Contemplating the "size" of the universe is indeed an intriguing endeavor. It leads me to ponder whether the question itself exceeds the bounds of human comprehension, or if it's merely a reflection of the limitations of my own cognitive faculties within the vastness of time and space.

Should I dare to delve into the potential answers, I find myself scrutinizing the very expression: "How big is the universe?" In the theater of rational thought, most rush to assert definitive responses like "14 billion years wide!" or dismiss it as an unanswerable mystery. However, I hesitate to accept such conclusions too readily. Are we truly engaging with the same concept here? The term "universe" encompasses not only my personal experiences but also those of every other sentient being.

Moreover, the notion that each individual's experiences may be inherently unique introduces a layer of complexity that cannot be overlooked. If indeed everyone's perception of the universe is subjectively distinct, then it stands to reason that your understanding of it may diverge significantly from mine—assuming, of course, the validity of my underlying assumptions.

Considering this perspective, we encounter a statistical conundrum of seemingly infinite proportions, as many scholars have recognized throughout history. The resolution of such a dilemma would seemingly necessitate an unimaginable amount of time and computational power.

However, it's imperative to acknowledge the potential fallibility of my analysis. Despite the depth of my reflections, they remain rooted in the perspective of a sentient being grappling with the mysteries of existence. While I may perceive the world through my senses, the true nature of reality remains veiled in layers of enigma and complexity, continually unraveled by the diligent efforts of scientists and engineers across various disciplines.

So, what is the ultimate takeaway from this contemplation? Simply put, the question of the universe's size may or may not have a definitive answer. Yet, the pursuit of understanding is undeniably worthwhile, and anyone brave enough to tackle it should do so with vigor. Whether one adopts an epistemological or ontological approach, what truly matters is that our collective quest for knowledge propels both science and humanity forward, enriching our understanding of the cosmos and our place within it.

 

Or, as some may ask, to which universe at you referring?

 

Or, as some may ask, to which universe at you referring?

 

You raise many excellent points here. Of utmost relevance is as you say, the eagerness to discredit non materialism by labelling it "religion", a great way to suppress free thinking. Its comical too how atheists behave much the same as fanatical religious advocates, blanket dismissals of dissenting views, an insistence that the origins of matter, fields and laws is matter, fields and laws, absurdities.

Hi,

I made a copy of your post because I think it explains this in a very concise way. I want to remember it that way.

As to the size of the universe, it seems impossible to talk about without considering the current work by scientists that are probing this both from the material and non-materialistic views. Years ago anything to do with anything like this would have been dismissed immediately, so at least we have come this far. Maybe this will allow us to start to comprehend the real size of the universe and everything else it may involve. It's a tough question because we have a limited view of it, that's unfortunate. We can't probe everywhere we want to.

 

The discussion shows a tendency to get way off topic and raise tempers.

Please get back to the original topic and continue to be considerate of each other.

Hi,

I think sometimes it starts to become hard to talk about one thing without talking about another thing when they are so related to each other.
It's like trying to figure out where the source of stream of water flowing out into the ocean. We can easily see it where it comes from in the vicinity of the ocean, but as we trace it back, we end up having to tread downstream along many tributaries. The sum of the tributaries makes up the total flow out into the ocean, and without investigating those as well as the main stream we would never be able to figure out where it all comes from.

The universe is so vast and complicated it's hard not to bring in other subtopics such as black holes and even the theory of the pixelated computer-generated universe which is being seriously investigated these days.
Maybe the real problem with trying to figure out the size of the universe is that it just involves too many other ideas which are also hard to explore.

I too could add that it is much better not to speak in a way that puts people down in any way. Better to just stick to the logic of the discussion.
I know it is hard to resist sometimes though

 

Hi,

I made a copy of your post because I think it explains this in a very concise way. I want to remember it that way.

As to the size of the universe, it seems impossible to talk about without considering the current work by scientists that are probing this both from the material and non-materialistic views. Years ago anything to do with anything like this would have been dismissed immediately, so at least we have come this far. Maybe this will allow us to start to comprehend the real size of the universe and everything else it may involve. It's a tough question because we have a limited view of it, that's unfortunate. We can't probe everywhere we want to.

For a very long time the universe was considered to be static, fluctuations taking place here and there but largely unchanging having some "size" but more or less unchanging (many scientists at that time equated this with the idea of God instantaneously creating it as it appears).

This was still the view when Einstein published his general relativity, he was troubled though, because his calculations implied that the universe must be expanding (which he "knew" could not be true) and so he modified the mathematics to nullify this and make it static. Later it became clear that the universe actually is not static at all and Einstein removed the nullification and regarded that as the biggest mistake of his career.

