Earth at the center of the Universe?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yes this is known to many I believe.
But again we are speaking in terms of what "IS" at the center, as if we have access to that special thing called "reality" and have looked inside...
If of course everyone is at the center then there no point in discussing.
However science - physics - works by defining the center in a system and analyzing it.

I think you have failed to get it.
In empirical terms : The universe is edgeless, though finite.
In terms of the universe and it's shape, size, etc, there are absolutely NO 'empirical' terms!!!


This is the thing most hard to understand. If you were capable of traversing the entire universe in a straight line then you would end up where you started. By the time you arrived the Universe would have continued to grow, from each point simultaneously.
The other completely different thought is the experiential terms: As reality is a notion generated in our minds and all experience of the universe is mediated by our perceptions, then we are at the centre of everything.

For fuck sake you can be such a fucking moron.

Asking what is the centre of the universe is a empirical question. Want some empirical evidence? Get off your spotty behind and look up.
You are just contradicting yourself. Dickwad.

NO, shit for brains, my statement is exactly 100% correct.

To this statement, of total bullshit:

In empirical terms : The universe is edgeless, though finite.

This is in fact the truth of the situation.
In terms of the universe and it's shape, size, etc, there are absolutely NO 'empirical' terms!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Asking what is the centre of the universe is a empirical question.

...it is a question for which modern science has no empirical answer....

And that's exactly what I said. We only know of the observable, nothing more.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Asking what is the centre of the universe is a empirical question.

Indeed it is but it is a question for which modern science has no empirical answer..

With respect it does have an answer, but its that you don't like it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

In terms of the universe and it's shape, size, etc, there are absolutely NO 'empirical' terms!!!

You are a moron. "size", "shape", Are BOTH empirical terms. You are fucking your own brains out.

Now fuck off with your red ink.

[Obvious Leo]

And that's exactly what I said. We only know of the observable, nothing more.

Since you blokes are agreeing with each other it strikes me that the discourse might proceed more productively without the aggro. This is actually a very important subject in applied metaphysics and one which is very poorly understood by the lay community. It's even more poorly understood by physicists, but that's a conversation I'm in the middle of elsewhere. As a philosopher of physics this saddens me because it's truly not in the least bit complicated and it's something that any layman should be able to understand if only somebody took the trouble to explain it to him properly. I'll have a crack at it.

Our traditional conceptual landscape of spaces includes such notions as distance, area and volume, which means we map our world in terms of one,two or three dimensional spaces. These spaces are mathematical abstractions constructed by our consciousness for the purpose of allowing us to comprehend the world around us. When we ask "How long is this room?" we are asking a question which can be resolved with a one-dimensional answer. "This room is ten feet long". When we ask "How big is this room?" this question can only be resolved with a two-dimensional answer. "This room is 100 square feet in area". When we ask "How much air is there in this room?" we ask a question which can only be resolved with a 3 dimensional answer. "This room contains 1000 cubic feet of air". Cognitive neuroscientists have a very good idea of how the brain processes such questions, including the specific brain structures involved in such processing , and they speak of the brain as an organ which creates for us a "cognitive map" of the world around us. In other words we don't observe our world at all. What we're actually doing is mapping it, a simple truth with which Immanuel Kant would heartily concur.

Physics is a branch of mathematics which has been specifically designed to model this cognitive map. The spaces which we construct in our minds to map our world are not a property of the world at all but a property of the apparatus we use with which to map it. This is a completely uncontroversial proposition in philosophy. It has formed the backbone of the philosophy of knowledge since the time of the pre-Socratics and there hasn't been a single major school of philosophy since that time which has attempted to contradict it.

However I do reckon that it's high time that somebody broke this news to the physicists because unfortunately the geeks have unwisely chosen to conflate the map with the territory it's mapping. The poor old layman is therefore being offered models of the universe which make not the slightest lick of sense to him. The layman is RIGHT. These models make no fucking sense and that's the reason why.

[SpheresOfBalance]

In terms of the universe and it's shape, size, etc, there are absolutely NO 'empirical' terms!!!

You are a moron. "size", "shape", Are BOTH empirical terms. You are fucking your own brains out.
You are confused as usual, thought Leo seems to believe we agree, though with our last few exchanges, I can't see how that's true.

Now fuck off with your red ink.
I'll use what ever damned color I want to!! Let me know where your BMW is and I'll paint it red too.

[Obvious Leo]

You are confused as usual, thought Leo seems to believe we agree, though with our last few exchanges, I can't see how that's true.

Yes. I reckon you're saying much the same thing and simply using different forms of language. What I'm trying to point out is that when we ask an empirical question of a non-empirical system we cannot expect to get an empirical answer. When we ask questions about the centre of the universe we are not asking a valid question because such a question is a question which relates to a mathematical abstraction of the universe and not to the universe itself.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You are confused as usual, thought Leo seems to believe we agree, though with our last few exchanges, I can't see how that's true.

