What IS the Universe? >"It's le Universe duh"

It's le Universe duh

>>8201696
Le Universe duh. It's a set of all sets that are members of themselves, including energy and matter; basically EVERYTHING.

>So if you could zoom back and see the whole Universe, what would it be and what is it doing?
A singularity

Carl sagan just fucked with me.
>reading about googol
>there are claimed to be 10^80 particles in the universe
>carl sagan gets his troll on
>"it would take 10^128 to fill up the entire universe with particles"
How the fuck would you fill up infinity?

File: Zoomout.jpg (681KB, 800x7200px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 800x7200px

>>8201703
You obviously know nothing. Let's zoom out and find out pic related

File: no.jpg (108KB, 513x388px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 513x388px

>>8201701
>>8201702
>>8201703

>>8201706
By universe, we usually refer to the observable universe. So it would take x ammount of particles to fill up the observable universe.

>>8201696
>see the whole Universe
Brainlet detected

I suspect that the phenomenon known as space is composed of some manner of thing or stuff. One of these days we'll have a name for a unit of space.

>>8201707
It's so fucking unfair that it has to be so big and we're stuck here.

>>8201696
>look up information on what the universe expands into
>all sources I can find just say "it just works :^)"

Everywhere in space that has energy or matter in it. There is no "outside", just space that is empty.

File: b8.jpg (54KB, 670x503px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 670x503px

>>8201696
>if you could zoom back and see the whole Universe

>>8201732
I think it would be far worse to see an edge to all this.
Also, OP
if you zoomed out, what? that question shows a misunderstanding of it. zoom, is relative to subjective view. You'd have to just keep zooming back, until it's a random incoherent mess. if you could see in a direction for forever, your vision would always run into some fundamental particle. it's just a fact of how far away it is. Zooming out "all the way" is equal becoming aware of everything possible. Like, to really understand a view of the entire universe, one would have to think about every possible thing and infinite recursions of those thoughts. This all of course relies on the universe being infinite. which, what the fuck reason is there to assume there's just exactly the stuff within our effective sphere of information. The observable universe itself, is expanding. The mere idea of relativity makes the universe as I described it, the most likely assumption a human mind can make at this time given knowledge of fundamental laws.

>>8201696
Why dont you people atleast attempt to do some reading before posting

>>8201696
>So if you could zoom back and see the whole Universe,
Good luck zooming out past infinity.

>>8201696
I made a thread about this some time ago, and people ended up falling back on "depends on your frame of reference" and "light is part of the universe so how would you see anything :^)". Obviously missing the point. I made it a bit more abstract though, as a universe in a glass box. And what would the contents of that box look like to its observer.

Good luck with your thread. Unless /sci/'s demographic has changed greatly in the last year, don't waste your time.

>>8201729
No, because it would always change due to relativity and infinite expansion. If anything, it would have to be relative to strength relations between forces. That's the only real way to tell what scale you're on. which we already have by the way, pleb. space, being infinite and only subjectively measured, relies on the universal constant c. Using this, one can always tell what speed of time they're experiencing relative to fundamental functions of space. that is why the following is true. if a human was larger, just made up of more atoms and cells, they couldn't love due to the forces of the universe being imbalanced at that point. You'd need a larger heart relative to your size to pump enough blood to keep human cells alive. same if a human was much smaller, say an inch tall. there just wouldn't be enough room between atoms and cells. the forces keeping atoms from collapsing would overpower eachother and balance will be lost again, but in the opposite direction. Meaning, cells forced to be that close together to make a human, are very dense. they'd be crushed. Measuring is about density anon. Using this, one can determine what cosmic scale they're on subjectively.

>>8202363
It does depend on your frame of reference though. you're just too stubborn and unable to see past what it means to be a subjective viewer in an infinite grid. there is no glass box big enough to fit it, because glass boxes are finite objects that require a space to exist within. it's an expanding extra dimentional shape, only possible to be one of three shapes to line up with what we observe. spherical and finite, flat and infinite, or curved like an extradimentianal saddle and infinite. You could try to wish for a box big enough to fit the universe. Ya know what would happen? it's impossible to even wish for it. the more you describe any finite area of space and time, the more time it takes for you to think about it. being able to view subjectively, from the outside, would require the ability to affect more than one area of space at a single instant, breaking the universal constant. which is impossible. you'd have to be massless to see the whole universe. If you're an entity made up of matter, there's no possible way to fit that amount of information into any Period of time.

>>8202386
>It does depend on your frame of reference though.
You're "outside" and apart from the universe, it cannot depend on your frame of reference the same way it would if you were within it. From this hypothetical, our universe is somehow a (possibly irreducible) subset of the one you're within, with laws that match well enough to be a decent comparison.

>viewer in an infinite grid.
-I don't think the universe is infinite, I don't think the universe has infinite state, and I don't think it's apt to have infinite positions.
-But it could. Even so, we don't know if subdivision in our own universe is infinite. We think it's not, it acts quanitzed, logically you'd think it's quantized, but we don't know. You could have infinite things inside seemingly finite spaces right now. It's all about your assumptions of what comprises "scale".

