irrational universe?

[Faust]

I've been thinking about the whole infinite universe thing. If it's always been here and never here, can there even be nothingness? How can you visualize nothingness, empty space? But this empty space is something. It's impossible to visualize or conceive of an empty vacuum. It would be total blackness, but could u travel through this blackness? But, how do we know that the universe is rational? Maybe something can come from nothing, why not? An irrational universe can just as likely create life as a rational one couldn't it?

[Matt Gregory]

An irrational universe is a contradiction in terms because the standard of rationality is the universe itself.

Rationality is the same as consciousness, which is the same as memory, which gives us constancy and can be expressed as A=A.

The universe, when broken up into things, is nothing but change. But the universe as a whole, which includes all time, doesn't change. It's constant.

So, our rationality gives us a connection to the whole of the universe through constancy.

Tao Te Ching #16

Empty yourself of everything.
Let the mind rest at peace.
The ten thousand things rise and fall while the Self watches their return.
The grow and flourish and then return to the source.
Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.
The way of nature is unchanging.
Knowing constancy is insight.
Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.
Knowing constancy, the mind is open.
With an open mind, you will be openhearted.
Being openhearted, you will act royally.
Being royal, you will attain the divine.
Being divine, you will be at one with the Tao.
Being at one with the Tao is eternal.
And though the body dies, the Tao will never pass away.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

If the universe is irrational, there's no point in answering this question.

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

i think scientists would accept your theory of irrationality only if you could prove it chemically. Like, say, you found a way to make water turn into nothingness etc., then you could show how the universe does whatever it wants to. But i know what you are saying and one can ask the question: Is there a proven law that states that something can not result from nothing? On earth but not in every corner of the universe. I like to use the following analogy when thinking about the creation of the universe, which helps us to see how limited our senses are: there is no way that a blind man can imagine what colour looks like. he lacks the senses. there is no way we can imagine how the universe really started. we lack the senses. Anyway, i read in Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time, that the universe is said to have resulted from an INFINITELY small and INFINITELY hot and INFINITELY dense particle. I think this is wrong because as soon as an infinity is stopped it is no longer an infinity and could thus never have been an infinity ( thus you can not go from infinitely small to infinitely big or even just big ) : )[/i]

[Carl G]

An irrational universe is a contradiction in terms because the standard of rationality is the universe itself.

Rationality is the same as consciousness, which is the same as memory, which gives us constancy and can be expressed as A=A.

The universe, when broken up into things, is nothing but change. But the universe as a whole, which includes all time, doesn't change. It's constant.

So, our rationality gives us a connection to the whole of the universe through constancy.

Matt, I like your answer. It is to the point, and, I believe, accurate. A definitely useful blurb to save and ponder whenever confusion rears its head. Thanks for it.

[Matt Gregory]

Thanks Carl! I was thinking it might be too terse, but I'm glad someone got something out of it.

[Faust]

If the universe is constant, you still haven't my question about whether there can ever be 'nothingness.' since if say that the universe has always been here, we'd have to say that it was never here as well. But it's impossible to conceptualize and visualize this 'nothingness.'

[BMcGilly07]

I've been thinking about the whole infinite universe thing. If it's always been here and never here, can there even be nothingness?

Nothingness exists in contrast to something. Space is just such an example of "nothingness."

How can you visualize nothingness, empty space? But this empty space is something.

So you see that existence on the relative plane must be transcended.

It's impossible to visualize or conceive of an empty vacuum. It would be total blackness, but could u travel through this blackness? But, how do we know that the universe is rational? Maybe something can come from nothing, why not? An irrational universe can just as likely create life as a rational one couldn't it?

The question of nothingness has nothing to do with a "rational" or "irrational" universe. This is an attempt to anthropomorphize the Universe about us. Rather, the truth of the matter is that we are a microcosm of the Universe, the Universe is not a macrocosm of the human, being that the mind is fundamentally empty. The Universe is only as rational or irrational as you are, Faust13.

[Matt Gregory]

If the universe is constant, you still haven't my question about whether there can ever be 'nothingness.' since if say that the universe has always been here, we'd have to say that it was never here as well. But it's impossible to conceptualize and visualize this 'nothingness.'

How do you define "nothingness"? I don't have a problem with the concept. If I ask someone "What's on TV?" and they say "Nothing", I know exactly what they are saying. If you define it to mean "something that's impossible to conceptualize or visualize", then that's exactly what it is. I don't see what the problem is, and I don't see what this has to do with the question of the eternal nature of the universe.

[Faust]

I've been thinking about the whole infinite universe thing. If it's always been here and never here, can there even be nothingness?

