Off-topic for this forum - even in the Lounge - as it appears to be a religious statement.cogitech said:
Nothing religious about it at all.
It is a statement of fact. Do you wish for me to explain?
Well you certainly find the idea within the western philosophical tradition (expressed in a non-religious sense). The work of Johann Fichte comes to mind as one proponent of this general idea.
Phil
Not to mention nearly every other metaphysician out there who actually understands/understood Spinoza.
Only if we are playing word-games.cogitech said:
If we don't agree what is meant by 'Universe' then we can't discuss anything about it. If we agree that it is (at least roughly) what scientists mean by Universe then we are constrained in what we can say. Physics can tell us a great deal and we are foolish to ignore it.
If we claim that 'Universe' means 'all there is' then we are making a religious/philosophical statement which may or may not be true. I believe it to be untrue: the 'universe' accessible to science is not all there is. However, I still believe that the stuff which is accessible to science is best described by science. Other aspects of 'all there is' have to be considered by other means, such as revelation.
IMO, it's just empty "space" devoid of any matter or energy that has not reached it that far yet yet............to infinity . No beginning and no end........ it does not exist .
Yeah, it's a hard concept to imagine nothingness with no end.
Given our finite world and existence. we are not used to thinking in those terms.
However it makes perfect sense what you think of it and allow yourself to think in terms of infinite nothingness.
As I said, if it does not exist, how can there possibly be a boundary? As Spock would say, "that is not logical". 🙂
Using the doughnut hole analogy.......If you eat the doughnut, where does the doughnut hole now exist and what are its boundaries?
Like space, the doughnut hole never existed.......only the doughnut did .
Last edited:
Not really. Unless I missed the "different approach" quantitative and predictive explanation of the experimental observation of galactic motion, lensing, cosmic background radiation, isotropy...
Unlike you, I have no place for belief. Stating that the Self and the Universe are identical is not a belief statement. It can easily be explained in scientific language.
It's not even that. If you lived in a two dimensional universe which described the surface of a sphere, what's beyond the edge? Answer: there is no "edge," it's a meaningless question.
Any statements about what is, in any fundamental sense, unavoidably either use or contradict religious concepts. To identify Self with Universe is a direct contradiction of monotheism. Philosophers often claim to be making non-religious statements, yet they are fooling themselves.Philosophil said:
My own view is that I am still unsure whether there is a gap for Philosophy to fit in between Physics and Theology. I know something of the latter two, and find that Philosophy often seems ignorant of both. However, I must admit that I have read very little philosophy as the little I have read seems to show so much ignorance of its neighbours!
I can only assume that you use the terms 'Self' and 'Universe' to mean something other than I understand them to mean.cogitech said:
No need to think outside- there is plenty enough inside to focus on. Lets explore what we can now!
Regards
Regards
Perhaps you really should explore Philosophy more. If you are looking to bridge the gap between Theology and Physics, look no further than Spinoza. Be warned; he does use the term "God", but you must realize from the start that he is not referring to any entity, he is referring to the Universe itself. Also, Spinoza has consistently posed a significant challenge for many, many Philosophers (including some big names you would recognize). You seem like a bright guy, so give it your best shot.
I would suggest that you read a little more philosophy in that case, because almost any philosopher with a concerted interest in cosmological or metaphysical questions will almost certainly be quite familiar with those neighbors. As for me personally, I have actually studied a good number of theological writings (mostly from the medieval period, but extending into the modern as well), and have some familiarity with the tradition of physics as well (understood in its root sense as phusis or 'nature' as the study of being that involves motion or change).
Phil
Edit: If you're looking for something to start with, I suggest you try something by C.S. Peirce or A.N. Whitehead. Peirce was a practicing scientist and mathematician with a very good knowledge of theology, and Whitehead was a mathematician who also had a very good background in theology. For Peirce, "The Fixation of Belief" or "Some Consequences of Four Incapacities" are not a bad place to start, while for Whitehead I would suggest that Science and the Modern World might give you a decent sense of the close, neighborly border between philosophy, physics and theology.
Last edited:
I think it is foolish to say that only math can provide answers.
Why do we need different models to explain everything? There is no magical equation that can be used for all models because the universe doesn't work the way it appears to. What we observe as humans is what I like to refer to as smoke and mirrors, Einstein even said when he isn't observing the moon he likes to think it is still there, but how do we know it is? How is it particles behave differently when observed? Maybe I ate too much psilocybin and maybe I didn't, but the smoke and mirrors start to dissolve when one learns to release themselves from known reality. Because maybe a better question than what is "outside" the universe is what is reality? I truly believe modern physics will be flipped upside down in the next 50 years once some of the bigger questions gets answered.
But what do I know, I am some stupid jerk on a forum that doesn't have a piece of paper from university telling me it's ok for me to think about spacetime and the constraints of human reality.
end rant.
Why do we need different models to explain everything? There is no magical equation that can be used for all models because the universe doesn't work the way it appears to. What we observe as humans is what I like to refer to as smoke and mirrors, Einstein even said when he isn't observing the moon he likes to think it is still there, but how do we know it is? How is it particles behave differently when observed? Maybe I ate too much psilocybin and maybe I didn't, but the smoke and mirrors start to dissolve when one learns to release themselves from known reality. Because maybe a better question than what is "outside" the universe is what is reality? I truly believe modern physics will be flipped upside down in the next 50 years once some of the bigger questions gets answered.
But what do I know, I am some stupid jerk on a forum that doesn't have a piece of paper from university telling me it's ok for me to think about spacetime and the constraints of human reality.
end rant.
Once we have dealt with cosmology could we turn our attention to neurophysiology? I'm sure any brain surgeons on here would benefit from our ideas about treatment of tumours, despite our lack of pieces of paper from medical schools telling us it's OK for us to think about brain structure and surgical techniques.
I love some good satire thanks DF96.
Why can't we take into consideration the human brain as a tool or test equipment in our observation of the universe? I was not implying I know how to perform brain surgery nor was I intending to give a lecture to brain surgeons about their techniques.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.