What is the Universe?

[Upisoft]

Almost anyone talks and probably thinks about the Universe as something material. People like to say that the Universe is expanding, for example. I think that is wrong. The Universe is not expanding, the vacuum is. We are able to see the expansion, because there are other things, like galaxies that do not expand.

I see the Universe as an abstract. It is a set. A set of all sorts of things we can interact with. It also contains rules that govern the interactions. The Universe do not exist except as a meme, what exists are the things that surround us.

What do you think about that idea?

PS: I've found out I didn't express my question properly. The question was about the genre. Given the fact you do not know if a specific movie is good or not and only knowing its genre is Horror, would you prefer to watch it over some other movie you also only know its genre. I.e. is the genre Horror one of the top genres that will make you want to watch the movie.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

There seem to exist two different definitions for universe:

The first of these seems to approach things from a philosophical angle. The universe is the set of all things that exist.

The second has more of a scientific slant to it. Roughly, it refers to this time-space continuum. In this sense, the universe is not necessarily all that exists, as terms such as 'parallel universe' or 'metaverse' find use.


It is wise to not conflate these too quickly. (After all equivacation is a fallacy.)

 

[Upisoft]

Mine doesn't say "all things that exist", it says "all thing we can interact with"... so there could be things we can't interact with, like parallel universes as you say. And by "interact with" I mean not only direct interaction, but indirect also. I can't directly interact with a dinosaur (nice thing that is), but I know they existed because of the bones we find.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the Universe?

Another goofy term that scientists came up with to confuse themselves (and us).

The Bible doesn't call it 'the universe.'

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Mine doesn't say "all things that exist", it says "all thing we can interact with"... so there could be things we can't interact with, like parallel universes as you say. And by "interact with" I mean not only direct interaction, but indirect also. I can't directly interact with a dinosaur (nice thing that is), but I know they existed because of the bones we find.

Oh, ok. But not worries, I wasn't pointing that last line of my previous post at you anyway.

And the term 'observable universe' might be helpful? I think that is what you are describing.

 

[Upisoft]

Another goofy term that scientists came up with to confuse themselves (and us).

The Bible doesn't call it 'the universe.'

The truth is that the word originates from a poetic work of a poet and philosopher named Lucretius, who lived between 99BC and 55BC. So, your claims that science came up with it is just false.

 

[Upisoft]

Oh, ok. But not worries, I wasn't pointing that last line of my previous post at you anyway.

And the term 'observable universe' might be helpful? I think that is what you are describing.

Not exactly. some things may not be observable now due to acceleration of the expansion, but they were observable in the past.. they may have left some clue for their existence in what we call "observable universe". "Reasonable extrapolation of the observable universe" is more correct, but awfully long.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Not exactly.

Yes, it is. That is because the term has an implicit 'in principle'.

 

[Upisoft]

Yes, it is. That is because the term has an implicit 'in principle'.

If that's what you meant then I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

The truth is that the word originates from a poetic work of a poet and philosopher named Lucretius, who lived between 99BC and 55BC. So, your claims that science came up with it is just false.

Oh, my bad.

Do the scientists know that?

 

[Farinata]

Seeing the universe as a set? Interesting notion...Does the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, contain itself?

 

[Upisoft]

Oh, my bad.

Do the scientists know that?

Apparently some know it.

 

[Upisoft]

Seeing the universe as a set? Interesting notion...Does the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, contain itself?

Bad definition. Such thing as set of all sets cannot exist.

 

[Farinata]

Bad definition. Such thing as set of all sets cannot exist.

Haha I meant that to be a little tongue in cheek. In any case though I thought there could be such a thing as a universal set or have I been misinformed? I know it's not allowed in ZFC but I thought there were some other non-mainstream set theories out there where it would be meaningful to talk about a set of all sets.

 

[Upisoft]

Haha I meant that to be a little tongue in cheek. In any case though I thought there could be such a thing as a universal set or have I been misinformed? I know it's not allowed in ZFC but I thought there were some other non-mainstream set theories out there where it would be meaningful to talk about a set of all sets.

You could be right, like geometry it is all about axioms that define what will be paradox. In any case I'm using natural definition of "set", which is not between those allowing universal sets.

Funny thing, everything is possible when you begin to change definitions to suit you...

 

[Huram Abi]

Archimedes gave an interesting assumption about the universe based on the work of Aristarchus.

The idea was that the universe was both heliocentric and spherical and that the ratio of the diameter of the Universe to the diameter of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun equalled the ratio of the diameter of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun to the diameter of the Earth.

This was quite an expansion because, before this, the concept of the universe was expressed in a geocentric model where the universe was expressed as a circle with the radius equal to Au, or the distance from the earth to the sun. With the earth at the center of the universe, sometime the universe contained mars or venus, sometimes not. Sometimes mars would fall within the circle of the Universe, and oftentimes not.

With the sun existing at the same distance as the canopy of the stars, this seemed reasonable that the universe was no more than a cicumscribed circle equidistant in every direction from the earth with the limit equal to the distance from the sun, itself.

Quite possibly, this is how the Hebrews viewed the universe and the inference of "in the beginning" does not pan out to include everything in material existence, but something much more local, such as our solar system.

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" Perhaps this means the gaseous and solid components of this system. "Let there be light" is perhaps the nuclear reaction in which the hydrogen of our sun is first ignited.

 

[Upisoft]

The idea was that the universe was both heliocentric and spherical and that the ratio of the diameter of the Universe to the diameter of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun equalled the ratio of the diameter of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun to the diameter of the Earth.

Now that's funny. At least he was closing to the truth. Great thing, as he had no tools for observation of the universe ( i mean the contents of the universe ).

 

[Huram Abi]

What is really funny is that he had to figure this much out simply because he wanted to calculate an upper bound for how many grains of sand would fit in the universe.

 

[Upisoft]

What is really funny is that he had to figure this much out simply because he wanted to calculate an upper bound for how many grains of sand would fit in the universe.

I didn't knew that. Now that's really funny. The early definition of volume: "how many sand grains you can fit in it"....

 

[Huram Abi]

I didn't knew that. Now that's really funny. The early definition of volume: "how many sand grains you can fit in it"....