All estimates of a size for our universe are based on assumptions, axioms, things regarded as true but not proven to be so, so speculation is ever present.

 

Hi,

I think sometimes it starts to become hard to talk about one thing without talking about another thing when they are so related to each other.
It's like trying to figure out where the source of stream of water flowing out into the ocean. We can easily see it where it comes from in the vicinity of the ocean, but as we trace it back, we end up having to tread downstream along many tributaries. The sum of the tributaries makes up the total flow out into the ocean, and without investigating those as well as the main stream we would never be able to figure out where it all comes from.

The universe is so vast and complicated it's hard not to bring in other subtopics such as black holes and even the theory of the pixelated computer-generated universe which is being seriously investigated these days.
Maybe the real problem with trying to figure out the size of the universe is that it just involves too many other ideas which are also hard to explore.

I too could add that it is much better not to speak in a way that puts people down in any way. Better to just stick to the logic of the discussion.
I know it is hard to resist sometimes though

Unfortunately serious physics has been replaced by fantasy when it comes to the general public's understanding of things. The idea "we are all living in a simulation" is one such idea that has permeated the public imagination, no doubt arising from the rise of modern ubiquitous computing.

Simulations though are algorithmic and the universe is not, nature is not algorithmic. There are no natural mechanisms to my knowledge that embody the idea of algorithm, not as we understand it today any way.

 

Unfortunately serious physics has been replaced by fantasy when it comes to the general public's understanding of things. The idea "we are all living in a simulation" is one such idea that has permeated the public imagination, no doubt arising from the rise of modern ubiquitous computing.

Simulations though are algorithmic and the universe is not, nature is not algorithmic. There are no natural mechanisms to my knowledge that embody the idea of algorithm, not as we understand it today any way.

Hi,

I have to stay 'undecided' when it comes to the universe being a simulation. That's because I know that we have no proof yet today but we do have proof that the more we know the more we know we don't know. That's almost comical but it means I can't say anything with absolute certainty. Before quantum weirdness we thought we knew the path to know almost everything. The idea that everything has to be as tangible as we would like it to be is just a push for the convenience of not having to think too far out of the box. The flip side is we do have to stay somewhat practical or we get nowhere.

The universe simulation idea is certainly interesting though. It then gives rise to the question what is the ultimate all-encompassing simulation if there is one. If we are in a simulation being simulated by a higher intelligence, then is that higher intelligence in an even higher level simulation, and is that higher level simulation in an even higher simulation also, etc., etc.
As amazing as it sounds, there are tests being developed to try to prove if we are in a simulation or not. Will the results be conclusive or just another step in that direction.

The only thing I can say for sure is that we have to ask questions like this in order to advance. If we never find the answer, so be it, but we may get lucky as we did in the past with so many amazing theories that actually have been proven at least to the degree of being more useful than what was previously known.

 

Hi,

I have to stay 'undecided' when it comes to the universe being a simulation. That's because I know that we have no proof yet today but we do have proof that the more we know the more we know we don't know. That's almost comical but it means I can't say anything with absolute certainty. Before quantum weirdness we thought we knew the path to know almost everything. The idea that everything has to be as tangible as we would like it to be is just a push for the convenience of not having to think too far out of the box. The flip side is we do have to stay somewhat practical or we get nowhere.

The universe simulation idea is certainly interesting though. It then gives rise to the question what is the ultimate all-encompassing simulation if there is one. If we are in a simulation being simulated by a higher intelligence, then is that higher intelligence in an even higher level simulation, and is that higher level simulation in an even higher simulation also, etc., etc.
As amazing as it sounds, there are tests being developed to try to prove if we are in a simulation or not. Will the results be conclusive or just another step in that direction.

The only thing I can say for sure is that we have to ask questions like this in order to advance. If we never find the answer, so be it, but we may get lucky as we did in the past with so many amazing theories that actually have been proven at least to the degree of being more useful than what was previously known.

As Descartes said "Cogito, ergo sum".

 

As Descartes said "Cogito, ergo sum".

I personally dislike this quote because it proves nothing and tends to madden serious discussion. There is no reason to presuppose a priori that I am anything just because I can think. With this logic, I am my eyes because I can see and if I can see, I must have eyes and so on. I read a fair bit of Descartes and while has a visionary for his time, the bulk of his arguments are either unsupported or self-supporting.

Such is the bane of performing introspection on the world and it gets worse- even if you could prove this is in fact the case (I exist because I can think), there is still solipsism to deal with which I think makes a terribly potent case. How do you prove you think as well which is in fact a separate stream of thinking (entity) from mine? This is relevant to the topic title because if we can't come to consensus about solipsism, how can he possibly achieve consensus about the size of the universe?

