Can Rationality Encompass the Whole of the Universe?

Perhaps science as we understand it cannot explain the inner workings of the universe, but remember, science is the art of learning or understanding something through observation and experimentation, which means that the only reason something cannot be explainable by science is if it makes no sense, or has no reason. And I'm pretty sure everything on the universe makes sense and has a reason, it's just we don't know what that reason is.

I think the base argument would be whether all things can be measured by the same standard of reasonableness. And that all really depends to what extent you extend that standard. For example, certain phenomenon like black holes, antimatter, relativity, and time-space curves (assuming they exist as we say they do) all definitely do not follow what we can witness under our traditional, earthly conditions.

Basically, you can have all the proof in the world, and still be waaaaaay off. However, I don't think that really matters. Human curiosity is insatiable. As long as we don't screw with nature too much, as long as we can find a best guess, that'll tend to be good enough to suffice.

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

Of course there is more to the universe than science can describe. The limited nature of our senses necessarily leads to the idea that there is more to objects than we can possibly percieve.

Which would be why we use 'mechanical senses' that can detect what we can't.

And of course, the empirical cannot explain the metaphysical.

If there is a metaphysical.

Originally Posted by Pàxèn

Scientifically no way, there are simply some places in the universe where science as we understand it doesn't apply.

Oh? We can show that the laws of physics work at least 80 535 447 397 000 000 000 000 miles away. It takes light 13.7 billion years to travel that far. So, if the laws work there, at literally the very edge of the universe, why wouldn't they work everywhere? Especially since we have no observations that show that they don't work elsewhere.

Yeah, who's to say there is a place science cannot explain? There is no basis of fact for that.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Which would be why we use 'mechanical senses' that can detect what we can't.

The limited nature of our senses leads to the idea that our senses produce a 'representation' of the real objects we perceive. If you think of our senses as producing a representation in our minds of a real object, it leads to the idea that because our mental experiences of 'objects' are experiened indirectly, ie they are mediated by our senses, it lets in scepticism about the real nature of the objects. It even leads to the logical conclusion that we cannot be sure that are experiences are cause by objects at all.
Just because we have mental experiences does not mean that they are caused by objects. Thus we cannot be sure if these 'mechanical senses' even exist.

In that case everyone is undergoing the exact same 'hallucinations', which I find remarkable.

That would mean that all of our senses are flawed in the exact same way, which means that our observations are still valid, only if everyone's senses made different errors would they be useless.

Edit: Or, to put it a different way: When light enters the air from water (or vice-versa) it bends. This leads to a distorted image of whatever is on the opposite side of the water from you. (If you're under-water then stuff that isn't will be distorted and vice-versa.)

However, the amount of bending is constant. Given the same air and the same water light will always bend the same amount. This means that you can make observations of something on the other side of the water's surface, and it will hold true for everyone observing from the same side of the water of you.

Is what you're describing 'the truth'? No, but since the change is constant you can make accurate assumptions from it.

What you said is all well and good, but i fail to see its relevance. Yes we might be able to be succesful in our tasks through use of science, but we cant 'explain the universe' if we cant even be sure it is there. Just because we all seem to make the same observations isnt justification for assuming they are an accurate representation of reality. We dont even know if other people really exist, we just assume.
This is what we mean by metaphysics, things as they are in themselves. We cant ever really know, or even know if there are 'things'.

Fun with philosophy.

I think therefore I exist

Proof of my existence, as a grand article, prooves its individual parts at a basic level.
My existence, in general, is defined by my present thought.
My present thought includes a "recollection" of thoughts past.
(Whether these thoughts ever actually occured, or have simply been conceived by my present thought is uncertain.)
I conclude that my recollection exists.

My recollection strings togeather an enourmous number of experiences in a causal order.
Whatever these "memories" actually represent, they themselves, as the peices of my existing recollection, exist.
There is an enourmous ammount of consistency in various elements of my "memories".
Much of this consistency extends beyond my recollection and into other elements of my current thought.

