- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The universe is not “where”. The very concept of “where” is part of how the universe works. Therefore, outside the universe, the term “where” is vague, meaningless.
Your brain “breaks down” because you are trying to apply your life experience to the entire universe as a whole. You are used to thinking that everything is necessarily located somewhere. The small is inside something bigger, and so on. So it seems to you that the universe must also be somewhere. But why? What should cause the universe to be somewhere? Why can't it just be? Or why can't this “somewhere” be something fundamentally different from our usual understanding of space? There is no rule, principle, or anything else that forces the universe to be somewhere inside something bigger.
So. The question “where is the universe” doesn't make sense. In much the same way as the question “what is the temperature of your question on the question”does not make sense.
OUR universe can only be a part (for example, in the form of a bubble) of the entire complete Universe-similar to the cell of the entire organism. This is a partial answer to the question posed.
The impasse of all such naive questions begins with the use of everyday colloquial low-scientific speech and vocabulary, which is completely unsuitable for in-depth scientific analysis and understanding.
A scientific / accurate answer to a question should be sought first – by clarifying the meaning of the question and its vocabulary-according to the well-known principle “a well-posed and scientific question already contains half the answer”.
If you really want to understand this, and not just play verbal games, it is enough to understand an elementary thing (in fact, the following was explained in Soviet schools in the framework of social studies in the eighth grade, but…)
Your world consists of the real – that is, given to you in sensations (through sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste) – and the ideal, that is, the one that cannot be verified through these sensations.
The ideal world is entirely created by the second signal system-words and verbal meanings. There is no such world anywhere outside of words. It is enough to be silent (externally and internally) – and this world will disappear.
No object of the ideal world can be realized. From the point of view of psychology and neurophysiology, operating with objects of the ideal world is the essence of blunting consciousness. You can only be aware of reality.
Actually, the presence of a huge number of ideal categories in a person – the universe, the Meaning of Life, God, Love, Homeland, Money and others like them – leads to the fact that a person spends most of his life in an unconscious state.
So don't try to become aware of the unconscious. Although this does not exclude the possibility, if you have the desire and free time, to play with all these whistlesfarts.
Operating with the ideal world is only indicated in situations where it better adapts the person to the real world – for example, during psychotherapy.
If the mind seeks a place for the Whole among the parts, sooner or later it will break (if it does not give up the question). In fact, there is only one indisputable fact: the universe is in our mind. Why does the mind exist? – this is the real main question of philosophy, there is no one book answer to it, the whole life is this answer. Probably, it was impossible otherwise: we need all this to be ourselves, to be aware of ourselves. Science answers the question ” how “– this is where the metaphysical question”why” and the spiritual question”why”also arose. To create a new universe, the spirit must live the current one to the end.
Einstein did not appear out of nowhere: he read Kant and realized that space and time are not in themselves, but are completely related to perception. So don't think that knowledge of philosophy is useless for scientific concepts: once you understand what's really going on, you can create more appropriate physical theories of everything.
First you need to understand what “exists”is. And here you will encounter a lot of meaningless definitions like “just is”, i.e. tautology of listing synonyms. But there is also such a thing – “the ability of an entity to interact with physical and mental reality.” I.e., to exist means to be in interaction with other entities.
Now, what is the universe? And here it turns out that there is also no strict definition. If it is simple – “everything that exists”. I.e. everything that is in interaction with each other. And here the question arises: What does the Universe itself interact with, if it includes everything that can interact? With nothing. By definition, it has nothing to interact with. It follows that by definition of the very concept of “existence” the universe cannot exist. It would seem-a paradox!
But there is no paradox. It's all about absolutization. The concept of “Universe” is an absolute concept that includes absolutely everything. Just like in religion, God, and in Eastern systems-the Absolute Spirit. And such concepts, in principle, cannot be approached with the standards of particular (relative) concepts. They don't have the same properties and relationships that private concepts and entities have. By and large, they can't have any properties or relationships at all, because they have nothing else to show them to. These absolute concepts have nothing to do with experience except as a mental experience. They are just elements or constructs of a language.
Basically, anything is possible in the language. You can also put absolute concepts in some formal relationship with anything. But the point is that this is only in a language where they operate with symbols (concepts). For example, infinity in mathematics. However, not every symbol can be matched with an external real-world experience. In this case, we have no experience of interacting with the universe as a whole, and in principle it cannot be. Therefore, the concept of the universe will always remain a pure symbolic abstraction for us.
Chapaev correctly said that the universe is in our head, because only in the head as a concept it can interact with other concepts ))
In physical reality, the concept of “exist” is in principle not applicable to the concept of “Universe”, because it is just an abstract symbol denoting a certain Absolute. Simply put, the universe is not a physical object. I think we should not confuse physical reality with “astrophysical reality”.
First, philosophers came up with this abstraction of “everything that exists.” Then Einstein created his own GR that absolutizes space-time. And now astrophysicists are feeding us all sorts of abstract fabrications about Big bangs. Poor people trying to make sense of it all.
Everything that surrounds us, all events and phenomena, have their beginning and their cause. And those events that were the cause of these events also had some cause in the earlier past. We can continue this chain of cause and effect far enough back in time, but at some point we will have to admit either that it ends in nothing, or that it continues indefinitely.
In the first case, the contradiction is that nothing can turn into something (“nothing” in this case means the real “nothing”, that is, something that does not even have the potential to turn into something). The second option is also not suitable, because an infinite chain of causes and effects simply could not begin in any way (it is impossible to count from minus infinity to zero, because we simply will not be able to start counting).�
Such is the paradox.