I also dislike discussion in these areas which doesn't present a solution along with the problem. For example, let's say we are in fact in a matrix like simulation. How do I personally test this idea to find out if it is actually so? If you are going to say something like "You'll never know, don't even bother", that answer is entirely insufficient. It basically asserts the fallacy that the past predict the future in the sense that we cant know now, so it is impossible to ever know. This in itself is a monumental assumption that many people eventually come to believe as a priori true.

 

I personally dislike this quote because it proves nothing and tends to madden serious discussion. There is no reason to presuppose a priori that I am anything just because I can think. With this logic, I am my eyes because I can see and if I can see, I must have eyes and so on. I read a fair bit of Descartes and while has a visionary for his time, the bulk of his arguments are either unsupported or self-supporting.

Such is the bane of performing introspection on the world and it gets worse- even if you could prove this is in fact the case (I exist because I can think), there is still solipsism to deal with which I think makes a terribly potent case. How do you prove you think as well which is in fact a separate stream of thinking (entity) from mine? This is relevant to the topic title because if we can't come to consensus about solipsism, how can he possibly achieve consensus about the size of the universe?

I also dislike discussion in these areas which doesn't present a solution along with the problem. For example, let's say we are in fact in a matrix like simulation. How do I personally test this idea to find out if it is actually so? If you are going to say something like "You'll never know, don't even bother", that answer is entirely insufficient. It basically asserts the fallacy that the past predict the future in the sense that we cant know now, so it is impossible to ever know. This in itself is a monumental assumption that many people eventually come to believe as a priori true.

Hi,

To me, "I think, I am", just is a sort of self inflection that means that if you know you exist then you must exist. Could you be wrong? Then you are probably wrong about everything else too. Without saying if this is definitely true or false, sometimes when we do not know what the really real answer is we are forced to resort to going one notch down on the scale of reason, to a place of approximation, just so we have something to work with at the moment because knowledge comes over time not just one huge chunk thrown at us all at once. That also allows us to be wrong for a time, to be rectified at a later date, and thus gain some momentum at least in the mean time.

However, I do not think this has much to do with the universe or the age of the universe, unless we want to try to meld that with our concept of what anything is that exists, not just ourselves. In other words, should we ask if the universe actually exists, and can we make a leap from believing that we ourselves exist to believing the universe actually exists. If we exist then we have to believe in some kind of container, I would think. This seems to branch off a little too far though I think. Thinking about the universe, I believe we already believe that we ourselves exist or we couldn't ask that question.
Of course all this may require a lot more thought

 

Descartes:

Thinking => existence

contrapositive:

not existence => not thinking

I think it is obvious that if something does not exist, it cannot think.

 

I personally dislike this quote because it proves nothing and tends to madden serious discussion. There is no reason to presuppose a priori that I am anything just because I can think. With this logic, I am my eyes because I can see and if I can see, I must have eyes and so on. I read a fair bit of Descartes and while has a visionary for his time, the bulk of his arguments are either unsupported or self-supporting.

I'm always cautious of arguments like this, that use phrases like "unsupported" and "no reason to presuppose" and the like. There's a good reason to presuppose and that is that unless we do, we cannot begin to reason about anything. Every argument be it a scientific one, a mathematical one or a philosophical one, always begins with premises, things assumed to be true.

Such is the bane of performing introspection on the world and it gets worse- even if you could prove this is in fact the case (I exist because I can think), there is still solipsism to deal with which I think makes a terribly potent case. How do you prove you think as well which is in fact a separate stream of thinking (entity) from mine? This is relevant to the topic title because if we can't come to consensus about solipsism, how can he possibly achieve consensus about the size of the universe?

Solipsism is an excellent example of reasoning but from untypical premises, the solipsist reasons entirely validly IMHO because they simply adopt untypical premises and reach a very untypical conclusion. Also what is this "consensus" you speak of? why is that relevant here? can you prove it has relevance? can you even define it?

Look at people's views on controversial subjects like abortion, Israel, oil based economies, each of these enjoys a large degree of consensus among sizeable proportions of the population but that doesn't prove a view to be true.

It has a use in science of course, because science assumes (it does not prove) there exists an objective reality, something that is independent of the observer, but as quantum physics seems to show, there is an argument that certain aspects of reality do not actually exist until and unless observed.

I also dislike discussion in these areas which doesn't present a solution along with the problem. For example, let's say we are in fact in a matrix like simulation. How do I personally test this idea to find out if it is actually so? If you are going to say something like "You'll never know, don't even bother", that answer is entirely insufficient. It basically asserts the fallacy that the past predict the future in the sense that we cant know now, so it is impossible to ever know. This in itself is a monumental assumption that many people eventually come to believe as a priori true.