>flat and infinite
Flat does not necessarily imply infinite. I have no problem thinking there may be a true "edge". I also don't think something that loops back on itself is infinite.

>Rest
Is assumptions about the nature of this observer. Which is not the point, and only cluttering the core dialogue.

There is no such thing as the universe because there is no such thing as observer-independent reality. It's a circular conception from times when a soul was thought to exist.

>>8201733
>it's a "brainley thinks reality has to conform to his retard-tier ability to understand it" episode

>>8202397
There is no outside.

>>8202397
Flat, as a mathematical shape is infinite, you're showing a misunderstanding of geometry. if you go one direction on a truly flat plane in a mathematical sense, you'll never see space that you've seen before. what do you think, is this thing stopping the expansion of the universe? We understand that space itself is expanding, why do you think it's finite, what reasons do you have? My reasoning for belief in an infinite universe is stated in one of the posts above (that I don't care to link because I'm on mobile). you require an idea of space to even say that you can be "outside" of the universe. when you're outside of space, where the fuck are you? Do you really think you can exist without space? You are a direct product of space and time, as such, you cannot model in your brain what it means to have an infinite grid. Even if the observable universe stops at some point and doesn't expand further, it's expanding currently. Faster and faster. If the universe was finite, this act of expansion would be impossible. If the universe is infinite, the act of expansion is required for it to make sense subjectively at all. The universe, is most likely infinite from what we see. Space, does not act quantized. Matter might, but energy is the counterpart in our univers of duality. Everything has a negative side, matter is finite, and the grid it is imbedded into expands at every single point at a rate we happen to see over time. Mathematically, a finite universe is the geometric shape of a sphere, as described in the theory of relativity. this is possible, but based several things such as expansion, time, the relation between matter and space and the universal constant. all of this is necessary for an infinite universe. Yeah, it could be finite, but there'd be no direct reason all of the above observations are made. The reasons for these observations are adequately met by a 4th dimentional saddle shape

>>8202441
Prove it :^)

>>8202443
>Flat, as a mathematical shape is infinite
We're talking logically here. The universe need not be slave to our conventional notions of space and formalized geometry, despite it being what we modeled it after.

For example:
>if you go one direction on a truly flat plane in a mathematical sense, you'll never see space that you've seen before.
Your assumption is that the universe is infinite and has to "work" spatially. It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't have to give a damn about anything. There could be some random unremarkable point where it just loops back to the corresponding point on the opposite side, and we would be none the wiser.

The universe need not be a geometrical object. This core assumption, while having a logical basis, is not logically a basic axiom.

>when you're outside of space, where the fuck are you?
Don't know, I've never been there. I don't even know if any of the logic afforded by our universe's laws even applies there. You say "where", does location necessarily have meaning? No.

>Mathematically, a finite universe is the geometric shape of a sphere,
Math is not the core of logic.

>>8202455
>Prove it

The Universe is usually defined as "everything that exists". If there was some outside, it would mean that it exists too. Therefore it would be part of the Universe.

>>8202463
>x is defined as
>semantics
The OP covered this, and rightfully so. Your definition of universe isn't useful, that's why it's been changed. In 10 years, everyone will be on a similar page.

>>8202455
But math is logic, for everything we can describe the universe with. Logic is just a system of rules that must be consistent. So yes, you can rely on things that are inconsistent if you want, but that doesn't mean that it's what is objectively and mathematically the possibility. it's inconsistent that a universe can be finite and yet expand Spacially

>>8202474
>But math is logic,
No, math is logical. Logic is not math, not by a long shot.
>more idiosyncratic definitions
Look guy, words have meanings. Acquaint yourself with them.

>>8202472
OP provided no reasons why this definition of Universe is wrong. He doesn't like it, or maybe doesn't understand it, but this doesn't change anything, it's still valid. OP is simply being a faggot.

>>8201696
>What IS the Universe?
If we knew. There would wouldn't be science.
>So if you could zoom back and see the whole Universe, what would it be and what is it doing?
Hold on...
>zoom back and see the whole Universe
What? Are you stoopid? It's infinite in the 'size' that you'd zoom out in to see "the whole Universe."
>what would it be
Who knows. See the above answer and my first answer.
>what is it doing?
Everything at once.(in every sense of that statement)

>>8202483
I just gave you reasons. There ya go. Work with it.

Why, oh fucking why, would we consider something we can't access, can't use, possibly can't measure, and that likely has different laws, part of the same whole as us? The same unit?

We wouldn't.

>>8202494
We can, by a nice name "everything". Or, as some people put it, "the Universe".

>>8202500
ur dum tho
xd!!!!!!!!!!

>>8201696
It would be doing the impossible and breaking the unbreakable

https://youtu.be/7XbeVosPszo

eng
https://youtu.be/7CXNa_m52r0

It's made of a lot of different kinds of electrons.

>>8202492
This is an accurate discriptor the physical universe through scientifically likely theories

File: 1467303841642.png (34KB, 769x733px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 769x733px

>>8201696
How much philosophy do you want in your answer?

Its an idea that is ill fitting for what its attempting to describe.

