Thus when LogicWings states that Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing! he is not speaking of that which is but the word that represents what he believes is that which is.
Yes, to a certain degree. I actually intend more than just this, but this is what leads to your objections.
And he is wrong on both sides. First, the word "universe" is not the universe. His last sentence would indicate that he understands this but if so then why not finish the sentence, i.e. "The word 'universe' is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists."
My, my you are picky. You should be picking apart Godwin's assertion that because we don't completely understand the Universe "science has its own set of names for things it does not understand, names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" — for what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?" that we (or science) have no right to use the concept. (That is what this quote implies to me. How you read it is up to you.) And this is what I was objecting to.
Thus the following is a misunderstanding on your part of what I meant:
Even so he is wrong on the second as well for the "universe" is finite according to the above science which means it is a subset of "all that there is."
Some of this is semantic. I prefer my Webster's unabridged definition of universe, it is more all encompassing.
1) The totality of known and supposed objects and phenomenon; all existing things, including the earth and all its creatures, the heavenly bodies, and all else throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
I find it funny that your formulation above for the "universe" is finite according to the above science which means it is a subset of "all that there is." actually refutes the Godwin's above quote. How can you make such categorically absolute statements about the nature of the Universe if it isn't a valid concept? Thank you.
For instance, mathematical structures exist outside of space and time (Tegmark). Indeed according to Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe model, things "in" space/time are manifestations of those mathematical structures.
As another example, manifestations of pi exist throughout space/time - but pi is outside space/time. Pi is not "in" the universe or multi-verse and yet it is.
As a theoretical construct fine, as a literal one – NOT! A creature bound by the space-time continuum has no means by which to determine that anything exists outside of that space-time continuum except upon a hypothetical basis.
Funny thing, in checking something about Tegmark I found the following:
Are there infinitely many other stars, or does space connect back on itself? Most of my colleagues assume it is infinite and the data supports this, but we don't know yet.
and
For instance, measurements of the cosmic background radiation (the echo left over from the big bang) indicate that the space we live in is infinite and that matter is spread randomly throughout it. Therefore, all possible arrangements of matter must exist out there somewhere—including exact and inexact replicas of our own world and the beings in it.
Oh, and he makes explicitly clear that the Parallel Universe Models are theoretical at this point.
Oh, I can't wait to see what THIS implies to you. :)
"..."It is only in human understanding that the cosmos becomes a universe in the full sense."
"The really strange thing, as Aquinas observed, is that "the perfection of the entire universe can exist in one of its parts."
"That would be us.
"It is only in human understanding that the cosmos becomes a universe in the full sense." In other words, the "end" of the causal chain cannot be found in the endless horizontal iterations of abstract matter, but in our concrete vertical understanding. Which is another way of saying in truth, specifically, the truth of being.
"... it is only our understanding of the cosmos that makes it possible. For if we couldn't understand it, surely we wouldn't be here. The ultimate cause of the cosmos is its truth, a truth we may know and renew in the timeless ground of the intellect. So when I say that "I caused the universe," I am not really making any special claim for myself. Now and again I do it all the timeless. "
Yes, I am picky and I am speaking to your assertions, not Godwin's.
If it were possible, I would speak in mathematics because that is the most precise language known to me. And I prefer the Oxford Dictionary for definitions.
There, the word "universe" is first defined in the context of science, e.g. astrophysics and physical cosmology. If we were speaking in math terms we would say "universal set" not just "universe" and we would specify the system.
But of course the word "universe" is also used in casual conversation - Oxford's second definition - there it may entail considerably more or less than either science or math.
I suspect that is context for the use of term in philosophy and theology but in that case the boundaries of scientific investigation, methodological naturalism, would not apply anyway.
Also, your quotes from Tegmark sound as if he is speaking of Everett's many worlds cosmology. Do you have a link?