weird philosophy stuff (elijah, come here!)

[Whaleboy]

Do we define the universe as the region directly affected by big bang, or anything less than infinity?

*Whaleboy reaches for Skywalkers balls*

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Do we define the universe as the region directly affected by big bang, or anything less than infinity?

*Whaleboy reaches for Skywalkers balls*

"The region directly affected by the big bang" is pretty meaningless - how do you determine whether or not it is "direct" or "indirect"? If you remove the "directly", it becomes slightly more meaningful - but only slightly. You are basically grasping at "everything within all regions of spacetime contiguous with the one we occupy". However, there are no special properties associated with that - it is not inherently different from any other region of spacetime. The second statement is completely meaningless even at the semantic level. Infinity is not a number - it exists only in the limit. Therefore, nothing can be "less" than infinity. Plus, even excusing that, does that mean you are describing the universe as the set of all real numbers U negative infinity?

[Solly]

Physics seems to have assumed all along its history that objectivity is entirely primary to subjectivity; indeed the latter has to be ignored.

Yet do we have any evidence for an objective universe?

[Whaleboy]

You are basically grasping at "everything within all regions of spacetime contiguous with the one we occupy".

No, I'm grasping at your balls...

You are correct though.

However, there are no special properties associated with that - it is not inherently different from any other region of spacetime.

Incorrect. By definition our "universe" (see above definition) is the region where the fourth dimension is a time. Outside, it becomes a vector as shown by superstring theory.

The second statement is completely meaningless even at the semantic level. Infinity is not a number - it exists only in the limit. Therefore, nothing can be "less" than infinity. Plus, even excusing that, does that mean you are describing the universe as the set of all real numbers U negative infinity?

I am attempting to ascertain whether or not you mean that the universe is that region 28 billion light years in diameter, or as the word would seem to imply, all objectively less than infinity. Naturally, within our logical framework defined by this universe, all outside it is infinity, hence my use of the word objective. Hang on a second.... internally consistent logical systems... HAH!

Physics seems to have assumed all along its history that objectivity is entirely primary to subjectivity; indeed the latter has to be ignored.

Yet do we have any evidence for an objective universe?

You confuse objective ultimately (where physics and uncertainty principle would prove the existence of god), or objective to a given context. For example, to the small picture, the bigger takes precidence, until quantum physics (which leads to the biggest we have at the moment of course). Physics does not attempt to understand an ultimate objective infinity, but the infinity within the given number of dimensions within which it works. Call it cosmological subjectivity, with pseudo-objectives, it justifies the state of physics and stems from the notion of subjectivity. Your point is false.

Heavens.. its amazing what you can do with graph paper

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Physics seems to have assumed all along its history that objectivity is entirely primary to subjectivity; indeed the latter has to be ignored.

Yet do we have any evidence for an objective universe?

I already explained the necessity of assuming an objective universe. There is no EVIDENCE for it (by definition, there can be none), but it is a necessary assumption (without it, philosophy becomes rather pointless).

[Kuciwalker]

Incorrect. By definition our "universe" (see above definition) is the region where the fourth dimension is a time. Outside, it becomes a vector as shown by superstring theory.

Huh? So if I took this region of spacetime (which, believe it or not, I DO understand includes time ) and removed an itty-bitty slice of it, it would suddenly have vastly different properties?

am attempting to ascertain whether or not you mean that the universe is that region 28 billion light years in diameter, or as the word would seem to imply, all objectively less than infinity. Naturally, within our logical framework defined by this universe, all outside it is infinity, hence my use of the word objective. Hang on a second.... internally consistent logical systems... HAH!

You keep misusing the term infinity, and I'm not sure how you mean to use it. Infinity only has meaning in the context of a limit (i.e., as x tends towards infinity 1/x tends towards zero, or as x tends towards zero from the positive side 1/x tends towards infinity). You can't say that something "is" infinity.

[Whaleboy]

Huh? So if I took this region of spacetime (which, believe it or not, I DO understand includes time ) and removed an itty-bitty slice of it, it would suddenly have vastly different properties?

What do you mean by removed? You mean change the coefficient of spacetime density, or perhaps go back in time and change something? If so, then yes. The uncertainty principle and sum over histories shows this rather clearly.

You keep misusing the term infinity, and I'm not sure how you mean to use it. Infinity only has meaning in the context of a limit (i.e., as x tends towards infinity 1/x tends towards zero, or as x tends towards zero from the positive side 1/x tends towards infinity). You can't say that something "is" infinity.

On the contrary. You have a graph, axes from 1 to 10. You have the number 11. As far as the graph is concerned, 11 is infinity, due to its limited scope. Also consider a 2D graph with 3D coordinates. For every limited set of dimensions, there is an unreachable infinity. We are only able to perceive otherwise in those examples because of our greater dimensional scope. Consider the "trampoline and collapsing cricket ball" analogy of general relativity and black hole formation. The ball drops through the rubber mat, and we can perceive what has happened, but if your plane of existence was that mat, it would appear as though a black hole had been formed. The cosmological definition of infinity is quite different from the oblique definition provided by mathematics. Put another way, the mathematical definition only holds for four dimensions, part of the problem you have of holding variables to be constants. Nonetheless, you have specified that to be an assumption of your argument, thus I accept we shaln't agree. However, it is interesting that the logical conclusion of this theory is a proof that there is no ultimate objective, a cosmological Hadrians Wall does not exist.

but it is a necessary assumption (without it, philosophy becomes rather pointless).

You have explained that you assume the premise for that, but how do you infer that. It is entirely possible to have a meaningful philosophy based upon that, for example, consider the numerous interpretations of existentialism and the plethora of Eastern philosophies. How do you define "meaningful". Do you aim to deride philosophies that oppose yours because in your view, their metaphysical foundation appears meaningless? If so, I must contend that it is a false refutation.