An Ageless Universe

[David Cole 0]

....Rather than using the analogy in too literal a manner, I think it might be better for you to discard the analogy altogether and just deal directly with these issues as they apply to the universe.

←

This is the root of my lack of understanding. How do I understand the nature of the unboundedness of everything, when I can think of no example, no analogy, that accurately represents it. If you admit that the analogy is imperfect, then what examples, analogies, etc. have you used to convine yourself of the validity of the spatially or temporally unbounded universe that I may not be aware of. I'd be genuinely interested in understanding any mental labor you've done on this subject. I am aware of Alex S........'s essay and consider it to be the best on the subject, but I take issue with the attributeless identity (e.g.- Identity as finite, but possessing no corresponding attributes to describe what is finite) that he describes, but that is for another thread.

Another point of clarification, is regarding the nature of consciousness. Are you in agreement with the statement: Because consciousness is unbounded spatially, and it is obviously part of all that exists, that because of this one example the universe cannot be spatially bounded because not all things are? I'm trying to expand on what Betsy said earlier...

"...The reason you can't get a finite mass of the universe by summing up all the masses of the things in the universe is because the universe includes a lot of things that don't have mass at all. Ditto for any other quantifiable characteristic you choose to name...."

[Stephen Speicher 0]

This is the root of my lack of understanding.  How do I understand the nature of the unboundedness of everything, when I can think of no example, no analogy, that accurately represents it.  If you admit that the analogy is imperfect, then what examples, analogies, etc. have you used to convine yourself of the validity of the spatially or temporally unbounded universe that I may not be aware of.

I have no secret stash of arguments beyond the standard Objectivist arguments and the expansion of those in Alex's brilliant essay. If you remain unconvinced in light of those arguments then I doubt that any analogy will really be that helpful. The universe is unique, so any "example" or analogy" will necessarily be imperfect.

But, if you have difficulty understanding the temporal and spatial unboundedness of the universe, then perhaps it might help if you answered a different but related question. Does the universe require a cause?

Another point of clarification, is regarding the nature of consciousness.  Are you in agreement with the statement:  Because consciousness is unbounded spatially, and it is obviously part of all that exists, that because of this one example the universe cannot be spatially bounded because not all things are?

←

I do not consider that argument relevant to the universe being spatially unbounded.

[David Cole 0]

...Does the universe require a cause?

Of course not.

I do not consider that argument relevant to the universe being spatially unbounded.

It is relevant because consciousness is within the universe and is a part of it. Betsy seems to think that a similar argument about mass is relevant as do I. In summary because not everything can be shown to have mass or more importantly some things can be show to have no mass, the mass of the universe cannot be determined, mass doesn't apply to the universe. I am saying the same thing here and solicited your comments. If consciousness doesn't have spacial boundaries, then neither does the universe since consciousness is a part of the universe. The universe would have no spacial boundary, since it can be shown that consciousness is without spacial boundaries. It is completely relevant. My question to you. Does consciousness have spacial boundaries?

[Paul's Here 0]

---------------

Does consciousness have spacial boundaries?

←

What size hat are you?

[Paul's Here 0]

Of course not.

It is relevant because consciousness is within the universe and is a part of it.  Betsy seems to think that a similar argument about mass is relevant as do I.  In summary because not everything can be shown to have mass or more importantly some things can be show to have no mass, the mass of the universe cannot be determined, mass doesn't apply to the universe.  I am saying the same thing here and solicited your comments.  If consciousness doesn't have spacial boundaries, then neither does the universe since consciousness is a part of the universe.  The universe would have no spacial boundary, since it can be shown that consciousness is without spacial boundaries.  It is completely relevant.  My question to you.  Does consciousness have spacial boundaries?

←

I think the answer is not that complicated. Do you grasp that one of the reasons the Law of Identity is an axiom is because one must use it in the act of denying it? If you grasp that, then the issue of a bounded universe is very similar. If the universe is bounded, then there must be something on the other side, else what would the boundary demarcate? Thus, putting a boundary to the universe excludes those things on the other side of the boundary, excluding them from the universe. Hence, you've contradicted yourself by saying that there is something outside of the universe. You have used the concept of "bounded universe" to exclude things within the universe.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But, if you have difficulty understanding the temporal and spatial unboundedness of the universe, then perhaps it might help if you answered a different but related question. Does the universe require a cause?

Of course not.

I was expecting a somewhat more detailed answer. The hope was that you might connect your line of reasoning in this answer with something similar in regard to the temporal and spatial unboundedness of the universe. But, if you prefer not to pursue this, that's fine.

I do not consider that argument relevant to the universe being spatially unbounded.

It is relevant because consciousness is within the universe and is a part of it.... If consciousness doesn't have spacial boundaries, then neither does the universe since consciousness is a part of the universe. The universe would have no spacial boundary, since it can be shown that consciousness is without spacial boundaries.

The conclusion is correct but the argument is fallacious, a negative form of the fallacy of composition. It is similar to saying that since the spokes of a wheel cannot roll, therefore neither can the wheel.

Does consciousness have spacial boundaries?

←

Consciousness is not itself a material object so spatial boundaries do not apply to it directly. However, in the sense that my consciousness as a faculty is confined to the boundaries of my body, then yes it is bounded in that manner.

[David Cole 0]

I think the answer is not that complicated.  Do you grasp that one of the reasons the Law of Identity is an axiom is because one must use it in the act of denying it?  If you grasp that, then the issue of a bounded universe is very similar.  If the universe is bounded, then there must be something on the other side, else what would the boundary demarcate?  Thus, putting a boundary to the universe excludes those things on the other side of the boundary, excluding them from the universe.  Hence, you've contradicted yourself by saying that there is something outside of the universe.  You have used the concept of "bounded universe" to exclude things within the universe.

