How do you give a definition to "everything"?

Benj96

The universe.
What shape is it? What colour is it? How does it smell, taste, feel, sound and look like? How heavy is it? How big is it? Where is it? What does it contain? Is there something outside it? What can you do with it? What can it do to you? What's its function? Where did it come from? How does it work? What's your relationship to it?

In essence. How do you define the "whole" when the act of defining is intrinsically restrictive/reductive?

When we define we make distinctions, classifications, categorisations, delineation, discriminations. We compartmentalise - characterise components by comparison. And simultaneously we create the components (by defining them) for the process of comparison (defining the relationship between definitions).

A perplexing case of affairs indeed.

If the universe is 1 - "the whole", then any of its components are fractions of 1 brought about by the act of focusing/ defining/comparing.

It seems then that there is no definition for the universe. It is "definitionless" as a single thing. Because any act of defining (fractioning) falls short of 1.

The irony is that all we ever do, every waking moment of our lives, every single person, since the beginning of humanity is "defining the universe" - its in tasting a cup go coffee, in judging someone's character, in work, in leisure time. Making definitions is everywhere. It's experience. It seems to be the art of consciousness. Which in itself seems equally difficult to define as a singular entity.

We haven't done a bad job at defining the universe however. And some definitions are so general and "universal" (excuse the pun) that they do pretty well: energy, time, matter and space. We have gotten it down to 4 components that make up the definition of "everything".

However, these concepts are in themselves pretty vague - we neither know exactly what the four of them are in isolation, their true specific natures, we only grasp them by comparison with the others. We know "sort of" what time is because of the other three. And vice versa.

But reducing these 4 basic components to 3 or 2 or the ultimate goal 1 (a theory of everything) by relationship or origin, seems increasingly impossible.

invicta

As far as the definition of the universe is concerned I see only one problem with it. If the universe is everything that is and it IS expanding …what is it expanding to or into ?

In the everyday sense however definitions are much more straightforward and less controversial such as the definition of a cat, a table, a car etc

Edit: although recently the definition of Woman has come into question by some fringe lunatics …but let’s not go there.

Ruminant

↪Benj96

We should start by describing and not explaining like Wittgenstein suggests.

I could start describing a universe and only get so far. The notion that someone disagrees with that description would likely arise and they contribute another description of the universe.

As more descriptions are added and subtracted the universe starts to reveal itself. It seems to me that the final description would still be unsatisfying; and I’m satisfied with this mystery.

Benj96

↪invicta

Well, of course I can't give you a definitive answer to that.

I can however offer some considerations.
There's only 3 options really:

1). The universe is truly expanding, but not into anything "else" but rather itself
2). The universe is truly expanding, and it is into "something else"
3). The universe is not truly expanding and its some illusory phenomenon or human error.

As for 3). There's many possible cases:
a). We might have designed our instruments wrong, having not factored in some property of physics and how it interacts with the measurement. The measurement is incorrect
b). The measurement is correct, but we are making false deductions/conclusions because of perhaps some unknown variable yet to be discovered.
c). The measurement is in violation of some law (speed of light/relativity maybe) and the expansion is merely an illusion of perception caused by that.

There are many visual illusions that work on all people (with sight obvs) like mirages, refraction, and all those optical ones you can find on Google images.

All of these possibilities and any I have omitted should be pursued and given due consideration by the scientific community. Maybe we will narrow down the truth. Maybe we won't.

