I agree with the problem you mention as this bother me at time. For instance, scientists still promote the old "luminiferous ether" as irrational even though modern physics has come full circle and accepts it using different terms. To me this cheats by conserving the prior beliefs by just reinventing new terms. Another example is to how the Big Bang is presumed to be the defining part of the present paradigm in the Standard Model. Yet, with dark energy, dark matter, black holes, etc, we have better reason to drop the Big Bang for a Steady State type of theory instead. Yet because the credibility of the institutions may feel threatened, or due to political and/or political justifications, the Steady State type theories were deemed 'dead' regardless of the evidence suggesting otherwise.ken wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:04 amOkay that is fine, we can use totality. However, we come to an agreement or a discovery and an understanding that there are now parallel universes or different universes, which make up the one and only Totality. But then are these thousands of years of coming to this understanding are people then going to start questioning if who/what created Totality or did Totality start with something similar to a big bang? And then, possibly after a few more thousands of years, are people going to come to an agreement or a discovery and an understanding that there are now parallel totalities or different totalities, which make up the one and only (new word added)? And so on? When does it ever end?Scott Mayers wrote:"Totality" is the word traditionally used by philosophers and logicians to refer to the complete encompassing reality and can include even all that is non-existing too, as I prefer. This prevents those who might feel this does not include other domains when discussing something most 'universal'.
If, and when, human beings start to look at what is instead of looking at what could be, then they can discover the Truth. Also, if, and when, human beings start to look at what they, themselves, are actually doing and creating, then they can discover what they, themselves, could be and could actually be creating.
And there used to be the greatest logical universal class for absolutely all things, which was called by and had the name 'The Universe'. 'Universe' once merely meant the set or whole of a place that included ALL parts. For example, 'Universe' once meant 'all there is', for absolutely every single part of 'the absolute ALL'. But sadly though, and now just coming to realize, that word has now been changed to 'Totality'. I do recall that you wrote this before but only now is it being better understood. Call Me slow but that is how I work sometimes. This change sounds like it happened within an industry that is called and labelled 'philosophy', which by the way is another word who's definition has completely changed from how it was once defined and meant to mean.Scott Mayers wrote:A "universe" in logic is also multiple. It is merely the set or whole of a place that included parts. As such, "animals" is the logical universal class of all animals. But you have a greater class universal called, "living things" for instance.
I am understanding more clearly now, but I am just saddened by the fact that just when I start to grasp the definitions used in one generation and try to speak and be understood by them, with and from the generally accepted language used in that time period, words and their definitions get changed around again, and I also have to start all over again. When will human beings STOP and start looking at what is instead of looking at what they want it to be?Scott Mayers wrote:I think you must actually understand but are just thinking we all adopt your default assumption. I don't and never have.
This is has NEVER been about people adopting "my" default assumption. This is about Me trying to keep up with the ever-changing definitions. Generally speaking I found by just following the original, or closer to original, meanings of most words brings about and shows a much more thorough and clearer Truer and bigger picture of Life.
Adopting any default "assumption" I found is a also totally wrong thing to do. Using and following a book of Life, instead of assuming one knows it all, allows the Truth to be seen, and thus then also be known. (Let us see how many people keep making assumptions now. Even after I just wrote this).
What is it exactly that you think my thinking is and what I may mean?Scott Mayers wrote: The Universe is our physical one that is CONTINGENT to our reality. "Multiverse" encompasses all such physical ones, usually of a scientific form. Philosophy usually uses, "worlds" instead, especially if they want universals that can be flexibly defined beyond simply physical ones or parts of specific universes.
"All reality" might be better suited for your thinking as their is more clarity to what you may mean.
I do not recall actually providing any information about what I actually may mean, except that I find it funny that the definition of words get changed so often and so regularly, to suit people's own personal views. Is it any wonder that human beings are still so confused and bewildered about what Life actually is? Most human beings still readily admit that they have no clue about what the meaning of 'Life' is.
For every absolutely meaningful question there is a really simple answer. There is nothing hard at all about understanding Life, Itself.
"All reality" excludes some things, so that does not suit my thinking.
"Worlds" is a word that could be used. But the more unnecessary words and the more unnecessary definitions that get used, then the more confusion can arise. And, trying to learn and understand what definition each person uses for each word, within each industry, culture, language, and time period could go on forever.
What my thinking is and what I want to express exactly I will do, when I am ready, but until then when a post is written on here I just try to gain a grasp of where exactly that person is coming from and what exactly it is that they are wanting to express and share. I do this by asking inquisitive and clarifying questions. As noahx has pointed out sometimes your definitions are conflicting with your topic heading. Not that that was a great deal to worry about for Me. My biggest concern is when are people going to stop trying to guess what is and just look at WHAT actually IS.
That is ALL that is needed to understand anything meaningful about the one and only Life that we are living in.
I also dislike how history destroys historical evidence of things about the past that are 'offensive' today without realizing that this is how we lose much of the archeaology of the past. Instead of saving those, they attempt to utterly destroy the records of anything reinterpreted in today's terms.
However, the term, "Totality", is still more universal because it doesn't assume that what we see is all there is. The "universe" is still unique, but refers ONLY to our physical universe. In the past, many would argue whether some Heaven or Hell existed and included these as a part of this "Universe". But it is not 'scientific' to accept that old interpretation and so it becomes necessary to find some term that includes ANYTHING in the most absolute way by definition. This would include any unknown factors beyond what science alone can tell us by direct observation. Using such a term allows even the most religious person to not feel threatened, as well as to include the possibility that absolutely everything is never absolutely false in SOME place.
I believe the term "totality" had been used to reference this by some philosophers long ago but has just been forgotten. Even the religious scriptures were likely interpreted very SECULAR when written and terms for what we now refer to as "gods" were themselves just originally meaning "the domain of ALL there is", not merely some supernatural human-like being it turned into. [Destroying history is how the old secular realities turned into strange myths that became 'religion'.]
I favor an interpretation that absolutely everything, including absolutely nothing, exists, like pixels on a television screen that might model particular worlds. If given all possible 'images' that could be made with all the pixels, we would have more possibilities that are non-sense images or like the static noise. The worlds that 'make sense' EVOLVE (Darwinian-like) so because they have patterns. Ours would be one. As such, I need to use the term that is most inclusive and with the least bias. "Universe" is now reserved for our observable universe (small 'u'), "multiverses" for other worlds that still fit into our physical understandings but are just probable but uncertain, and then "totality" to refer to whatever is actually most encompassing, whether we could ever directly witness the whole or not. We are stuck being a part of it. So how can we actually know the whole?
I hope this helps.