←

Maybe I am making this more complicated that it needs to be. I agree with the statement about the Law of Identity, I can clearly understand how you must use it to deny it. I've heard your statements before in different ways from other people and I agree, when put this way, it makes sense. What confuses me is visualizing a boundless universe that contains bounded existents. Or more specifically, what exactly is metaphysical unboundedness? I use this term for lack of a better one. What examples can help me visualize this concept in my mind, the sphere example helps, but I end up thinking of the universe as an expanding balloon that so many modern scientists use as an example and we are on the surface of that balloon, and this isn't correct either. Unboundedness is akin to thinking about metaphysical infinity. Something breaks down in both cases when I try to think of them. Unboundedness isn't boundedness without the specific bounds stated, like length can represent any length, but it must have a length specified. It isn't metaphysical infinity. What is it exactly, and is the universe the only example of it?

@Stephen: My short response "Of course not." in a previous thread was a burst of frustration. I feel that my overall understanding of Objectivism is hampered because I don't seem to be grasping this basic metaphysical concept.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

... What examples can help me visualize this concept in my mind ...

@Stephen:  My short response "Of course not." in a previous thread was a burst of frustration.  I feel that my overall understanding of Objectivism is hampered because I don't seem to be grasping this basic metaphysical concept.

←

I wouldn't want to be the one to sort out what part of this issue is official Objectivism and what part is an extension thereof. But, regardless, I think you are too harsh on yourself in thinking that your "overall understanding of Objectivism is hampered" because of your difficulty in grasping this one issue. I think that the main reason that this aspect of metaphysics is so difficult to grasp is that, in fact, the universe is in a class of its own.

The reason I asked the question about causality and the universe was because of some similarities between that and the temporal and spatial concerns. Causality exists within the universe and it is an improper question to ask what caused the universe. To ask such a question one must step outside the universe. Similarly, to speak about the age or size of the universe is also to ask an improper question, since time and spatial boundaries exist within the universe, not outside of it. The universe cannot have a beginning or an end, neither temporally nor spatially.

If we think of the universe as bounded in time and size, then what was there before it began and what will there be when it ends, and what is on the other side of where the universe starts and ends? These questions seem nonsensical, because they are. The assumption of the universe being bounded temporally and spatially is simply wrong. The alternative of the universe being unbounded in these two respects is the only proper perspective, but you asking for "examples [that] can help me visualize this concept" is doomed, for at least two reasons. First, the universe is sui generis, with nothing else existing for a really helpful comparison or analogy. And, second, time and space are notions that do not apply to the universe itself, so any attempt to think in those terms is an anathema to visualization.

Others may not agree with this, but in one sense I would say that the universe is temporally and spatially unbounded because it cannot be bounded; stated that way it is more in terms of what the universe is not, rather than what it is. It is not bounded because time and space do not apply. If time and space do not apply, what are you trying to "visualize?" That I think is the problem.

[Paul's Here 0]

I wouldn't want to be the one to sort out what part of this issue is official Objectivism and what part is an extension thereof. But, regardless, I think you are too harsh on yourself in thinking that your "overall understanding of Objectivism is hampered" because of your difficulty in grasping this one issue. I think that the main reason that this aspect of metaphysics is so difficult to grasp is that, in fact, the universe is in a class of its own.

The reason I asked the question about causality and the universe was because of some similarities between that and the temporal and spatial concerns. Causality exists within the universe and it is an improper question to ask what caused the universe. To ask such a question one must step outside the universe. Similarly, to speak about the age or size of the universe is also to ask an improper question, since time and spatial boundaries exist within the universe, not outside of it. The universe cannot have a beginning or an end, neither temporally nor spatially.

If we think of the universe as bounded in time and size, then what was there before it began and what will there be when it ends, and what is on the other side of where the universe starts and ends? These questions seem nonsensical, because they are. The assumption of the universe being bounded temporally and spatially is simply wrong. The alternative of the universe being unbounded in these two respects is the only proper perspective, but you asking for "examples [that] can help me visualize this concept" is doomed, for at least two reasons. First, the universe is sui generis, with nothing else existing for a really helpful comparison or analogy. And, second, time and space are notions that do not apply to the universe itself, so any attempt to think in those terms is an anathema to visualization.

Others may not agree with this, but in one sense I would say that the universe is temporally and spatially unbounded because it cannot be bounded; stated that way it is more in terms of what the universe is not, rather than what it is. It is not bounded because time and space do not apply. If time and space do not apply, what are you trying to "visualize?" That I think is the problem.

←

I agree with you. One of the methods typically used to understand terms in physics is to "visualize" the concepts being discussed. One can visualize the concept "momentum" by imagining one billiard ball striking another and imparting some energy to the other and then the second starts to move. This visualization is done in areas where there are common sense experience to back it up. Way back in my school days, when I was learning many concepts in physics, this method is often used. Even in relativity, backed up by appropriate mathematical support. However, it cannot be used with respect to the universe itself. I think that a conceptual understanding is all that can be expected in much the same way that, in philosophy, no one visualizes existence only particular entities.

Attempts to "visualize" the universe have led to some really outlandish interpretations. Check out Museum of Natural History pdf. This is a summary of an exhibit at the museum. Note how the laws of identity and causality are ignored by trying to "visualize" the universe.