180 Proof

How do you define the "whole" when the act of defining is intrinsically restrictive/reductive? — Benj96

We philosophizers don't, wrong question. Rather "the whole" – universe – might be described as (the) observable, expanding, unbounded debris-field of exploding or colliding stars, galaxies-devouring super-massive black holes, extreme radiations, gravity waves, nebulae, micro-meteorites, dust, percolating vacua & intergalactic voids wherein all observers are part(icipant)s. Possibly there is no defined, or defineable, "whole", just an encompassing expanse infinite in all directions, and what's quaintly called "universe", or kosmos, is just an ocean-wave on the ocean of xaos (Hesiod) (or an infinite mode of attributes of eternal substance ~Spinoza). How do deep sea fish "define" the whole of the sea? :zip:

Anyway, Benj, to quote a snippet of my own confusion on "the whole" (the real) itself:

the real (e.g. existence) encompasses reasoning (e.g. naturalism); therefore, reasoning cannot encompass (i.e. causally explain) the real — 180 Proof, excerpt from profile

Vera Mont

How do you define the "whole" when the act of defining is intrinsically restrictive/reductive? — Benj96

We don't. We describe and name the things with which we come into contact, events we witness, sensations we experience. We don't compartmentalize down from the whole; we find commonalities among the many specifics that we come to understand in some way and group them into larger and larger collective categories.
We, as all sentient beings, experience from the center - self - outward. The more remote from self something (anything - a heavenly body, a cosmic event, a concept, a very big number) is, the less clear its definition in our minds. My morning toast is far more real - has more shape, colour, texture, weight, significance - than Saturn, which is more real than Andromeda. The universe, or everything, is a mere nebulous idea that barely registers on my consciousness.

Benj96

The more remote from self something (anything - a heavenly body, a cosmic event, a concept, a very big number) is, the less clear its definition in our minds — Vera Mont

Absolutely agree.

The universe, or everything, is a mere nebulous idea that barely registers on my consciousness. — Vera Mont

Quite right. So in our pursuit of meaning, primary mover/god/a theory of everything/ creation, the most fundamental concepts and things, we are grasping at straws. Because they're so far removed from our tiny, insignificant and restricted daily experience that such concepts are truly "nebulous" as you correctly pointed out.

It begs the question, is it even possible to delve into that level understanding? As in, will we ever understand the true nature of reality? Is it worth pursuing? Or is it so incomprehensible that it is innately and permanently shrouded in mystery, a mystery we may never solve.

Personally, if this is the case it doesn't disenfranchise me from my musings. I love a good mystery. As most people do. If there is a God we crave understanding it/him/her.

And if there is no God but rather a set of physical laws, we no less crave to define them and their relationship to all things. If the mystery is basically unapproachable it adds to the zest of life.

Others may disagree. We want to "know it". We try to know it. But we have been trying for millenia to little avail.

Maybe reality is only a personal interpretation and nothing more. Out of reach of out tools to understand it fully.

What do you think?

Benj96

↪180 Proof

an excellent answer to the OP. Enjoyed it thoroughly and I agree pretty much in entirety. You articulated it very well.

Now, how do we proceed as humanity with that in mind? If we cannot approach any clear grasp of the whole, if our reasoning capacity innately falls short of the true nature of things due to being a subset of it, what ought we do? Do we persist in understanding more?

Where is the cut-off of futility where there little point in trying to delve deeper, know more?

Vera Mont

It begs the question, is it even possible to delve into that level understanding? — Benj96

Certainly! It's not about the gold, it's about the delving.

Or is it so incomprehensible that it is innately and permanently shrouded in mystery, a mystery we may never solve. — Benj96

Probably. That's what makes it such fun to poke, probe, theorize, muse, speculate, make up stories and talk in endless tail-chewing circles about. Besides, we prefer to call reality incomprehensible rather than admit the limits of our comprehension.

And if there is no God but rather a set of physical laws, we no less crave to define them and their relationship to all things. — Benj96

That's not what gods are for. This great big creator of the whole damn universe deity is a recent, contentious and unsatisfactory innovation, and much less useful than the old gods who were so recognizable we could paint them on walls and pots; they selected their favoured people and knew exactly where to throw a thunderbolt or downpour of blood. While Zeus was busy making out with some princess, Daedalus was busy inventing flight; intellectual, practical and spiritual quests used to walk hand-in-hand.

Maybe reality is only a personal interpretation and nothing more. — Benj96

It needs to be more, because if it wasn't, there would be nothing to interpret and nobody to interpret it. We only feel as if we were each a center of the universe.

