinite in a space that has infinite stuff, and a 50% probability of being finite in a space with finite stuff--surely the length of time is not dependent on the quantity of stuff but only on the length of time the stuff has existed.

What do you think?

truth
ican711nm. I can see you like to make others suffer. Even your handle reveals that. I would imagine (at least for the moment) that space must have stuff in it in order for there to be both space and time. Space would be the distance between units of stuff and time would be how long it takes to go from one item to another. On the other hand, we might even define space, qua distance, as the amount of time (at some standard speed) to go from one to another.
It seems to me that there can be finte stuff in an infinte space but there can't be infinite stuff in a finite space (there wouldn't be room for them). All this has to do with elementary logic, however. The terms, "infinite and finite stuff, time, and space have no empirical reality.

truth
ican711nm. I can see you like to make others suffer. Even your handle reveals that.
Seriously, your questions are very interesting, intelligent and challenging. I would imagine (at least for the moment) that space must have stuff in it in order for there to be both space (qua infinte distance) and time. Space would be the distance between units of stuff and time would be how long it takes (at some standad speed) to go from one item to another. On the other hand, we might even define space, qua distance, as the amount of time (at some standard speed) to go from one to another.
It seems to me that there CAN (logically speaking) be finte stuff in an infinte space but there can't be infinite stuff in a finite space (there wouldn't be room for them). All this has to do with elementary logic, however. The terms, "infinite and finite stuff, time, and space have no empirical referents. One might argue that that objection can't pertain to "finite" things. But "finite" takes its meaning from "infinite," and the latter is non-empirical.

JL esp,
I think that they may have an empirical reality. Thats kind of what I am after. A description of an empirical reality. Perhaps it can't be done, so closely are our brains and mind entwined. Perhaps it can. So lets try "Time"

Can we describe time in such a way that divorces the empirical from the perceptual and theoretical? Don't worry to much about Webster.
Personally I suspect that time does not exist in Quantum Mechanics. (surprise) but does everywhere else.

If we have any successes then perhaps we could try "infinity"

Ican, Glad to see you here. This thread gets quite coherent. If you get a chance IMO the whole thing is worth reading. I recently reread the whole thing.

Frank, I noticed that you have recently chased "reality" around a bit. Any insights that you may have gleaned would be appropriate.

Note, empirical in this context means capable of being verified, observed, or disproven. Webster has several other definitions, some contradictory. M.

jlnobody,
What shall you have me infer from your statement "infinite and finite, stuff, time, and space have no empirical referents"? Consciousness, sensing, perceiving, thinking, and knowing appear also to be such terms. Nonetheless we measure them all with numbers to various finite degrees.

If one were to <know> anything, would one have to know it empirically? I think so!

My standard disclaimer is: The only thing I <know> for certain is that I do not <know> anything else for certain. But I nonetheless make judgments based on what I think is probably true. I infer from the dictionary that means I'm a <probablist>.

Some things I judge to have a very high probability of being true, other things, a lesser probability. I act on my judgments since they have gotten me what I want often enough. I assume others do the same with similar results.

I judge from such scientific data as I have <perceived> from books, magazines, websites and papers that the principal cause of the <redshift> is the expanding distance between galaxies in our observable universe (OOU). We observe (i.e., sense) that the <redshift> for any galaxy is proportional to the distance of that galaxy from our telescopes. From that it is easy to infer that OOU has existed for a finite time (e.g., 14.4 billion plus or minus a billion years), has expanded at various finite speeds over that time, and the current speed of expansion is accelerating.

Do I <know> for certain whether any or all of the foregoing paragraph is true. Of course not! I merely judge it to be probably true.

Is OOU only that which can be perceived from the electromagnetic radiations currently arriving here? Or is OOU that which can be computed from the empirical data inferred from the electromagnetic radiation currently arriving here? I judge it to be the latter. Thus I think OOU is much more than that which we will ever be able to directly perceive with our senses. But I also think OOU is nonetheless finite.

Does anything additional to OOU exist. We have zero data about that. So we temporarily (until we get some data) assume that there is a 50% probability that something additional to OOU exists, and a 50% probability that it doesn't.