>>8201696
The Universe is all of nature that conforms to the laws of physics. If it doesn't go by our physics, it is not in our universe.

The jury is out on whether or not alternate timelines are a part of our universe, though.

>>8202814
Thanks for being intelligent, Anon.

>>8202682
Two 2s

>>8201709
>>>>2006

>>8202814
Yeah but we didn't even have gravity until Newton's invention so wouldn't that mean that the universe before like 1800 didn't exist?

File: tmp_19510-20160713_221354119969545.png (280KB, 1226x717px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1226x717px

>2016
>f3
>"Higgs"
>no results

>>8201696
>So if you could zoom back and see the whole Universe, what would it be and what is it doing?

It's literally all in your head.

>>8202840
The Higgs field does not give particles their mass. It acts as a range limiter and is what causes the weak force to drop off so quickly.

Though I don't much about particle physics, so I could be wrong. I was under the impression relative oscillations in the gluon field are what generated mass related behaviors.

>>8202845
There is no such thing as mass, it's all energy and force being expressed in different ways.
The force of gravity is what gives things mass.

File: 451151515115.jpg (46KB, 513x478px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 513x478px

>>8202843

>>8201703
From one perspective yes.

Take a solid sphere for example. If you move back far enough, you would see it a an arbitrarily small dot,or a point. Going further away past that distance there would be "nothing" as far as you could tell. Moving closer and closer, the point would start to appear as a sphere and when you're so close you cannot view it as a whole you will only see a surface, and then if you get so close you will only see an atom which can be considered a point.
>>8202443
Mathematically speaking, since the observable universe is in the shape of a plane, and the plane can be characterized by the set of all points existing in that plane, can you not exist outside of the universe by being on a point not included in the set?
I agree with everything else you have to say, but humans can only conceptually think in the three dimensions intuitively, it takes algebraic expressions to help "visualize" spaces higher than that.
>>8202455
Sure, math isn't the core of logic but I fail to see why you can't use a logical process to define the shape of the universe. You could try and rely on empirical induction, that surely is logical as well, to try and define the universe. In doing so you only have a partial and in no way completely rectifiable view of the shape of the universe. At this point your train of thought is just conjecture and there's no way to back up your statements other than to bring up hypothetical contradictions that you can't possibly prove.

>>8202847
No, the force of gravity gives things weight.

>>8203024
>Sure, math isn't the core of logic but I fail to see why you can't use a logical process to define the shape of the universe.
You can. You just can't use the rest of the logical framework to claim you're presenting the truth of how the universe actually is. At such a point your framework and mode of reasoning is no more valid, nor substantiated, than my own. Obviously I think my positions are more substantial and reasonable than yours, but stripping things, what I just said really is the core of the matter.

To put it on a very honest and personal level, people who selectively ignore, or are as yet incapable of acknowledging the full spectrum of possibilities, are just stupid. There's something very unfortunate there, something is wrong with them. To deny possibility despite it being within your means to understand, is really a pitiful state of affairs.

An argument via apparent probability and one's personal inclination, is a much better approach. It gets to the base logic that's actually relevant and leads to a substantive exchange of ideas in a "language" both parties can benefit from.

>>8201696
It is something that exists.

>>8203041
I never denied the other possibilities, I only stated that it would be extremely difficult or even impossible to give any evidence for them. Then, even with evidence, you would have to have enough to gain firm ground in your reasoning in order to base the shape of the universe off of the findings.

For example, most people consider it fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, even if they have no knowledge of the Earth's rotation or revolutions around the sun. Their reasoning however is still sound because each day the sun rises from one horizon and sets on the other. With each passing day their reasoning becomes increasingly sound that after a given amount of time and with enough observational evidence collected, it can be regarded as fact.

If you think your statements are more substantial than mine, and say that I selectively ignore or incapable of acknowledging possibilities then I would like to see where the universe not working spatially or not being considered as a geometric object have produced any tangible results. Specifically results that give us a more complete picture of how the universe works. Viewing the universe as the geometry of a space is what makes the Theory of Relativity and the construction of space-time easy to conceptualize. Using Riemannian geometry, the General Theory of Relativity uses this to describle that light travels along geodesics, and the curvature of space is determined by the nature of the matter that fills it. Categorizing the universe in a geometric sense has been extremely useful in optics and general theory of wave propagation as well.

>>8202827
>fuck Newton
>if he hadn't invented gravity, I could just fly everywhere
>...
>piece of shit

>>8201733
>what the universe expands into
wow, thats pretty dumb

>>8201696

the universe doesn't describe all of what we see in the night sky, just merely what we can observe

simply we only know what we can see

>>8201696
maybe you will find out that 'universe' isn't an accurate description at all, that it isnt a circle or a sphere or anything like that, that 'nothing' is, in fact, nothing at all and that everything in it is a bigger version of the smaller parts.. but I could/surely am, wrong D:

File: 1442705420330.gif (4MB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 512x384px

Could it be that in any dust particle there is another universe with "planets", life, etc.? So you could "zoom in" forever as well?

>>8203599
in theory

>>8203599
No. Plank length.