Yes. I reckon you're saying much the same thing and simply using different forms of language. What I'm trying to point out is that when we ask an empirical question of a non-empirical system we cannot expect to get an empirical answer. When we ask questions about the centre of the universe we are not asking a valid question because such a question is a question which relates to a mathematical abstraction of the universe and not to the universe itself.

You know that on this one, I tend to lean your way, Leo. You may also know that I try to stay away from things that require conjecture at this current stage of human development. Though sometimes I allow myself to get sucked into crap I'd rather ignore, I'm weak sometimes. And that's the way it is with learning, change, and transition. Lets just hope I progress at some pace, I really don't want to think of the alternative.

[Obvious Leo]

As a person who has devoted a substantial portion of his life to studying the philosophy of physics I think I can say with all due modesty that I have the advantage of you on questions such as this, SOB. However this doesn't mean for a nanosecond that I would simply expect you to take my word on anything at all which I might have to say on the subject. Such is the way of disciples and not the way of scholars and I don't engage in forums such as this in search of a cheer squad. I merely seek to direct attention to my own interpretation of applied metaphysics in the hope that an examined mind can examine such an interpretation without any hard-wired pre-conceptions. It seems that you both understand and respect this stance and that's good enough for me.

[skakos]

Asking what is the center of a physical system is an empirical question.
And we cannot answer that by saying "There is no center".
This may be true from a universes perspective, but science cannot work like that.
It needs valid reference points to work with.

[Obvious Leo]

This may be true from a universes perspective, but science cannot work like that.

Physics is not a science but a branch of mathematics and is thus not methodologically structured to make statements about the nature of the universe. Not that this seems to deter many of its priesthood from doing so anyhow, but they were advised against such arrogance by one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

"It is NOT the role of the physicist to determine the nature of the universe but merely to determine what he can meaningfully say about the behaviour of matter and energy within it."....Niels Bohr.

[skakos]

I could not agree more!

Science simply creates prediction models and tries to make the observational data fit in them. Just that. Nothing more.

[Obvious Leo]

I could not agree more!

Science simply creates prediction models and tries to make the observational data fit in them. Just that. Nothing more.

The pre-Socratics had it all worked out 2600 years ago anyway, skakos, and the physicists have just been a bit slow catching up with some necessary reading. The universe is not a place at all, although it remains convenient for them to model it as such. The universe is an EVENT. From this perspective the centre of the universe is YOU because everything you observe around you lies in your own past. The further away you look, the further in your past the object of your observation lies, and this applies no matter whereabouts in the universe you observe it from.

[SpheresOfBalance]

As a person who has devoted a substantial portion of his life to studying the philosophy of physics I think I can say with all due modesty that I have the advantage of you on questions such as this, SOB.
Which is just you stroking yourself, because this is something you cannot necessarily know. As your preconceptions are those of the belief that, that which you have studied and/or interpreted are necessarily correct. This is especially true when one considers theories.

However this doesn't mean for a nanosecond that I would simply expect you to take my word on anything at all which I might have to say on the subject.
Don't worry, 'no one' can sell me anything, I haven't researched first, knowing exactly what I'm buying!

Such is the way of disciples and not the way of scholars and I don't engage in forums such as this in search of a cheer squad.
Some people do believe it's all about them, it's true!

I merely seek to direct attention to my own interpretation of applied metaphysics in the hope that an examined mind can examine such an interpretation without any hard-wired pre-conceptions.
Interesting that you believe both their minds and your resolve are necessarily examined. While the examined mind may still find your resolve severely lacking?

It seems that you both understand and respect this stance and that's good enough for me.
Yes, part of it, yes! Which doesn't necessarily say anything about either of our minds in terms of absolute correctness.

Q: When is a skeptic not a skeptic?
A: When he's not skeptical of his skepticism.
--SOB--

[petm1]

The pre-Socratics had it all worked out 2600 years ago anyway, skakos, and the physicists have just been a bit slow catching up with some necessary reading. The universe is not a place at all, although it remains convenient for them to model it as such. The universe is an EVENT. From this perspective, the centre of the universe is YOU because everything you observe around you lies in your own past. The further away you look, the further in your past the object of your observation lies, and this applies no matter whereabouts in the universe you observe it from.

The kaleidoscope view we each have of past events as seen through a pseudo-emission point within our eyes may look like one event we call the present, but it is the center connection through mass that still connects us with our past as it does for all mass in the universe. The furtherest object I receive photons from still exists in my "now" I just can not see it because just like mass it is not an observable but it is those things that we need more than just sight to detect that makes up my world.