Nothingness exists in contrast to something. Space is just such an example of "nothingness."

How can you visualize nothingness, empty space? But this empty space is something.

So you see that existence on the relative plane must be transcended.

It's impossible to visualize or conceive of an empty vacuum. It would be total blackness, but could u travel through this blackness? But, how do we know that the universe is rational? Maybe something can come from nothing, why not? An irrational universe can just as likely create life as a rational one couldn't it?

The question of nothingness has nothing to do with a "rational" or "irrational" universe. This is an attempt to anthropomorphize the Universe about us. Rather, the truth of the matter is that we are a microcosm of the Universe, the Universe is not a macrocosm of the human, being that the mind is fundamentally empty. The Universe is only as rational or irrational as you are, Faust13.

And how is existence on the relative plane transcended?

First you say it's an attempt to anthropomorphisize the universe, then you say the universe is only as rational or irrational as I am, come on now. So, what if some people are more irrational than others, how does that change things?

So the universe and the mind are fundamentally empty? Please be more clear in your posts.

[Faust]

How do you define "nothingness"? I don't have a problem with the concept. If I ask someone "What's on TV?" and they say "Nothing", I know exactly what they are saying. If you define it to mean "something that's impossible to conceptualize or visualize", then that's exactly what it is. I don't see what the problem is, and I don't see what this has to do with the question of the eternal nature of the universe.

It has alot to do with it. Your TV example doesn't have the same parameters as this one. If it's impossible to conceptualize and visualize, then nothingness can't exist. So if we say that the universe was always here and never here, well if it was never here, then empty space would be here, but this empty space is something, therefore the universe cannot disappear.

[Matt Gregory]

How do you define "nothingness"? I don't have a problem with the concept. If I ask someone "What's on TV?" and they say "Nothing", I know exactly what they are saying. If you define it to mean "something that's impossible to conceptualize or visualize", then that's exactly what it is. I don't see what the problem is, and I don't see what this has to do with the question of the eternal nature of the universe.

It has alot to do with it. Your TV example doesn't have the same parameters as this one. If it's impossible to conceptualize and visualize, then nothingness can't exist.

Exist as what? The whole idea behind nothingness is that it doesn't refer to anything that exists.

So if we say that the universe was always here and never here, well if it was never here, then empty space would be here, but this empty space is something, therefore the universe cannot disappear.

This problem depends on how you define "universe". If it's defined as "everything that exists", then some things that follow are:

1. It's meaningless to say that the universe is "here" because by definition there is no "there" that is outside of the universe, having been defined as including everything.
2. The concept of "always" also can't be applied to the universe because time itself is contained within the universe, so although you could say that the universe has "always" existed, I personally don't think it's ultimately a sensible thing to say because the universe encompasses both things that are dependent on time and things that are not dependent on time, like space. In short, the universe transcends time.
3. It can be logically proven that the universe "is" by the fact that we are experiencing something, thereby proving that something exists, whatever it is, and that all of these "somethings" together are defined to be the universe, and therefore it's not possible that the universe could never be here, except for in the sense implied in conclusion #1, nor can the universe ever disappear because "ever" doesn't make sense a la #2.
4. Yes, if the only thing the universe contained for all time is empty space, then that's what the universe would be.

[BMcGilly07]

And how is existence on the relative plane transcended?

Through the Truth. By following cause and effect.

First you say it's an attempt to anthropomorphisize the universe, then you say the universe is only as rational or irrational as I am, come on now. So, what if some people are more irrational than others, how does that change things? So the universe and the mind are fundamentally empty? Please be more clear in your posts.

I found it clear enough, but let me try to do better.

Cause and effect- the principle mode of creation constructs the world about us with no more reason or no more irrationality than a leave blown by the wind. However, as far as each person is concerned, theirs is the center of reality, each man lives in his own world. Just so, each man is caused either to be rational or not.

As each man as his the only perception of the universe he can make of his life one that is well-reasoned or not. Unfortunately, the majority lead irrational lives. That is why I say you can make of the universe a rational or irrational place.

[Faust]

And how is existence on the relative plane transcended?

Through the Truth. By following cause and effect.

First you say it's an attempt to anthropomorphisize the universe, then you say the universe is only as rational or irrational as I am, come on now. So, what if some people are more irrational than others, how does that change things? So the universe and the mind are fundamentally empty? Please be more clear in your posts.

I found it clear enough, but let me try to do better.

Cause and effect- the principle mode of creation constructs the world about us with no more reason or no more irrationality than a leave blown by the wind. However, as far as each person is concerned, theirs is the center of reality, each man lives in his own world. Just so, each man is caused either to be rational or not.

