# Is the universe real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594 "2005-02-23T22:15:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/181 "2005-02-28T15:01:51Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I’ve toyed with opening a thread entitled “A Memory is a Physical Thing” I can’t wait! Let us sharpen our blades and cut toward the center of the mystery! May I suggest [this paper](http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.prob.html) as a preliminary reading? ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/182 "2005-02-28T15:08:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Love is the essence of God.\ **Lib** , again, bear with me here. If essence is a quality that a thing possesses, and love is the essence of God, then God is a thing? If God is a thing (like photons or cells are things), isn’t God phenomenal rather than noumenal? How is God any different from, _or any more real than_, a photon or cell? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/183 "2005-02-28T15:11:48Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > I can’t wait! Let us sharpen our blades and cut toward the center of the mystery! May I suggest [this paper](http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.prob.html) as a preliminary reading? Steady on, **Hoodoo** - I’m a little busy this week, but I’ll do my best. And the esteemed John Searle is indeed required reading: It is the **link** between a _memory_ of a thing and a linguistic sound/symbol referent by which I find my way out of his Chinese Room, where that link is rather artificially severed, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/184 "2005-02-28T15:20:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > There is a “thing” _and_ an abstraction **of** it (which is _also_ a “thing” itself). They are **both** subsets of **reality**. There can be abstractions (themselves real things) having **no** associated real thing, like the unicorn. There can also be real things having **no** abstractions of them, like everything in the universe for billions of years. If abstractions are things, and things are abstrations, how do you justify or determine the distinction between a thing and a _real_ thing? > [@](#): > > The reality, and the representation of the reality, and the representation of the abstraction of reality, are all elements in the set of the real, IMO. I’m having a hard time reading this as anything other than “Everything is real”. Yet you seem to hold an Orwellian “some things are more real than others” Weltanschauung, and I’m not understanding the justification for this. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/185 "2005-02-28T15:29:00Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > If abstractions are things, and things are abstrations, how do you justify or determine the distinction betweena thing and a _real_ thing? Bleh. **Sentient** , please change the above question to: “If abstractions are things, and things are abstrations, how do you justify or determine a distinction between the two?” ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/186 "2005-02-28T15:33:47Z")
[quote] If abstractions are things [quote] Yes… > [@](#): > > and things are abstractions Whoa! _Some_ things are abstractions, but those things in the universe before the process called “abstraction” appeared weren’t. > [@](#): > > how do you justify or determine the distinction between a thing and a real thing? Given that all I can do is think and output decisions, it’s all just a matter of opinion: even a distinction between things having, say, “mass” or not might be [utterly mistaken](http://www.simulation-argument.com/). > [@](#): > > I’m having a hard time reading this as anything other than “Everything is real”. My memory **of** my grandfather is real: he no longer is. My thought **about** a unicorn is real: unicorns themselves aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/187 "2005-02-28T15:35:05Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > **Lib** , again, bear with me here. > > If essence is a quality that a thing possesses, and love is the essence of God, then God is a thing? > > If God is a thing (like photons or cells are things), isn’t God phenomenal rather than noumenal? How is God any different from, _or any more real than_, a photon or cell? The existent God is a thing; the essential God is love. God and love are synonyms. God is the Facilitator of Goodness. (I’m not short-answering you, by the way, Other-wise. I’m just cooperating with the spirit of your request to take it tiny chunks at a time. The more I might exposit without a specific question or comment from you, the more I might derail your process.) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/188 "2005-02-28T15:49:03Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > This, I feel, rather neatly illustrates how human thought and language has evolved so far that it can no longer see the wood for the trees. These are perfectly simple sentences appended by a “?” symbol, turning them into questions. Any australopithecine hunter-gatherer would have no trouble whatsoever parsing the meaning of “Past tense statement. Agree?” - they could perhaps even understand the particular _subject matter_ here if you showed them several reconstructed dinosaur skeletons. But that’s not the context. The context is whether language created the past. That doesn’t make sense. “There were no large quadrupeds in the Triassic?” is a question with words that go against themselves in that context. Large quadrupeds were a part of the triassic period. It is one of the ways we could distinguish it from other eras (especially if we get more specific about them). The general definition of the period deals with its approximate time frame, but the characteristic megafauna are pretty important to its conceptualization, I trust you’d agree since you mentioned it. So either I answer the question incorrectly because I don’t know what the words mean, or I look at it as not making any sense. “There were no large quadrupeds in the Triassic?” as a standalone question is answered, “That is incorrect. [There were](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic).” But it isn’t the standalone question you asked. We were talking about language’s expressions _and what impact they had on past events_. That is, I think, a nonsensical question. At best the answer is, “None,” but it is hard for me to even understand what impact language is supposed to retroactively have on the past in the first place to justify any kind of yes/no response. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/189 "2005-02-28T15:50:10Z")
