Clearly the universe is creative enough that we can create prose about it and be aware of it like lungs are aware of air. And so on.

However to be the universe, the universe only must be. Every other must is conditional. So it may must be self aware but it must unerringly be regardless of any must to be self aware. How else can one of it’s parts ask “to be, or not to be?” Without being of an ecosystem that is creative enough to ask?

The shared properties of a doughnut and a picture frame have nothing to do with the universe. Anyone who knows any topology would understand this.

.

E) You suck at logic.

You can't just ignore the universe when referencing humans, as there would be no humans without the universe. And you can't ignore humans when referencing the universe as a) You wouldn't be referencing anything if you actually did that b) It wouldn't be the same universe. It's useful to look at humans as a closed container, and it is useful to look at the universe as an external world. But neither view seem to be correct in any way, shape or form. We seem to be looking at a big lump of fundamental interactions. And in that regard I really struggle to see how it is correct to deny that the properties of humans are also properties of the universe.

If I pick up a rock, then the universe is picking up that rock. Sure, it's an akward way to say it that doesn't fit how we intuitively view the world, but it is actually what is happening. If the universe isn't picking up that rock, then nothing is.

And sure, you can claim that the universe isn't as a whole aware of picking up that rock in all its constituent parts. But my hand isn't aware of picking up that rock either. In fact, very little of my body is. I still need those parts of my body to pick up that rock, just like I need the rest of the universe to pick up that rock.... because if anything about the universe was different, then the rock would be different and I would be different.

Humans have the property of being than 10 feet in length. If it is true that properties of humans are properties of the universe, then the universe is less than 10 feet in length. And if you need a specific instantiation, then I am less than 10 feet in length, so the universe is less than 10 feet in length.

"Picking up" is not a property.

There comes the mathematical platonism

Tell me, where are platonic objects located? Inside the universe or outside of it?

You suck at set theory. Aren't you a mathematics professor or something?

Furthermore, you are claiming here that there is no underlying structure to the universe, since that is how topology is defined.

That claim is counter to all of science and even mathematics itself.

I'm pretty sure he isn't claiming that.

Mathematical Platonism? That doesn't get you anywhere because "picture frame" and "doughnut" are not mathematical objects.

Yes. And I am quite certain that "distinct from" does not carry the same meaning as "disjoint from." As I've noted, the sets {1,2} and {1,2,3} are distinct mathematical objects because they can be distinguished from one another.

Checkmate. (Even though I suck at chess.)

Uhhhhh... sure. Because you *clearly* understand what the mathematical concept of topology is. I'm 100% confident that you could state the of a "topological space" and elaborate on what it is.

Then hes agreeing with me, that there is a topological aspect of the universe. It has an ultimately unparseable, underlying structure. This is after all, the assumption that led to the development of the scientific method in the first place.

You are arguing a metaphysical point where the problem here is a logical one. If you can distinguish one part from another part, then at the level of the whole you can always generate a contradiction if you all properties of parts are properties of the whole. If a is distinguished from b because a has property q and b doesn't, and a and b are both parts of c, then c would both have property q and not have property q according to this principle.

This is not to claim that things are not interrelated, or to assume an object-based ontology, etc, just that the language being used ITT to express this idea fails to do so as it isn't compatible with basic logic. You can try to get around this fault by redefining all the key terms as D0DN is, but that is more likely to just confuse the issue than shed light and isn't worth the hassle. If you want to express a theory of mereology, you'll have to convert it into logic at some point anyway, and so arguing about how to formulate that theory in natural language when you don't even have a logic yet is pointless.

No. A chair leg can be distinct from and/or part of a chair. It can be removed from a chair and remain a chair leg.


The universe is a very different type of object. It's both all that exists and the basis of all existence. Objects within the universe cannot be distinct from it. Not ever. No matter how you look at it. Take away a part and it's no longer the universe, and the thing cant exist without its universe. To attempt to distinguish the universe from its parts is to pull both apart, definitionally, into non-meaning.

Just in case there has been any ambiguity about what I'm saying:

The definition of "topological" that you quoted has nothing to do with any point you're trying to make.

The mere fact that you have to say "within the universe" to talk about these objects is a strong indicator of the problems you're having with the phrasing "distinct from."

Logically distinct is not the same thing as ontologically distinct. You want to claim the universe is all one thing. Fine. That doesn't mean that different elements of that one thing aren't logically distinct. You can logically distinguish the corners of a triangle as different from each other while acknowledging that you can't "take" one corner away without losing the triangle.

You can't have a both/and for A & ~A. Rocks are not self-aware, therefore the universe is not self-aware. Humans are self-aware, therefore the universe is self-aware. Therefore, the universe is not self-aware and self-aware. This is a flat contradiction. This is not a problem under the standard way of putting this: parts of the universe are self-aware, parts are not, and properties of parts do not logically imply properties of the whole.

The universe is either self aware or not self aware. We dont have access to the possible cognition of rocks and other things, only ourselves. We are self aware. Since we are also the universe being self aware, and it cant be both self aware and not self aware at the same time, the universe is self aware.

Sure it does. There is an underlying structure to the universe in the same way as there is an underlying topological structure that distinct objects share (torus, sphere, etc). We do not know all the details of the underlying structure of the universe, but we have very good reason to believe it's there (all science is based on this presumption). Since it's there, all things contained in the universe are ultimately reducible to different expressions of the same thing.

A lot of physicists think that thing is probably information, since we know even black holes dont destroy information.

Replace self-aware with logical.

“The universe must be logical” and “The universe must be self-aware” .

Replace with chair. “The universe must be a chair”

Or consistent

“The universe must be consistent”

I’m left wondering who put me in charge of what the universe must be and it appears like it’s a good thing that the universe is a mirror whether it must be or not.

Lol. Now do it for humans are ambulatory and rocks are not ambulatory. Does gravel go for a stroll when we aren't watching?

LOL - Mind-babble.

Would it blow your perspective to pieces to realize that the torus and sphere are NOT topologically equivalent? That they do NOT share the same underlying topological structure?

As I said:

You literally have no clue what you're saying here.

Walking is a form of movement. Rocks dont move in the same form as humans, but both move.

Would it blow yours to realize that both are expressions of topology? You're being unnecessarily specific, as OrP was in his first post.




You have no clue what I'm saying (nor do you want to). As I said before, that's a problem with your level of understanding and comprehension, not mine.

Okay. If you are willing to claim that rocks are self-aware and ambulatory in order to not give up your thesis I'm doubtful I could give you any argument strong enough to sway you.

This line of argument seems vaguely reminiscent of neeeel's approach to metaphysics, IIRC.