As each man as his the only perception of the universe he can make of his life one that is well-reasoned or not. Unfortunately, the majority lead irrational lives. That is why I say you can make of the universe a rational or irrational place.

The problem of cause and effect is that it has to stop somewhere, say for the universe. It can't be infinitely going back with causes and effects cause that implies that matter has always been here. And if matter has always been here then there's no cause, which removes the effect. Now if this removes the effect then you have to say that the universe was never here as well. but it's impossible to conceive or visualize of 'nothingness' because empty space is something.

Now you're saying that reality is subjective, but I don't think that's right cause then you can't say anything about Truth. So i don't think that each man lives in his own world, there's only one world. So you can't say that the universe is irrational/rational according to the person, it would remove the concept of 'ultimate' reality.

[BMcGilly07]

The problem of cause and effect is that it has to stop somewhere, say for the universe. It can't be infinitely going back with causes and effects cause that implies that matter has always been here.

This is an example of the logical fallacy 'begging the question,' you're begging the question why can't cause and effect go infinitely back in time?

And if matter has always been here then there's no cause, which removes the effect.

According to Einstein's formula= E=mc^2 clearly shows that matter is in fact energy at a different vibration. In the grand scheme of things they are in fact the same thing. Should you divide matter and energy into two different categories, cause and effect would still be present in a world of pure energy.

Now if this removes the effect then you have to say that the universe was never here as well. but it's impossible to conceive or visualize of 'nothingness' because empty space is something.

Even nothingness is something or else we could not point to it. Everything is something via contrasting it versus something else.

You are correct that even space is something, but in the sensual world 'space' is the closest approximation of 'nothingness' that I can think of.

Now you're saying that reality is subjective, but I don't think that's right cause then you can't say anything about Truth. So i don't think that each man lives in his own world, there's only one world. So you can't say that the universe is irrational/rational according to the person, it would remove the concept of 'ultimate' reality.

To each man his is his own universe. Nothing relevant can be said of a universe removed of consciousness. Being that existence itself requires consciousness, we see the important role each man plays in the universe, so truly any attribution of rationality or irrationality to the universe depends on the consciousness which observes it. Is each consciousness led by reason, or by irrational emotional reactions? That is what I meant when showing that the only relevant attribution of rationality or irrationality to the universe depends on your own rationality or irrationality.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

The ancient Greeks were fascinated with the idea of the "void" or "nothingness", as the seeming empirical need for such a thing contrasted with their (with all due respect) ignorant views regarding logic and the philosophy of language. To them it seemed that the void couldn't exist due to the fact that if it were truly nothing, then it would certainly be something, and thus a paradox. Nevertheless, it also seemed to them that motion would be impossible if there were not empty space for things to move into. It would seem to me that one could simply respond that "nothing" doesn't exist, but that incorporeal somethings do. Such a response was supposedly formulated by Democritus who first came up with the notion of atoms several hundred years before the common era. It is incredibly ironic that the worlds first materialist should also be the first to suggest that something can exist without possessing a body, although I'd be the last to suggest that irony invalidates an opinion.

Is the universe rational? The Greeks would have probably responded that the universe we see with our senses obviously isn't, and thus that our senses must be deceptive. Although, we must keep in mind that such a mindset is mystical in nature, and owes itself largely to the Pythagorean reforms to Orphic beliefs, that on one hand praised the wonders of mathematics, well at the same time condemning the eating of beans as perhaps the gravest of sins against the Gods. A more modern answer to the question at hand would be to suggest that the universe is rational in the sense that it can be understood to a degree at least sufficient to make some accurate predictions as to what will happen within it using logic, but that logic must seemingly never stray too far from observation due to the unreliable nature of the tool.

[Faust]

The ancient Greeks were fascinated with the idea of the "void" or "nothingness", as the seeming empirical need for such a thing contrasted with their (with all due respect) ignorant views regarding logic and the philosophy of language. To them it seemed that the void couldn't exist due to the fact that if it were truly nothing, then it would certainly be something, and thus a paradox. Nevertheless, it also seemed to them that motion would be impossible if there were not empty space for things to move into. It would seem to me that one could simply respond that "nothing" doesn't exist, but that incorporeal somethings do. Such a response was supposedly formulated by Democritus who first came up with the notion of atoms several hundred years before the common era. It is incredibly ironic that the worlds first materialist should also be the first to suggest that something can exist without possessing a body, although I'd be the last to suggest that irony invalidates an opinion.

