...if only out of respect for the TS...

Ha.

 

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?

Hi,

Well that point about the pragmatic view is interesting, but I am sure we can find MANY ways to avoid the question of the practical size of the universe while the real question was just that. For example, we might be able to say that we can't reach the (possible) boundaries of the universe in our lifetime so it's not practical to ask about the size. I think maybe the most common and maybe most important question that comes up is, is the universe finite or infinite.
So apparently you feel more comfortable with dismissing the question altogether, and that's fine, but if the goal is to try to understand the size then you won't be able to help. Can anybody really help here? I really don't know right now. If we dismiss it though, we may never know, while if we keep at it, we may someday know. That's actually how a lot of science in the past has worked out. One person forms a reasonable conjecture, the next person tries to prove or disprove it. Eventually it either peters out or the answer starts to become clear.

I probably disagree with most of Richard Dawkins ideas except for that one. We have to remember though that he talks mostly against established religions. That means he already limits his thoughts to those ideas that might seem questionable. I don't want to get into this too much either though.

Yes we take the universe to be a physical entity and there are smaller things contained inside that entity. I think you could be right about having to discuss all things, and that includes non-material things, and things that cannot YET be proven (or disproven). This could be a very long discussion though.

 

Hi,

Well that point about the pragmatic view is interesting, but I am sure we can find MANY ways to avoid the question of the practical size of the universe while the real question was just that. For example, we might be able to say that we can't reach the (possible) boundaries of the universe in our lifetime so it's not practical to ask about the size. I think maybe the most common and maybe most important question that comes up is, is the universe finite or infinite.
So apparently you feel more comfortable with dismissing the question altogether, and that's fine, but if the goal is to try to understand the size then you won't be able to help. Can anybody really help here? I really don't know right now. If we dismiss it though, we may never know, while if we keep at it, we may someday know. That's actually how a lot of science in the past has worked out. One person forms a reasonable conjecture, the next person tries to prove or disprove it. Eventually it either peters out or the answer starts to become clear.

I probably disagree with most of Richard Dawkins ideas except for that one. We have to remember though that he talks mostly against established religions. That means he already limits his thoughts to those ideas that might seem questionable. I don't want to get into this too much either though.

Yes we take the universe to be a physical entity and there are smaller things contained inside that entity. I think you could be right about having to discuss all things, and that includes non-material things, and things that cannot YET be proven (or disproven). This could be a very long discussion though.

On the contrary, I think it is important for people to ask these questions. They not only concern the limits of what exists but also what is true. I suppose my contribution then is to urge people speak with truth and only assert what you actually believe to be true. And after you do, be prepared for resistance or follow up because others have their own idea of what is true too! If you cannot explain your truth in a way that makes sense to all, is it really true? Is it really an accurate representation of reality? A very long discussion indeed!

 

I really don’t care what anyone believes, I care about what they can support with evidence.

 

I really don’t care what anyone believes, I care about what they can support with evidence.

Eh, maybe I was a bit harsh. This topic has run its course for me.

 

I really don’t care what anyone believes, I care about what they can support with evidence.

That's a fine aspiration but...

Evidence is always interpreted within one's existing world view. We interpret evidence in such a way that it supports our existing beliefs and occasionally we abandon some beliefs but that's not very often.

There are often alternative ways to interpret evidence, that's the problem with evidence.

 

Everyone following this thread should try to listen to just the first two minutes of this, this is educational science television at its best, stuff I watched in my early twenties, forty years ago.

 

I really don’t care what anyone believes, I care about what they can support with evidence.

Hi,

So you believe that you should only care about what can be supported with evidence, but you can't do that because you don't care about what anyone believes.

I think we go through a process of analysis followed by a rendering of the evidence presented to us. How we render this evidence could vary depending on other factors.

 

Everyone following this thread should try to listen to just the first two minutes of this, this is educational science television at its best, stuff I watched in my early twenties, forty years ago.

Hi,

That's a good illustration of how we interpret the evidence presented to us. It shows that we interpret things within the time frame we are examining them, and that could come with huge mistakes that we will not realize until sometime in the future, or maybe never.

