|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Oct 7, 2007 11:59
The failure to account for an origin of the universe is not so much a
failure of modern scientific method as a failure of the bed-rock
metaphysical ideas still employed by relativistic and non-relativistic
physics. The problem of origins can be tackled simply by dropping
certain assumptions about 'objects'.
Any attempt to represent the universe as 'all-encompassing' fails when
we try to describe the universe as an object. For such a view entails
a description of the universe taken from a perspective or framework
that is yet more encompassing. In order to avoid a regress where
frameworks are reduced to objects in increasingly encompassing
frameworks, we can settle the matter immediately:
The 'universe' is the name, not of an object, but of the means whereby
objects are distinguished. That is, the universe is not a countable
object, but a framework that supports objects. It supports objects by
supporting plurality. We cannot, then, try to find a 'first' cause for
the creation of the 'single object' we call the universe.
|
| Show full article (1.82Kb) |
|
| | 58 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Oct 7, 2007 12:26
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:59:36 -0700, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>The failure to account for an origin of the universe is not so much a
>failure of modern scientific method as a failure of the bed-rock
>metaphysical ideas still employed by relativistic and non-relativistic...
|
| Show full article (2.63Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Oct 7, 2007 12:40
On Oct 7, 8:26?pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:59:36 -0700, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>>The failure to account for an origin of the universe is not so much a
>>failure of modern scientific method as a failure of the bed-rock
>>metaphysical ideas still employed by relativistic and non-relativistic
>>physics. The problem of origins can be tackled simply by dropping
>>certain assumptions about 'objects'.
>
>>Any attempt to represent the universe as 'all-encompassing' fails when
>>we try to describe the universe as an object. For such a view entails
>>a description of the universe taken from a perspective or framework
>>that is yet more encompassing. In order to avoid a regress where
>>frameworks are reduced to objects in increasingly encompassing
>>frameworks, we can settle the matter immediately:
>
>>The 'universe' is the name, not of an object, but of the means whereby
>>objects are distinguished. That is, the universe is not a countable
>>object, but a framework that supports objects. It supports objects by
>>supporting plurality. We cannot, then, try to find a 'first' cause for
>>the creation of the 'single object' we call the universe. ...
|
| Show full article (3.40Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The Averdein BuildingThe Averdein Building Date: Oct 7, 2007 13:02
>The 'universe' is the name, not of an
> object, but of the means whereby
> objects are distinguished. That is, the
> universe is not a countable object, but a
> framework that supports objects. It
> supports objects by supporting plurality.
> We cannot, then, try to find a 'first'
> cause for the creation of the 'single
> object' we call the universe.
We once believed the Milky Way to be the "universe" before we discovered
there were countless more and had to rename it and them as "galaxies".
But what you're saying probably is applicable to the original meaning of
the "universe" as the whole of reality (can't be an object itself
without creating yet another set for it to be a member of). What we're
currently calling "universe" could fizzle into yet another
pseudo-universe or "subverse" as the galaxy was, if certain cosmological
theories or QM interpretations acquired evidence for themselves.
Drew
|
| Show full article (1.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Daniel T.Daniel T. Date: Oct 7, 2007 13:26
John Jones aol.com> wrote:
> Can we suggest that the universe is an object in a higher dimension? I
> argued that we cannot, because we fall into the regress of viewing
> this 'higher dimension' from yet another higher dimension. If we carry
> on like that, it looks as though all our frameworks are merely more
> exotic forms of objects of the original universe, but objects
> nevertheless.
Which is exactly why I claim the universe is infinite. We cannot say the
universe is an object in a higher dimension, because that higher
dimension is part of the universe.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Oct 7, 2007 14:04
On Oct 7, 2:59 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> The failure to account for an origin of the universe is not so much a
> failure of modern scientific method as a failure of the bed-rock
> metaphysical ideas still employed by relativistic and non-relativistic
> physics. The problem of origins can be tackled simply by dropping
> certain assumptions about 'objects'.
>
> Any attempt to represent the universe as 'all-encompassing' fails when
> we try to describe the universe as an object. For such a view entails
> a description of the universe taken from a perspective or framework
> that is yet more encompassing. In order to avoid a regress where
> frameworks are reduced to objects in increasingly encompassing
> frameworks, we can settle the matter immediately:
>
> The 'universe' is the name, not of an object, but of the means whereby
> objects are distinguished. That is, the universe is not a countable
> object, but a framework that supports objects. It supports objects by
> supporting plurality. We cannot, then, try to find a 'first' cause for
> the creation of the 'single object' we call the universe.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Oct 7, 2007 14:33
On Oct 7, 11:59 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> The failure to account for an origin of the universe is not so much a
> failure of modern scientific method as a failure of the bed-rock
> metaphysical ideas still employed by relativistic and non-relativistic
> physics. The problem of origins can be tackled simply by dropping
> certain assumptions about 'objects'.
>
> Any attempt to represent the universe as 'all-encompassing' fails when
> we try to describe the universe as an object. For such a view entails
> a description of the universe taken from a perspective or framework
> that is yet more encompassing. In order to avoid a regress where
> frameworks are reduced to objects in increasingly encompassing
> frameworks, we can settle the matter immediately:
>
> The 'universe' is the name, not of an object, but of the means whereby
> objects are distinguished. That is, the universe is not a countable
> object, but a framework that supports objects. It supports objects by
> supporting plurality. We cannot, then, try to find a 'first' cause for
> the creation of the 'single object' we call the universe.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.28Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 7, 2007 14:47
On Oct 8, 5:26 am, "Daniel T." earthlink.net> wrote:
> Which is exactly why I claim the universe is infinite.
To claim infinite is to reject identity, therefore, by definition, "an
infinite existence" is an oxymoron, doesn't exist. Existence means
identity.
> We cannot say the
> universe is an object in a higher dimension, because that higher
> dimension is part of the universe.
Check your premises.
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Oct 7, 2007 14:47
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:26:01 -0400, "Daniel T." earthlink.net> wrote:
>John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>>> Can we suggest that the universe is an object in a higher dimension? I
>> argued that we cannot, because we fall into the regress of viewing
>> this 'higher dimension' from yet another higher dimension. If we carry
>> on like that, it looks as though all our frameworks are merely more
>> exotic forms of objects of the original universe, but objects
>> nevertheless.
>
>Which is exactly why I claim the universe is infinite. We cannot say the
>universe is an object in a higher dimension, because that higher
>dimension is part of the universe.
Perhaps, though what you say is logical to you or to Jones, it
is not necessarily what is. All you have are "just so" stories.
We are probably quite like pond scum cells, though worse.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: jillarontownjillarontown Date: Oct 7, 2007 15:05
The origin of the universe is beyond the category of the ONTIC sciences.
Metaphysics is dead and irrelevant on this matter. Theoretical science
[TP] is just that. The philosophical problem for TP is that it pushes
the continuum of logic beyond 'appearances' by making a disproportionate
appeal to logical modeling. But a 'model' is not an appearance seen from
an thematic objectification that is given by the ONTIC sciences.
The real philosophical problem is: the judgement of "phenomenological'
shift correlation.
The scientific problem is: the judgement of 'event horizon' as 'event'.
None of that dispels objectification: there are objects in the universe
because the ONTIC sciences have shown that.
Vjillar
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