The next question is whether or not that something additional is infinite or finite. We have zero data about that too. So we temporarily assume that that which is additional to OOU (if it exists) has a 50% probability of being infinite and a 50% probability of being finite. Calculating in the usual way, we can compute that there is (currently) only a 25% probability that something in addition to OOU exists AND is infinite. Also, there is only a 25% probability that the something additional exists AND is finite.

Reasoning as if we had zero data about OOU, if the something additional does not exist, then the probability that OOU is finite would be 50%. Consequently, the probability that OOU is finite is 75% (25% if the additional exists plus 50% if the additional doesn't exist) regardless of whether or not that something additional exists.

How about that for empiricism when all I am discussing is infinity and finitude?

Ican, as regards your "stuff".
I figure that you are about 1/2 way to infinity. Keep your calculator handy.

Now we'll have to figure out where 1/2 way to infinity is.

Mech,

I did read the WHOLETHING! You're right! It is very interesting.

Ican, Crossed posts.
If the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is gamma rays red shifted to the microwave spectrum then that would imply that there is sufficient mass and space-time beyond the OOU horizon taken as "Time of first scattering" to do the job.
That is what I suspect, anyways. I realize that this raises hob (Hobbes maybe) with age of the Universe assumptions.

What are my odds. I'd bet a small diamond on "Infinity by a nose"(CCC) in ten years. I'd bet a K-rand on a Current Cosmological Consensus of infinity in 50 years. Unfortunately, based on actuarial data Frank is probably correct. Best, M

truth
Ican...Obviously the terms for empirical things and events have empirical references, BY DEFINITION. But "infinite" time, stuff and space do not. My inclusion of "finte" time, stuff and space in this denial was tricky. I said that finite cannot exist if infinte does not, because the former is merely the conceptual contrast of the latter and therefore they depend on each other for meaningfulness. They either both exist or they both do not exist. There are, obviously, things in the world but they are neither finite nor infinite.

CORRECTION
Reasoning as if we had zero data about OOU, if the something additional does not exist, then the probability that OOU is finite would be 25%. Consequently, the probability that OOU is finite is 50% (25% if the additional exists plus 25% if the additional doesn't exist) regardless of whether or not that something additional exists.

However we have considerable data to support the judgment that OOU is more probably finite than infinite regardless of whether something extra exists.

JLNOBODY,
I hope I understand your point a little better now. By use of the word <exist> do you mean <exist> as a concept understood by the consciousness of, say, mathematicians? Or do you mean <exist> in what is outside of consciousness? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I don't agree. Surely finitude can exist in what is, despite the non-existence of infinity in what is. So I claim that finitude's existence outside human consciousness is independent of infinity's existence outside of human consciousness.

MECH,
Absent a supportable explanation of the cause of the observed large redshifts, other than the Dopler effect, I judge OOU to be finite regardless of whether there is anything additional in what is. But that judgment is not worth a diamond is it--not even a small one.

Was space caused to exist or did it always exist? Previously, some here claimed that space is <nothing>--it neither was caused to exist or always existed. How can nothing be caused to exist in what is? Does <nothing> exist because the human mind invented it as a concept, and it therefore only exists in our conscious minds?

Although this was directed to Mech, I'd like to have a go at it.



I don't know -- and I suspect, neither do you.



I see I was right in what I suspected. You do not know if time can exist within a space that lacks stuff.



You started by talking about "time" and now you are discussing "time intervals." Time may be able to exist under the conditions you are positing -- but "measuring time" may not.



Why not simply "guess" that stuff is NOT necessary? You've already determined that you do not know if stuff is necessary. What additional material have you brought to the table to justify a guess of "stuff is necessary?"

My guess is that one reason you are guessing the way you are on this "stuff" stuff -- is so that later on, you can arrive at a probability that "finite" is more probable than "infinite" with regard to both space and time.

In any case, as I mentioned, it is possible "time" can exist, but not be measurable.




Yeah, I'm pretty sure my guess that you are heading toward "the probability that space and time are finite is greater than the probability that space and time are infinite."






I see another attempt at a set-up here.




Something doesn't sound completely baked in this thought. Gotta think about it, but perhpas you can re-think your notion and flesh it out a bit.

Oh by the way....

...Hi, Ican.

Great to see you here.

f.