The philosophy of size and placement

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical implications of existence and the nature of the universe. It posits that concepts can be too vast or too minute to be comprehensible, highlighting the universe and quantum strings as examples of entities that have "nowhere to sit," meaning they defy conventional understanding. The conversation emphasizes that existence is not strictly binary—something either exists or does not exist—but rather exists in a state that can be both defined and undefined until clarity is achieved. The notion that the universe must conform to human understanding is challenged, suggesting that the universe's complexity transcends our ability to fully comprehend it. The thread also touches on the inadequacy of certain philosophical stances regarding the universe's nature and the limitations of human perception in grasping these concepts.
John Jones
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Some things are bigger than big. They have no-where to sit.
The Universe has no-where to sit.

Some things are smaller than small. They have nowhere to sit.
Quantum Strings have no-where to sit.

Science tells us this.

We, thankfully, are in-between. We have somewhere to sit.

Science has proven this.

Some knowledge is too ... big. It has nowhere to sit -
I know that the Big Bang only started with an explosion because the explosion was caused by the Big Bang. That has nowhere to sit as well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Believe it or not, experiments prove that existence isn't so sharply defined as "something exists" and "something doesn't exist".

Also, existence doesn't seem to require a holder in which it would sit and it seems increasingly clear that it can sit and not sit at the same time. Until the symmetry breaks into a crisp, comprehensible and well defined reality. It's magic in the making.

If you really think about it, there is more common sense in it, than saying something as small as a proton expanded to the size of the universe and it all sits into non-existence(or some other similar obscure idea).
 
Maui said:
Believe it or not, experiments prove that existence isn't so sharply defined as "something exists" and "something doesn't exist".

Also, existence doesn't seem to require a holder in which it would sit and it seems increasingly clear that it can sit and not sit at the same time. Until the symmetry breaks into a crisp, comprehensible and well defined reality. It's magic in the making.

If you really think about it, there is more common sense in it, than saying something as small as a proton expanded to the size of the universe and it all sits into non-existence(or some other similar obscure idea).

"No-where to sit" means that the idea doesn't make sense.
The idea of the universe being a totality of facts, of whatever sort, doesn't make sense. The idea of a physically limited universe doesn't make sense. The idea of a hidden quantum world obfuscates on what sense is. These ideas have no-where to sit.
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
"No-where to sit" means that the idea doesn't make sense.
The idea of the universe being a totality of facts, of whatever sort, doesn't make sense. The idea of a physically limited universe doesn't make sense. The idea of a hidden quantum world obfuscates on what sense is. These ideas have no-where to sit.

OK -I follow all that. So, where do we stand ?
 
Last edited:
The universe is not obliged to make sense to you.

That should factor into your considerations.
 
Also, "this does not make sense" is not really a valid philosophical stance.

This should be moved to GD.
 
Back
Top