 

Yes, evidence is not absolute, there are always multiple interpretations. A great example is Newton's law of universal gravitation, where the observations were interpreted as evidence of a "force". Nowadays people do not interpret the evidence that way, its now interpreted as evidence for a very different kind of field and the "force" is now regarded as illusory.

 

Its instructive to ask what exactly do we mean by "explanation", I don't think this issue gets the attention it deserves. Our obsession with scientific explanations can blind us I think, mislead us. The belief that everything we observe can ultimately be explained scientifically is just that, a belief.

 

This clip is one of the best clarifications of all this that I've ever seen, this is what we should be teaching, not just facts and stuff:

 

Its instructive to ask what exactly do we mean by "explanation", I don't think this issue gets the attention it deserves. Our obsession with scientific explanations can blind us I think, mislead us. The belief that everything we observe can ultimately be explained scientifically is just that, a belief.

Hi again,

Yes, I couldn't have said it better.

The catch-ya is that science provides a 'workable' solution to many problems and so this can be misleading when we think about reality and how science always seems to help expain things. Science is not reality, it's an attempt to imitate reality with mathematics. It does a good job for a time, and when that time is up something else comes in to replace it.

 

It's true, Prof. John Lennox points out, that the universe seems to be rationally intelligible, but why? what can explain the presence of rational intelligibility? If you're interested in this area, dig out the audio of the BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston which took place live, on radio, in Britain in 1948.

 

This clip is one of the best clarifications of all this that I've ever seen, this is what we should be teaching, not just facts and stuff:

Yes, that's a good way of explaining just about everything. Some principles we just have to accept, but only under the conditions under which we have accepted those things. That also means that we have to accept the conditions under which we have accepted the original principles.
When you think about it, that's just the way everything works, even everyday things like the rubber band. Stretch it across two fingers and it is just so long, stretch it across three fingers and it's a different length. In both cases we accepted two truths not just one.

Science is the mathematics of experience, and that means that we can't explain anything we have not yet experienced, and this is not limited to only new things.
That word 'experience' implies an experiment, and unfortunately once we change the experiment, we may experience it differently and hence the mathematics changes.

 

It's true, Prof. John Lennox points out, that the universe seems to be rationally intelligible, but why? what can explain the presence of rational intelligibility? If you're interested in this area, dig out the audio of the BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston which took place live, on radio, in Britain in 1948.

Hello again,

That might be interesting I might have to check that out.

This points us right back to the start again where at some point we just 'accept' things like in the Feynman video. The key phrase I think is "seems to be", where with pure logic, if pure logic was a possibility, we would never say anything that could be questioned. It would always be exact and final. With things that are very complex though this is hard to do, and the more complicated they get the harder it is to use pure logic. And, the universe happens to be the most complicated thing we know of today so what does that tell us. That tells us that it will be the hardest thing to whittle down into pure logic (like mathematics). Until then we rely on approximations we invent from a general experience. In fact, we may invent these approximations from a very limited number of experiences.

 

Hello again,

That might be interesting I might have to check that out.

This points us right back to the start again where at some point we just 'accept' things like in the Feynman video. The key phrase I think is "seems to be", where with pure logic, if pure logic was a possibility, we would never say anything that could be questioned. It would always be exact and final. With things that are very complex though this is hard to do, and the more complicated they get the harder it is to use pure logic. And, the universe happens to be the most complicated thing we know of today so what does that tell us. That tells us that it will be the hardest thing to whittle down into pure logic (like mathematics). Until then we rely on approximations we invent from a general experience. In fact, we may invent these approximations from a very limited number of experiences.

You raise some very good points. Have you read of Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica? This was an important event in twentieth century mathematics, but became very upset when Kurt Gödel rocked the boat.

 

You raise some very good points. Have you read of Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica? This was an important event in twentieth century mathematics, but became very upset when Kurt Gödel rocked the boat.

Way back when I probably read that stuff but Godel is probably the ruler here. He seems to suggest that mathematics itself is not perfect, maybe even there is no such thing as pure logic. I'd have to read all that again though.

 

 

That was brilliant ... I LOVE that woman, thanks for posting.