There is a theory that the universe is the all-encompassing matter of the space-time of the three-dimensional world, but around or near there is some other space (possibly a four-dimensional world) that is unable to accept real information objects from the three-dimensional world or the matter of space-time in a way that is not programmed for it.
There is also a theory that the universe is a sphere located in an infinite number of other spheres-universes (parallel realities)such spheres are called Hubble radii.
There is a theory about black matter (that was before the big bang) this is the theory that the universe is located in a place where there is no time, no mass, no energy and the universe is still exploding from the center and expanding through the expanses of dark matter.(this theory is most popular).
I think you're being brainwashed here. Where the universe is all around you. Wherever you look, the universe is its location. You are inside it, just like all other objects. We can also assume that there are other universes outside, which are so crowded that they push elbows.
“All right,” said Chapaev, narrowing his eyes slyly, ” we'll talk about who later. And now, my dear friend, let's deal with <where>. Tell me, where does this manda live?”
“In my mind.
— And where is your consciousness?”
“Right here,” I said, tapping my head.
— Where's your head?”
– On the shoulders.
— Where are your shoulders?”
“In the room.
“Where's the room?”
“In the house.
“And the house?”
— In Russia.
— And where is Russia?
“In trouble, Vasily Ivanovich.
“Drop it,” he snapped sternly. “You'll joke when the commander says so. Speak.
– Well, as where. on the ground.
We clinked glasses and drank.
— Where's Earth?”
“In the universe.
— Where is the universe?”
I thought for a moment.
“On her own.
— Where is this one in itself?”
“In my mind.
– So, Petka, it turns out that your consciousness is in your consciousness?
– It turns out so.
“All right,” Chapaev said, and straightened his moustache. “Now listen to me carefully. Where is it located?
“I don't understand, Vasily Ivanovich. The concept of place is one of the categories of consciousness, so:
— Where is this place?” Where is the concept of place located?
“Well, let's just say it's not a place at all. We can say that this is re…
I stopped short. Yes, I thought, that's what he's getting at. If I use the word “reality”, it will again reduce everything to my thoughts. Then he'll ask where they are. I'll say what's in my head, and: Gambit. You can, of course, start quoting, but any of the systems I can refer to, I suddenly thought with surprise, either bypasses this semantic gap, or closes it with a couple of dubious Latinisms. Yes, Chapaev is not simple at all. Of course, there is a win-win way to end any argument by classifying the interlocutor — it is not worth saying that everything he is driving at is well known, called so-and-so, and human thought has long gone ahead. But I was ashamed to be like a smug student who, in the interval between the pistons, was flipping through a philosophical textbook a little.
“You know, Vasily Ivanovich, I can't get your words out of my head. You know how to drive into a dead end.
“That's right,” Chapaev said, running the brush through his tangled horsehair.
“But I think,” I said, ” that I can do it.”
“All right,” I said. — I'll also ask you a sequence of location questions.
“Ask, ask,” Chapaev muttered.
“Let's start in order. Here you are combing a horse. And where is this horse located?
Chapaev looked at me in amazement.
– What are you, Petka, completely fucked up?
“I beg your pardon?”
“Here it is.
I was silent for a few seconds. I was completely unprepared for this turn of events. Chapaev shook his head in disbelief.
“You know, Petka,” he said, ” you should go to sleep better.
Perhaps it exists on something like a disk, like virtual reality. Only we can't see the disk, and neither can virtual creatures. Here.
There are several non-trivial approaches to answer this question.
First you need to understand what the “universe” is ? I would answer this question like this: “this is all that exists.” And what exists ? It is not known for certain what exactly exists (whether it is the universe or the matrix, or comp.a game, or a fantasy, or a dream). But it is obvious that there is a flow of perception of thoughts and sensations. Including in this stream of perception there is a mental question “where is the universe ?”. Thus, we transform the question into: “where is the flow of perception ?”. To answer the question “where is the house”, you usually need to leave the house, look around, i.e. get information from areas outside the home. Similarly, with the flow of perception, in order to understand where it is, you need to get out of it, for example, by stopping it. However, by doing this, there will be no you, no universe, no question.
To answer a question of this level, you need to get rid of incorrect assumptions. Incorrect assumptions are as follows: a) there is a universe, b) there is a questioner.
a) There is a universe. It's not obvious. It is only obvious that the thought “the universe exists” is perceived. Everything else is from the evil one.
b) There is a questioner. It's not obvious. The thought “I exist”is perceived. But when there is no perception, there is no idea of the existence of the self.
If you realize these things and stop relying on these false premises, then both the object of the question and the subject asking the question disappear. The question disappears along with them.
Yes, yes, the paradox of Zeno's place, formulated half a thousand years before our era. If every object must have a place, then the place must have its own place, and so on ad infinitum. So you're not the first
You can't see a mountain while sitting on a mountain.�
An inquisitive mind always wants to go beyond awareness. And this movement takes place both inside and outside. All you have to do is take the next step, and the answer is right there in the palm of your hand.
According to the theory of potentiality, our universe, as well as any other potentially possible universe, always exists only potentially (hypothetically), that is, it is not the universe itself, but rather an ontological possibility of the universe, which is in a state of eternal potentiality. This ontological possibility, as assumed by the theory of potentiality, is a physical property of the zero-vacuum to contain (create in itself) certain entities. More information about this can be found hereread our books, including the recently published “The Possibility of Simulation”, which provides a new interpretation of the simulation hypothesis by Nick Bostrom.