Most notable among these is my current observation;
The observation is an element of my though which suggests the existence of someting other than my thought.
(This suggestion cannot be proved)
The correlation between each of my "memories" and my "observation" suggests two possibilities;
Either that my entire recollection (as vast as it is) was dervied from my current observation.
Or that my "memories" are "observations" which occured "before" my current thought ("Before" and "After" being terms my cuirrent though applies to the causal order of my "memories")

The first posibility strongly suggest against a "second" thought; one that will, in way that my memory, come "after" this.
If a "second" thought did occur, then it would develop a patern which would soon come to resemble my "recollection" and the second possibility would develop from the first.
To assume that only my present thought exists, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that I will cease to exist as the thought ends, seems utterly irrational. I consider it a very small possibility but I realize that giving it any credence would be of no benefit to my current thought.

Ultimately, I conclude on an existence that extends prior to and beyond my current thought.
As a collateral, I have also shown that the quality of my observation extends as far back as my memory.
This quality (subjectively "reality") may be (A) a secondary existence outside of my current though and my thoughts past or (B) another quality of my current thoughts and thoughts past (in many ways akin to a more recognisable part of my thought; the imagination... though much grander)

I attempt to consider the difference, either the world of my observation exists outisde the bounds of my thought or within the expanse of my (already shown to exist) thought.
In either case, it exists.
Although there are two massively different possibilities for the nature of its existence, my interaction with it, as an existing entity, is not effected by either. On all but the largest (and most absolutely trivial) level, the precise nature of reality's existence does not matter. Reality itself (whatever its ultimate definition) exists.

Back to the top, proof of reality's existence, as a grand article, prooves its individual parts at a basic level.
Reality is made up of changable parts which give rise to my observation.
I conclude these parts exist.
If I define these parts on the basis of my observation (and how else would I define them?) then I can consider, in the terms of my observation, in the terms of there proven exitence, "objects".
(These objects are again, extension of the part of my existing thought, which I trufully observe, or further existence outside of my thought)

In final conclusion, the "objects" which I observe exist (and are, in fact, defined by my observation)

They only exist, in the way that you have put it, as mental experiences. There is no doubt of sense-data experienced directy in the mind, there can be none, as the experience is immediate and direct. This is the Idealist answer to sceptical worries brought about by Representative Realism.
But to speculate about the external existence of real objects on the basis that i have mental experiences is unjustified metaphysical speculation, unverifiable emprically. To talk of objets exiting irrespective of the perciever is speculatory.

To talk of objets exiting irrespective of the perciever is speculatory.

But to differentiate between objects existing independant of thought or not is pointless. It does not matter whether the universe exists without my thought or because of it, it exists in either case and I interact with it in equal measure in either case. Nothing is acheived by further splitting hairs...

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

But to differentiate between objects existing independant of thought or not is pointless. It does not matter whether the universe exists without my thought or because of it, it exists in either case and I interact with it in equal measure in either case. Nothing is acheived by further splitting hairs...

Sorry, if youre previous post was Kant's theory of perception then i still havent fully got my head around that. But as for the highlighted, my point was there can be no proof that it exists without my thought. Please reiterate the part of your post that dealt with this problem in greater detail though, i got a little lost..

I always liked Samuel Johnson's refutation of the idea that everything is in one's mind.

Quite simply, he said: "I refute it thus!" and stubbed his toe.


Now, I realize that it isn't a proof, but the fact that people can do things that you weren't expecting, or that the laws of physics have stayed the same for all of recorded human history seems to deal the whole idea a near-mortal blow. (I realize that one can reason around it, but past a certain point the theory just becomes far too complex to be tenable. Ockham's razor and all that.)

Besides, if the world was all in my mind there'd be far fewer people I disagreed with.

Pfft, GD, your just an annoying manifestation of that little minimilist part of my thought patern that insists on maintaining the illusion. None of the other manifestations much care for your opressiveness

Anyway, Shroom, what I'm trying to say is that, in the two cases;
(A) The universe is independant of my thought (that is, if I cease to think, the universe will continue on without my thought) in which case the universe and the elements that make it up, and which I am capable of observing, exist.
And
(B) The universe is a subsidary of my though, and completely dependant on it (If I case to think, the universe ceases to exist) I am still ale to conclude that my thought exists (As it is a fundamental part of my identity, and I exist) and that therefore the individual elements of my thought (including the "universe" subsidary) exists.

Ultimately, the only difference between the two is completely irrelevant during my entire cognitive experience.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Besides, if the world was all in my mind there'd be far fewer people I disagreed with.

