The term has been used before for various intentions or needs of a metaphor.
Cosmological Reality, according to my definition, is what exists independently of the human existence, or any other intelligence that can comprehend the rules of the universe.
So, whenever someone makes a claim, if that claim depends on the existence or the human that makes it, or any human at all, then it’s not Cosmologically Real, and it can be dismissed as irrelevant.
I’ve never really come across that particular term, but is it the same thing as some sort of objective reality?
Or are you saying if someone claims they broke their femur, it’s somehow not real from a cosmological perspective?
Objective Reality has no particular definition, but it may depend on the evaluation of the human intelligence.
Breaking a bone is real. All the rest of the mental fodder that accompanies a breaking of a bone is not.
Yes it is, all things subjective and mental are actually physical things subject to natural laws. Humans and human brains are part of the cosmos just as much as less complex arrangements of molecules and mental activity is similarly nothing but physical events in intricate physical structures.
Yes, but irrelevant to the cosmos.
Cosmological Reality (my choice of term) is the set of parameters that describe universal existence.
Human beings and their perception has to be, by definition, irrelevant to Cosmological Reality.
The fact that we can comprehend some of the universal reality is great for us, but it does not change or influence the universe that we exist in.
Human beings are made of matter, and must be part of Cosmo Kramer Reality or whatever you call it. Perceptions are not material, but they represent the real chemical reactions going on in human bodies, which end up manipulating real things. So what the hell are you talking about?
You get one do-over.
Human beings are irrelevant to the universe.
That much was evident in philosophical thinking since the BCE Greeks who correctly identified the difference in the nature of reality compared to the human perception of it.
Unfortunately, religion has infected the human mind for the past several hundred years, so we have to re-establish universal truths, or at least try to.
This is the hell of what I’m talking about.
Humans are irrelevant to Cosmological Reality.
Human beings are part of the universe. Are there any other parts you are arbitrarily declaring as irrelevant? Human perception of the universe is not the same thing as the universe itself. So what? That doesn’t make humans irrelevant.
As far as we know, the universe is irrelevant to the universe.
It certainly does.
The universe follows rules that are independent of the human perception of them.
We are capable of comprehending some of them, and we still don’t know why we are.
But since the universe existed for so long without the existence of humans, and it will way long after humans or any other intelligence as we can define it, exists, then we have to realize that our existence is irrelevant to the universe, and whatever we can comprehend is a new thing for us, but not relevant to what exists.
The universe existed long before the Moon did, and will long after. So that means the Moon is irrelevant too. And that goes for lots of other things to. So in the end there is some derivative of your logic that makes everything in the universe irrelevant to the universe. That means nothing. Relevance is not a property of the universe. Existence is. And humans exist.
You seem to be trying to attribute some mystical property to the concept that there is a physical reality independant of human perception. Something almost everybody has figured out by the 3rd grade.
If human perception is irrelevant, than the mere discussion of “Cosmological Reality” is equally irrelevant, since such discussion only exists as a result of human perception.
/thread
Some comments from the more traditional Western philosophy.
This is usually referred to as nature. Or sometimes physics, which is Greek for nature.
It seems that you are arguing against the strong anthropic principle here. This principle roughly states that the universe exists in such a way that intelligence must develop in some way. This principle is strongly contested, as you seem to be doing, by many scientists and philosophers. The general assumption is that the universe has no telos, or explicit goal. (The weak anthropic principle states that the universe must have a form that allows humanity or some other intelligent thing to exist. As such, it’s pretty much a truism.)
Irrelevant how? It seems that you are conflating two different ideas. I believe that you are mixing them up with the idea of relevance. By your own definition, you say that independent existence defines the cosmological reality. Now, because humans exist, they are therefore relevant to the cosmological reality. They are part of the universe, and you can’t really get around that. What individual humans think about the cosmological reality is what you are trying to avoid, it seems. I believe that you are saying that human cognition has no effect on what the universe is and does. This is true to an extent and false to an extent. It is true to the extent that humans cannot impose a form on nature. Believing that the universe is like X does not make X the way things are. But, human cognition does have an effect on the universe since cognition rearranges the various chemicals in human brains, which are part of the universe. In short, given the definition of cosmoligcal reality, as you have given it, the sentence “Humans are irrelevant to Cosmological Reality,” cannot be true, taken as a whole, given the general logical rules about the excluded middle.
Yes. The universe, at least as it is currently understood, has no mechanism for determining relevance. Relevance results from a criterion of judgment, which requires, as far as is currently understood, a judge.
That the moon exists or whatever is pretty much, as far as we can tell, a fluke. But this is missing the trees for the forest. The various particles that the moon is made of could all be elsewhere. But this doesn’t really change anything. Gravity, which I would assume you would include in the cosmological reality, works with actual particles as they are. It seems that you want the cosmological reality to be a kind of abstraction. But your definition only looks at what exists, and so it must include the concrete as well. Or, perhaps a bit more generally, your definition of the cosmological reality does not allow you to only look at things that are big, leaving the small as insignificant details.
Or perhaps you are arguing that the cosmological principle is the laws of physics, rather than their specific effects on the universe as it is. In which case, your position is a lot more clearer, although not inarguable.
Yes. Everything is irrelevant to the universe because the concept of relevance os not part of cosmological reality. It’s a human construct.
Yes. Everything is irrelevant to the universe because the concept of relevance is not part of cosmological reality. It’s a human construct.
Or in other words, because the OP is right, he’s wrong.
The “mental fodder” also has a physical reality in the structure and operation of the brain.
Is the Time Cube part of cosmological reality, or does that fall under human perception?
This is what I was thinking.
“Relevance” or “Irrelevance” seems to only make sense in sentient minds.
I figure someone ought to throw in the famous poem by Stephen Crane:
A man said to the Universe,
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the Universe,
“That fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
Seem to sum up the OP pretty well.