Just because that was in question before:
Is the universe all that exists?
Is the universe what you can potentially interact with?
What is NOT the universe?
The universe interacts with us because all matter emits varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves which have a unique binary code footprint specific to the matter type.
.
There is no ânotâ the Universe.. the Universe is the totality of All.
I explained this extensively in the previous topic.
You used the example of a car. By saying car you specify everything that is part of said car.
Car â All that exists as a part of your car
The universe â All that exists part of the universe
What you do not seem to be able to contend with is that nobody has ever claimed that your car is the only car.
When someone states universe, it refers to the local universe. To this universe.
All that exists here. In our reality. THIS car.
There was no statement or suggestion about there being no other universes/cars.
1 Like
Is God, the Creator, part of the Universe?
According to some definitions, yes.
The way physicists talk about the universe, at least as far as, I can tell the universe is this shared space weâre in, but there could be other existent universes and the things in those. Something is in this universe, roughly speaking, if it interacts with the physics of other things in this shared space.
2 Likes
Well thatâs a catch 22, because God the Creator is so powerful that he can violate all human laws of thought or anything else, bound by nothing.
So the answer is neither yes nor no, simply that to scientifically analyze God is impudent.
Thatâs a newish thing. The Greeks would have stared at you in puzzlement a few moments and then went âwell⌠yes.â
1 Like
It seems you have conflated a metaphor with an example of. Those are different.
What do you mean by âAll that exists part of the universeâ?
True? I disagree. Are you saying that âthe local universeâ is a part of the universe as all that exists? The universe, as it is all that exists, is only one, and nothing is out of here.
@ghatzige If there is a god, itâs part of the universe, or else it doesnât exist.
Yes, there is jargon terminology which veers off what something means, in physics and other fields. For example, a virus (for computer science) is not a virus, same as a hydraulic cat is not a cat. Unless used precisely for physics (and physics as the realm of relating measurements in a particular field of them), universe doesnât mean part of the universe. To make that more clear, something is in the observable universe if you can measure it, more or less (Iâm trying to be succint)
The car metaphor was in fact a perfect example for the issue.
The universe is all that is connected. Its literally all that exists in this reality. All we have access to. All that is connected. All we could observe and measure.
The universe is this space time framework and all it contains.
What would or may exist outside of it is by definition outside of our reality and outside of all that is connected, so from our perspective there is no connection of any kind, no way to observe or interact, no causality, no nothing.
All that would be outside of our universe is in all practicality nonexistent to us.
Thats why this entire thing can be debated only philosophically.
Physically and in terms of physics, there is no way to deal with something that is outside of causality and LITERALLY outside of (our) reality.
From a scientific standpoint, this is worse than talking about (a) god, because god would be (in one way or another, but) connected to this reality.
Anything that is disconnected from this reality is next level in terms of hypothetical existence, BUT its still not something you can deny. You have absolutely no way to claim that nothing exists outside of this reality.
No. The local universe is the local universe. If there are other universes then we are talking about a multiverse.
The statement would be âthe local universe is part of the multiverseâ.
And once again: The first part of your sentence (The universe, as it is all that exists, is only one) is true in the sense that everything that exists for us, everything that is connected, is part of this universe.
The second half of your sentence (and nothing is out of here) is completely disconnected from the first half and is based on nothing but an assumption conjured out of thin air.
There is no logical connection between the first and second half of that sentence.
God isnât a part of the universe.
The universeâŚ
(at least from the perspective of Panentheism)
âŚis a part of God.
AI Overview:
Panentheism is the philosophical and theological belief that God includes the universe within His being but simultaneously transcends it, meaning God is greater than the world.
Making the philosophical leap (which I personally do) in believing that Berkeley is correct in proclaiming that the universe is the mind of God, then because your own mind is not Godâs mind, then your mind is NOT the universe.
1 Like
Thatâs such an Epicurean answer !!! Ok, I agree with that, but it was not my point.
I was thinking as if I represented a theistic approach. From theistic point of view, the Creator of the Universe transcents His creation, so I doubt that a theist would have agreed with such statement.
Whatâs a multitude of multiverses? EtcâŚ
Thatâs why the real universe is such a helpful term, and why I enthusiastically support the gentlemanâs efforts to conserve it.
1 Like
Stoics had God as active principle and Universe as passive principle. So it is not exactly ânewish thingâ.
There is no distinction between the two positions because one way or another but by definition all that exists outside of our universe would be effectively nonexistent to us.
Outside of the universe means literally outside of all of its framework, including causality.
You cant in any shape or form work with that or account for something that does not exist here.