I think that throughout the recent centuries, pop-science has often adopted some idea from popular culture and used it as a model of reality for the general public. I have books here where there is artwork and diagrams depicting a human as a kind of steam engine. I have another somewhere too that depicts a human head as being some form of computer, with miniature people-like things overseeing various subsystems. I'm sure many of us saw such analogies as we were growing up.

I have a complete copy of this in my library, a British young person's magazine from the 1930s (before WW 2) and in one of them is that brain/steam engine analogy.

​

For many years I've argued that schools in the United States should routinely include philosophy in the curriculum as is the case in many European countries, so little effort is put into teaching kids how to think and far too much about what to think.

 

Descartes:

Thinking => existence

contrapositive:

not existence => not thinking

I think it is obvious that if something does not exist, it cannot think.

Hi,

Your post made me think (so I guess I exist ha ha) again.
Now I wonder about when we are sleeping, do we still exist.
How about in coma, do we cease to exist.
I guess "I think, I am" is in reference to the normal states of mind so is a more general statement.

Also, maybe we would have to delve into the minds of some animals too. They must think so I guess they exist.
Good thing I know all this now otherwise I would not know if they exist

 

What Bob said is called an Axiom. It's a basic point of departure for all further reasoning to grow forward. And I agree with him. But keep in mind that it only works in a single direction ... "I exist, therefore I think" does not hold true.

 

What Bob said is called an Axiom. It's a basic point of departure for all further reasoning to grow forward. And I agree with him. But keep in mind that it only works in a single direction ... "I exist, therefore I think" does not hold true.

Hey that's a decent example of a non sequitur.
Another one I like is:
"We need money to make money, therefore if we do not make any money we do not need any money".

I do think we are getting off topic though now unless we can tie this all in with the universe or the size of the universe.

All this time we assume that the universe is expanding in all directions, but what if it started to collapse in 'width' or something while still expanding in 'length'.

 

I do think we are getting off topic

You think? .. [/end amiable sarcasm]

I think we should get back to topic, if only out of respect for the TS

 

Hi,

Your post made me think (so I guess I exist ha ha) again.
Now I wonder about when we are sleeping, do we still exist.
How about in coma, do we cease to exist.
I guess "I think, I am" is in reference to the normal states of mind so is a more general statement.

Also, maybe we would have to delve into the minds of some animals too. They must think so I guess they exist.
Good thing I know all this now otherwise I would not know if they exist

Thinking is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition to prove existence.

 

Hey that's a decent example of a non sequitur.
Another one I like is:
"We need money to make money, therefore if we do not make any money we do not need any money".

I do think we are getting off topic though now unless we can tie this all in with the universe or the size of the universe.

All this time we assume that the universe is expanding in all directions, but what if it started to collapse in 'width' or something while still expanding in 'length'.

If we are discussing the size of the universe, assuming it holds things, then we should at least have a basic understanding of all the things it is holding. For me, this begins with a dialogue of all which may per pertinent in which case all things have equal consideration.

As for the question itself: How big is the universe? This doesn't make sense to me because I have built up an a posteriori framework which I can articulate. Here is my framework and why this doesn't make sense to me:

Generally speaking, I take to physicalist, phenomenological and existential ideology. On top of that I lean heavily in favour of solipsism.

The reason the question doesn't make sense to me is because it makes reference to what I've established to be an invalid consideration. My brain is unable to compute a universe that just one day started. Likewise, I can't compute a scenario where it just stops. What is most fitting to me is one which has always existed and will always exist. So the question of size is both invalid and arbitrary in the sense that I cannot form a contextual basis.

Richard Dawkins talked about what he called "middle world" which is applicable here. It is the idea that we are evolved to understand the world pragmatically as necessary for our survival. For example, we understand ballistic motion very well because it closely maps to how we must move through and interact with the world.

On the other hand, we are not adapted to thinking about mind bending stuff such as multi-dimensions and other fascinations. This is very interesting to me because we have people at all levels of the discussion in society giving out answers to not only what the "universe" is but also its exact parameters! As for middle world, can we really associate a word like "big" with the so-called universe?

 

You think? .. [/end amiable sarcasm]

I think we should get back to topic, if only out of respect for the TS

Hi,

Your post was nice to read on both counts, and it made me 'think' yet again about an idea that we might have no free will really. I don't want to get into that either though (ha ha) except maybe that is why we can't figure out more about the universe such as the size. If we really did have no free will, it would mean we lack the ability to explore some ideas properly simply because we cannot form the right thought experiments or physical experiments.