(November 4, 2009 at 2:26 pm)Saerules Wrote: I use that same definition of universe myself... I take it you are not using the definition as a sort of container for existence... and rather the existence itself? What is your take on non-existence then?

That's easy. I don't have one.

Quote:Definitions can vary, but that can also be incorrect. I think a discussion relies on the assumption that one party is not a fucking lunatic who makes shit like this up.

Who/what makes the definitions 'correct'? A discussion relies upon the assumption that we are all on the same page. It doesn't work well to discuss page 50 with someone who hasn't reached page 5... at least until they know what happens on page 50. Sometimes we are both reading page 50... but out of different books. That is why we need to agree on definitions before we can discuss them.

Without a base upon which to discuss: there can be no discussion.

---

Lol ^_^

Quote:That's easy. I don't have one.

That would work! Because how can you have a stance upon that which does not exist? (That's actually a rather brilliant way to resolve most of that [except for that nothing contradicts itself fundamentally of course ]) But I like it

(November 4, 2009 at 2:50 pm)Saerules Wrote:

Quote:Definitions can vary, but that can also be incorrect. I think a discussion relies on the assumption that one party is not a fucking lunatic who makes shit like this up.

Who/what makes the definitions 'correct'? A discussion relies upon the assumption that we are all on the same page. It doesn't work well to discuss page 50 with someone who hasn't reached page 5... at least until they know what happens on page 50. Sometimes we are both reading page 50... but out of different books. That is why we need to agree on definitions before we can discuss them.

Stop being pedantic. The English language has several varieties but none hold such great ambiguity as to derail a discussion like you suggest is feasible. Any reasonable discussion includes agreed definitions, implicit or otherwise. If someone is a fucking loon it's obvious.

Have you even spoken to a real person before? Seriously.

Quote:Stop being pedantic. The English language has several varieties but none hold such great ambiguity as to derail a discussion as you suggest. Any reasonable discussion includes agreed definitions, implicit or otherwise. If someone is a fucking lunatic it's obvious.

Have you even spoken to a real person before?

The last shall be first: Yes, many people, in several languages in fact

Considering all those differing definitions Adrian just listed for what a 'universe' is... surely you don't believe what you just said? For now, define how it is 'obvious' that someone is a fucking lunatic? Here again is a differing definition... to you it is obvious... to me it is quite the opposite. And how are you defining 'lunatic', for you seem to be implying that I am one? We have to agree upon these definitions before we can discuss your statements

(edit note: my post number, 1300... is obviously unlucky! )

I would also like to vote for Tiberius's definition of the universe since I think that is closer to what science says. Isn't the universe pretty much everything that was created by the big bang and so inside out spacetime and anything outside that is another universe?

(November 4, 2009 at 2:36 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:

(November 4, 2009 at 2:25 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I think you are perhaps confusing reality with the universe. The universe (according to one multiverse theory) is but one of many universes which contain their own laws of physics.

Is it a theory or a hypotheses?

It's been given the status of theory though many in the scientific community dispute it; same with string theory. It's more of a mathematical model than a scientific idea.

Is there any evidence for it? Mathematical models do not impress me to be honest unless it is directly applicable in real world applications.

(November 4, 2009 at 3:25 pm)solarwave Wrote: I would also like to vote for Tiberius's definition of the universe since I think that is closer to what science says. Isn't the universe pretty much everything that was created by the big bang and so inside out spacetime and anything outside that is another universe?

I see no evidence for an "outside" of the universe, if you know of some please enlighten me.

(November 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm)Saerules Wrote: Considering all those differing definitions Adrian just listed for what a 'universe' is... surely you don't believe what you just said? For now, define how it is 'obvious' that someone is a fucking lunatic? Here again is a differing definition... to you it is obvious... to me it is quite the opposite. And how are you defining 'lunatic', for you seem to be implying that I am one? We have to agree upon these definitions before we can discuss your statements

(edit note: my post number, 1300... is obviously unlucky! )

This thread supports exactly what I said. Forum members were discussing what is and isn't within the reach of science, and Leo proposed that anything in our Universe is, based on his definition. Other forum members came forward with differing definitions and it seems we're in the process of clarifying what is meant by 'Universe' in regards to the discussion. Nobody is wandering in here with a definition of Universe that means 'elbow pad'. That kind of fringe lunacy is what I would call an incorrect definition. Differing ideas of what a "Universe" is aren't.

I honestly think we're both on the same side of this argument, I just don't like the way you originally phrased it. Hypothetical, impractical, transcendental-idealistic garbage.

Quote:This thread supports exactly what I said. Forum members were discussing what is and isn't within the reach of science, and Leo proposed that anything in our Universe is, based on his definition. Other forum members came forward with differing definitions and it seems we're in the process of clarifying what is meant by 'Universe' in regards to the discussion. Nobody is wandering in here with a definition of Universe that means 'elbow pad'. That kind of fringe lunacy is what I would call an incorrect definition. Differing ideas of what a "Universe" is aren't.

I honestly think we're both on the same side of this argument, I just don't like the way you originally phrased it. Hypothetical, impractical, transcendental-idealistic garbage.

If that was your point, then we are indeed on the same side here But by the last statement, are you specifically targeting

my newer, more stranger friendly sig Wrote:How can you know that the word l use to identify 'chocolate' is not the same word you use for 'orangutang'... so when I say "Do you want some chocolate", you interpret it as "Do you want some orangutang?"

?

We actually can't know that 'Universe' in Talhiqki Nsaqunca Bwikuphort does not read as 'elbow pad'. Really, we can't know that... or do you actually speak Talhiqki Nsaqunca Bwikuphort? We also can't know that someone's English vocabulary is 'mistaken' in that their knowledge of the word 'universe' is equivalent to the usual english definition of 'elbow pad'.

Right away in this discussion, we made sure we were all discussing the same thing. This is because we needed to have a point on which to discuss We don't want to spend 3 pages discussing the nature of something, only to find out in the middle of the fourth that one of us was talking about the nature of chocolate, and the other but the nature of the orangutang

You may call this 'impractical'... but I call it 'realistic'... because it is only logical that one can easily be misinterpreted... and it is also quite true that one's knowledge is but the assumption that they are right.