And yet, there is still no logical connection between the first half of his sentence meaning all that exists here, and the second half, that nothing can exist outside.
The second half does not conclude from the first half.
Also we are essentially asking the same thing as with the tree that fell over and nobody was there to hear it.
Did it make a sound?
Im pretty sure that nothing requires an observerâs confirmation in order to exist.
The entire topic is a matter of principle.
The universe is all that exists for us. It does not track from that, that nothing else may exist.
Some people would define it that way.
Some might consider it what is manifest vs. what is transcendent. Some religions, for example.
Some might see it as a kind of set of things that interact but there might be other stuff. In some multiverse scenarios. Multiple universes with no interaction with each other. (but there are multiverse models where there is interaction, though mostly not).
Sometimes that question might be better phrases as âwhat is not our universe?â
Then to answer: possibly God, other transcendent realms and beings, other parts of the multiverse, the Platonic Forms â idealists might say consciousness. That the universe is an illusion and there is only consciousness/mind â similar models might come out of various mystical traditions like parts of Hinduism.
You know the feeling of having conceptualized something, but being unable to express it due to either being bad with language or language itself being limited and failing to express the naunces?
Cause im really struggling right now.
In terms of language everything is both true and false at the same time.
He is correct that all that exists is within this universe because the universe is all that is interconnected. Its all of reality.
Even if you were to accept the idea that there is something outside of causality and reality, that would be something that does not exist for you.
Existing outside of causality and reality means absolute and complete non interaction.
There is no way to legitimately work with that concept because its equal to nonexistence from our standpoint.
And yet. At the same time, just because it exists outside of all that is for us, does not mean that its impossible for it to exist.
In essence we are talking about two separate sets of complete existences.
Of the tree falling over and making a sound but nothing is there to witness, affirm or hear it.
And this is completely absurd to be expressed with words.
Maybe mathematically. Maybe if you can conceptualize it. But solely with words? It reads like nonsense. It fails to communicate what its supposed to.
You state âŚ
âCause Iâm really struggling right now.ââŚâIn terms of language everything is both true and false at the same timeâ.
How do you know that? âŚyou make wild claims that you canât substantiateâŚno wonder you are struggling.
Why not change your philosophy of +=- and -=+?
You claim that everything that you claim is a misrepresentation of reality âŚso you canât even trust what you claim.
What a philosophical mess you have got yourself intoâŚyouâve only got yourself to blame.
Sure. I wish I could think of an example, but yes.
It thatâs the way universe is defined, yes.
It depends on the model. I mean, right now I am focused on language use. I am not arguing for an ontology. But, Christians, for example, might say universe (or creation) to refer to what we can interact with or might be able to one day. What is manifest. But think there is a deity that is transcendent but can if it wants interact with us and even affect what is manifest. And there are even some models in cosmology that share some qualities with this, but without the agency of a deity.
Iâm with you. (or no one in the other universe that doesnât have that universe) ((and as a side note, there might be things in our universe we cannot interact with though we might have been in the glop of the early stages of the universe pre big bang - they are just so far away, we cannot interact, at least not in Newtonian ways))
I think I followed your whole post. So, it made sense to me. If there was something that we could not have any interaction with, we wouldnât know about it. It would be odd to assert that we cannot interact or sense it in any way, yet it exists. But most posited things external to this universe are asserted to have some interaction with this universe (many theologies) and in science they may deduce the existence of it - in some models.
1 Like
Of course you interact with the cosmos and it interacts with youâŚThe cosmos is perfectly designed in every wayâŚYou wouldnât be able to see;hear or feel anything at all if the cosmos didnât interact with you.
All of the sciences are interconnectedâŚits just that your half logic philosophy and the pseudoscience derived from it doesnât work and this prevents you from being aware of realityâŚbut none of you are listeningâŚbecause you are not interested because your religion takes priorityâŚrather than the correct full logic philosophy for reality science.
Your religion is your downfallâŚit was designed that wayâŚif you want to be without God he lets youâŚyour choice.
All you lot do is go on and on and on and on and about your religious cults misrepresentation of reality philosophical claimsâŚcome on guys itâs like listening to a boring stuck recordâŚyawn!!!
Move on âŚopen your minds to new possibilitiesâŚopen your minds to reality!!!
God is not going to provide proof to the religious atheists or the religious theistsâŚitâs not going to happen⌠so your philosophy needs to reflect this.
I think a word I would use for what I understand you to be saying is contiguity, and I think that the wider point being made is that, if the term universe has meaning as originally used, it must include anything non contiguous, as long as it exists, in any way, shape or form. The original universe would contain, rather than form part of, a multiverse. Human observability would not have been the limit.