Is the universe rational? The Greeks would have probably responded that the universe we see with our senses obviously isn't, and thus that our senses must be deceptive. Although, we must keep in mind that such a mindset is mystical in nature, and owes itself largely to the Pythagorean reforms to Orphic beliefs, that on one hand praised the wonders of mathematics, well at the same time condemning the eating of beans as perhaps the gravest of sins against the Gods. A more modern answer to the question at hand would be to suggest that the universe is rational in the sense that it can be understood to a degree at least sufficient to make some accurate predictions as to what will happen within it using logic, but that logic must seemingly never stray too far from observation due to the unreliable nature of the tool.

indeed.

[Faust]

The problem of cause and effect is that it has to stop somewhere, say for the universe. It can't be infinitely going back with causes and effects cause that implies that matter has always been here.

This is an example of the logical fallacy 'begging the question,' you're begging the question why can't cause and effect go infinitely back in time?

And if matter has always been here then there's no cause, which removes the effect.

According to Einstein's formula= E=mc^2 clearly shows that matter is in fact energy at a different vibration. In the grand scheme of things they are in fact the same thing. Should you divide matter and energy into two different categories, cause and effect would still be present in a world of pure energy.

Now if this removes the effect then you have to say that the universe was never here as well. but it's impossible to conceive or visualize of 'nothingness' because empty space is something.

Even nothingness is something or else we could not point to it. Everything is something via contrasting it versus something else.

You are correct that even space is something, but in the sensual world 'space' is the closest approximation of 'nothingness' that I can think of.

Now you're saying that reality is subjective, but I don't think that's right cause then you can't say anything about Truth. So i don't think that each man lives in his own world, there's only one world. So you can't say that the universe is irrational/rational according to the person, it would remove the concept of 'ultimate' reality.

To each man his is his own universe. Nothing relevant can be said of a universe removed of consciousness. Being that existence itself requires consciousness, we see the important role each man plays in the universe, so truly any attribution of rationality or irrationality to the universe depends on the consciousness which observes it. Is each consciousness led by reason, or by irrational emotional reactions? That is what I meant when showing that the only relevant attribution of rationality or irrationality to the universe depends on your own rationality or irrationality.

No I'm saying that to have an infinite chain of causality you will need matter that has always been here, and there's no cause for this matter to have always been here, which goes against causality. The universe's apparent infinite chain is then caused by nothing, which means chance, which again means that causality is refuted.

Again no you cannot say that the universe is rational just because you decide to think rationally, there's no obvious link between the two. there's only one objective ultimate reality which includes the universe, so you cannot say that the universe is changed by our thinking. Also, what if I'm rational and irrational? Maybe the universe is both, as Expectantly Ironic says, logic is a good tool, but it certainly cannot prove everything, that's for damn sure.

[Bilby]

Science has a different view of nothingness to our general experience on Earth. In a particle accelerator, if a particle is bombarded with enough force, it splits into a particle and its anti-particle. Some people think at the Big Bang there was an explosion of equal numbers of particles and anti-particles. If a particle equates to a positive number and an anti-particle its negative equivalent, maybe both together equal nothingness, which may have been the state of the universe before the Big Bang. A deeper question is what set off the homogenous state of nothingness -which had until then been concentrated into a single point - into the state of tension that led to the Big Bang’s explosion. Maybe this was the first stirring of consciousness.

A true vacuum would be where there are no particles at all, so by definition, no universe. If all of the matter in the universe is bounded, then whatever is outside of this boundary would be non-universe. Any stray light beam, for instance, could theoretically extend the universe’s boundary by escaping beyond it, but it’s probably not likely because the further towards the outer reaches you go, the more likely gravity would pull you back in. You would have the sum gravitational pull of the universe on one side, and complete nothingness on the other. So you can see how difficult it would be breaking this barrier. Because of this, I don’t think there’s a vacuum “out there”.

The more interesting question is whether the universe is rational or not. I don’t see any universal point or purpose to life, apart from the human perspective. As people, we and the people we love are very important to us, but in the scheme of things, it’s hard to see any universal significance. I think life is a result of consciousness. Prior to the Big Bang, there was apparently complete uniformity of energy/matter, but something set if off. Maybe this thing was the first thought. Thought in this case, meaning particulate activity that spurred on what had been previously, a complete state of entropy. Maybe the natural state of the universe is to be constantly moving, so if there had been a transient state of entropy, thought would have to evolve simply to get things moving. Without thought, nothing moves. If nothing moves, there’s no particulate activity. If there’s no particulate activity, there’s no time. If all of the energy had been concentrated into a single point prior to the Big Bang, there’d be no space either. Thought then, would be rational in the sense that it follows causal laws the same as all other particulate matter, but not rational or irrational in the human sense.