Benj96

Besides, we prefer to call reality incomprehensible rather than admit the limits of our comprehension. — Vera Mont

Oh how insightful. An eloquent statement. I hadn't thought about it that way before very good.

Daedalus was busy inventing flight; intellectual, practical and spiritual quests used to walk hand-in-hand. — Vera Mont

Yes I think the gods of old were more "human" as in more relatable than the modern concept, especially the modern monotheistic cases.

Benj96

We only feel as if we were each a center of the universe. — Vera Mont

Ah yes the crux of ego. Me myself and I.

Its very refreshing to converse with a rigorous and measured philosopher like yourself. How you qualify your responses has depth, insight and challenge. These are the discussions i'm here for.

Jamal

↪Benj96

In philosophy, and perhaps in art as well, the all-encompassing term is the world, and this is different from the universe, which is an object of science. There are things that exist in the world, like unicorns, Sancho Panza, and arguably justice, love, and numbers, which do not exist in the universe.

This is the view of Markus Gabriel, explained in Why the World Does Not Exist. I like his position on this. He says that although the world does not exist, everything else does:

There are planets, my dreams, evolution, the toilet flush, hair loss, hopes, elementary particles, and even unicorns on the far side of the moon, to mention only a few examples. The principle that the world does not exist entails that everything else exists.

From this point of view, the universe is smaller than the world. The universe is a scientific category, and the world, which is the “everything” you refer to, is just the field of all possible existences within it. The field of possible existence cannot itself be said to exist. A thing exists in a domain—the domain of physical things or the domain of mathematics or the domain of fictional characters—but the world is just the domain of all domains.

So the everything is the container of all containers in which things can be said to exist—but this means it doesn’t make sense to say that this super-container itself exists, because it’s the condition of all existence. But that is a definition, which is what you’re looking for.

Vera Mont

So the everything is the container of all containers in which things can be said to exist—but this means it doesn’t make sense to say that this super-container itself exists, because it’s the condition of all existence. But that is a definition, which is what you’re looking for. — Jamal

Wonderful!

Its very refreshing to converse with a rigorous and measured philosopher like yourself. How you qualify your responses has depth, insight and challenge. These are the discussions i'm here for. — Benj96

Why is there no blushing emoji? Thank you.

Fooloso4

How do you give a definition to everything? We don't. We don't have enough time. A bad joke loosely based on a salacious joke about cows and an enthusiastic bull.

180 Proof

↪Vera Mont

:blush:

Now, how do we proceed as humanity with that in mind? — Benj96

We continue putting one foot in front of the other through the darkness while providing our own light.

If we cannot approach any clear grasp of the whole, if our reasoning capacity innately falls short of the true nature of things due to being a subset of it, what ought we do?

Tell ourselves more probative stories which also challenge us to go on in spite of the not-All.

Do we persist in understanding more?

Maybe. I'd be happier just understanding better all that we already know.

Where is the cut-off of futility where there little point in trying to delve deeper, know more?

On the proverbial death bed. :death: :flower:

Benj96

How do you give a definition to everything? We don't. We don't have enough time — Fooloso4

In a nutshell haha.

Benj96

Maybe. I'd be happier just understanding better all that we already know. — 180 Proof

Well said!

Benj96

So the everything is the container of all containers in which things can be said to exist — Jamal

I like that explanation. It satisfies my personal curiosity. This was productive.

Jamal

This was productive — Benj96

I prefer enlightenment to productivity, seeking the truth to maximizing profits. But whatever works for you :smile:

jorndoe

I guess we might say that everything is that which can have no complement.

everything ≈ that which has no complement
∁ E = ∅

That's without trying to get into "every" and "thing" and tedious semantics and whatnot.
So, fictions/imaginations are included, and contrasted with real.

Note that such statements are also around, hence parts thereof.

That being said, I don't think "everything" or "existence" are the kinds of words lending themselves to concise definitions.
As a starting point you (literally) can't miss it (in part), whatever exactly it may all be.

How do you give a definition to "everything"?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions