Do Civilizations Exist Beyond the 20,000 Light-Year Sphere?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Holocene
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the philosophical implications of defining existence in relation to the observable universe, specifically regarding civilizations beyond a 20,000 light-year sphere. Participants argue that if existence is defined as lying within an observer's past light cone, then civilizations outside this sphere cannot be proven to exist. Conversely, if existence includes both past and future light cones, the assertion that such civilizations do not exist becomes false. The conversation emphasizes the importance of precise definitions in philosophical discourse.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of light cones in physics
  • Familiarity with the concept of observable universe
  • Basic knowledge of philosophical definitions of existence
  • Awareness of the implications of information propagation in space
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of light cones in relativity theory
  • Explore the observable universe and its limitations
  • Study philosophical definitions of existence and their implications
  • Investigate the propagation of information in astrophysics
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, astrophysicists, and anyone interested in the implications of existence and civilization in the context of the universe.

Holocene
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
EDIT: Title should read "Would you agree with THIS notion".

Take for example, human civilization. If we say civilizations have existed for 10,000 years, we know that in principle it's possible for information regarding the existence of these civilizations to have propgated some 10,000 light years away. Now, would you agree that with respect to places of the universe outside this 20,000LY diameter sphere, we can state that not only can we not prove these civilizations exist, but in fact they DON'T exist with respect to space outside the sphere?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I get the impression that you're trying to set a trap here! Whether or not your proposition is reasonable depends on how a number of terms you've used are defined (for instance 'exist'). If you define 'exist' by 'lies within the observers past light cone' then clearly your proposition is correct. If you define 'exist' as 'lying within the observers past OR future light cone' then it is false.

I'm sure you could define 'exist' in other ways and then the answer to your question would follow deterministically from that definition.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K