Maybe the Evil Demon poking thoughts into you just doesnt like you and wishes to annoy you...

mmmmmm..PIE, ill get back to you after some deep introspective reflection...
My thought at the mo are going aloong the lines of the fact that assuming A is the case allows people to try and draw further conclusions about the world that cannot be drawn due to the obvious scepticism about our the translation of objects in to our mental experiences. Basically, the assumtion of realism means people start talking about science as truth or infering the existence of god etc

Perhaps a Universe that is created by the mind could exist, but it would exist only for that mind, meaning it would not be real or accessible by others. Which means that it would simply be a... hallucination created for that person to pull the wool over the eyes, to make the real world, be it in a state too much for the mind, hidden from them. Assuming this is the case, wouldn't that just make the owner of that mind insane and therefore, unworthy of attention? Attention to what they think, at least.

^^you miss the point. The point is that the 'real world' might only be a mental construct, existing only in the thoughts of the conscious being who thinks them. Without the thoughts of that being, any existence of a 'world' disappears.

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

They only exist, in the way that you have put it, as mental experiences. There is no doubt of sense-data experienced directy in the mind, there can be none, as the experience is immediate and direct. This is the Idealist answer to sceptical worries brought about by Representative Realism.
But to speculate about the external existence of real objects on the basis that i have mental experiences is unjustified metaphysical speculation, unverifiable emprically. To talk of objets exiting irrespective of the perciever is speculatory.

I am only picking on you because you seem to exhibit this behavior far more than others in this thread, but the same criticism can be said for almost anyone who has posted in here.

Could you please pull your head out of whatever philosophy lexicon you are yanking words from and write in a form of English that isn't restricted to goons with enough time on their hands to find meaning for strings of useless words smashed together in an attempt to confuse? The level of your intellect is in no way gauged by the size of your vocabulary. It leads me to believe you have not read up on your epistemology if you think that all epistemologists must write in a fashion that could never be understood by the layman (though many do, they are almost never worth entertaining).

Almost all of you have put forth an argument that is simply a bad regurgitation of an overview, probably yanked from Wikipedia. Please stop abusing the English language so that an actual discussion can take place, not a literary circle-jerk. Nothing has been said in here that isn't heard over the pencil-clickings in a philosophy 100 classroom on a day when teacher hasn't shown up yet.

Kedsy;
I cannot speak for 'Shroom or any of the other posters here, but I personally care very little about the way in which I choose to present my opinions on an internet forum; my spelling is horrible because I do not care enough to backtrack and correct a mistake. I give no second though to my word choice; as long as I am confident that my opinion is communicated I really can't be bothered to go back over the original spew and modify it for an audience. Why bother?

Also, we're really not striving for some deep and meaningful philosophical conclusion here. Shroom created a moderately interesting aside to the original topic, and, as I don't share his opinion, I attempted a counter argument. Really, there's nothing on this serios buisness forum any more serious then the idle conversation you allude to.

Edits for Shroom later...

Kedsy, what the hell? Im sorry if you dont like the way i present what i say, but i say it that way because thats what makes most sense to me, and what i think is the clearest and most straightforward way of putting things. Can you actually point out the vocabulary you dont like and suggest a better way, or what you have said is pointless. I cant explain in depth every remotely philosophical word i use.

As for the philosophy, if you want to attack it, why dont you actually give an argument rather than merely insulting me and being condescending.

Well, unless Kedsy wants to join our "discussion" I find that he/she/it could find something better to do than try and simplify it (which may not actually be a bad idea). But I do see what Kedsy means in that perhaps sometimes, some of us might, say, go to a Thesaurus to find a fancier word for imagination (I know I do, anyway).

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

^^you miss the point. The point is that the 'real world' might only be a mental construct, existing only in the thoughts of the conscious being who thinks them. Without the thoughts of that being, any existence of a 'world' disappears.

But surely this could not be a Universe, because one mind cannot think for millions. That is to say, it would be only a set storyline in which nothing new can happen because only one person inside can think. This means that if the only actual thinking person were to present an idea to others, he would find that they could not say "Wow" or begin an argument over this idea, they would completely ignore what he has to say, and continue on with what they are meant to be doing, following the storyline. This would be like actors who won't stop performing the play even if the one person began killing them or setting them on fire. So, unless the person who owns the mind were to never do anything independent, the "Universe in a mind" scenario seems unlikely.
Unless the Universe doesn't have the thinker in it, but it must, because I can think.