I think this whole thing was successfully dismissed within the first few posts on the first page. I have little to add but the endorsement of the following: **If the Universe were _not_ real, how would it be different?** If we can’t argue that question (that is, at least have in mind how the real and unreal versions of the Universe would differ), then we are just performing a word churn here and nothing more. The same thing comes up in the ever-popular arguments about “free will.” OK, there are two universes–one with free will and one with not. How are they different? People cannot conceive of an answer to either question; hence, we know we are discussing moot qualities: they are verbal conundrums, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/190 "2005-02-28T15:55:20Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > … Whoa! _Some_ things are abstractions, but those things in the universe before the process called “abstraction” appeared weren’t. If those things in the pre-sentience universe weren’t abstractions, are you really saying that now there are no things which are not abstractions? I’m not accusing you of saying this, but somone might take it that way. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/191 "2005-02-28T16:04:48Z")
> [@](#): > > If those things in the pre-sentience universe weren’t abstractions, are you really saying that now there are no things which are not abstractions? No - **“for example”** should have finished that sentence. Of course there are all kinds of things in the universe at the moment which _nobody has yet thought about_. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/192 "2005-02-28T16:11:40Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > but this realisation itself came from [experimentation](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2826106) of a sort, wherein that “personal experience” which I had associated solely with _God_ could actually come from _other sources_, even some [physical molecules](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Chemistry) which I could hold in my very hand. Leaving aside your identification of your mystical experiences with God, is it not possible that they are a manifestation of a “truth” which your “ordinary” mental state might be suppressing? ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/193 "2005-02-28T16:13:25Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Whoa! _Some_ things are abstractions, but those things in the universe before the process called “abstraction” appeared weren’t. Let me refer to my rephrased question above: “If abstractions are things, and things are abstractions, how do you justify or determine a distinction between the two?” How can we even say (or know) anything at all about the nature of reality before the process called “abstraction” appeared? After all, isn’t the billion-year-old reality you’re thinking about an abstraction? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/194 "2005-02-28T16:19:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > _not_ real, how would it be different?\*\* > > If we can’t argue that question (that is, at least have in mind how the real and unreal versions of the Universe would differ), then we are just performing a word churn here and nothing more. I’ve now lost count of the number of times I’ve answered that question. I’ll just call it “umpteen”. The real universe would be eternal, essential, and necessary. I’ll just call this “umpteen and one”. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/195 "2005-02-28T16:22:43Z")
> [@Hoodoo](#): > > is it not possible that they are a manifestation of a “truth” which your “ordinary” mental state might be suppressing? Entirely possible. All [kinds](http://www.simulation-argument.com/) of “truth” are possible. I’m saying why I picked the one I did. > [@](#): > > “If abstractions are things, and [some] things are abstractions, how do you justify or determine a distinction between the two?” By categorisations such as “abstractions don’t have mass” and suchlike - even then, like I said, I might be mistaken. > [@](#): > > How can we even say (or know) anything at all about the nature of reality before the process called “abstraction” appeared? Well, I say stuff and you say other stuff in response. Where we disagree, we say more stuff until we don’t. How’s that? > [@](#): > > After all, isn’t the billion-year-old reality you’re thinking about an abstraction? **And** a thing, say I. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/196 "2005-02-28T16:23:43Z")
**Other-wise** , thanks for an example of the point of my question to SM about abstractions and things. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/197 "2005-02-28T16:29:38Z")
**Lib** , do you feel like Butch and Sundance against the entire Bolivian Army? ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/198 "2005-02-28T16:33:04Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The existent God is a thing; Okay. > [@](#): > > … the essential God is love. Okay. > [@](#): > > God and love are synonyms. CLANK! I’m not wrapping my head around this. Essences and things _aren’t_ synonyms. How is God simultaneously essence-and-thing? If I can use my own previous analogy, it seems almost as if you’re saying that God is the _user-interface_ for love. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/199 "2005-02-28T16:41:05Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **Lib** , do you feel like Butch and Sundance against the entire Bolivian Army? 😃 Like I always told you: two different views of the same path, and headed to the same place. If heaven doesn’t have the likes of you there, what’s the point of it? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/200 "2005-02-28T16:47:31Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > I’m not wrapping my head around this. Essences and things _aren’t_ synonyms. How is God simultaneously essence-and-thing? Well, you’re right. Analogous is a better word. God is the existent Facilitator-of-Goodness . Love is the essential facilitator-of-goodness. > [@](#): > > If I can use my own previous analogy, it seems almost as if you’re saying that God is the _user-interface_ for love. God is the user-interface for goodness. I guess I would call love its operating system. An operating system whose essence is to edify would of necessity produce an interface for its users. But this is becoming a bit tedious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=11)