# What is the Name for Everything? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2007, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794 "2007-04-12T13:34:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2007, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794/41 "2007-04-13T21:19:14Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] But is “the idea of a unicorn” itself something real, that should be included? It’s certainly a communicable concept: anyone hearing “Invisible Pink Unicorn” in a religion discussion is not prompted to think of a redwood tree, a supergiant star, or Horvendile’s left great toe. So in a valid sense, while unicorns themselves are not real (at least so far as we know, and in this Universe), the idea of a unicorn is. [/QUOTE] I agree. But do we need to agree on “what is” to agree on what to call the set of all “what is”? I’m thinking we’re always going to have to define such words as we use them; my _everything_ is always going to bump up against someone else’s _everything_ despite or because of what is in it. And now the idea of a very old case of toenail fungus has somehow gotten into my everything. ---
**Author:** ![aclubs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@aclubs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aclubs)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2007, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794/42 "2007-04-14T04:37:35Z")
How about the “Whole Sort of General Mish-Mash”? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2007, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794/43 "2007-04-14T05:16:57Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] But is “the idea of a unicorn” itself something real, that should be included? It’s certainly a communicable concept: anyone hearing “Invisible Pink Unicorn” in a religion discussion is not prompted to think of a redwood tree, a supergiant star, or Horvendile’s left great toe. So in a valid sense, while unicorns themselves are not real (at least so far as we know, and in this Universe), the idea of a unicorn is. [/QUOTE] Yes, there is an entire set of ideas that we define \*\*\*as if \*\*\*they existed, such as unicorns, ghosts and fictional characters (we know what Darth Vader looks like, though he doesn’t exist). In that sense, the ideas (as concepts or abstractions) exist, though there’s no corresponding entity in reality. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2007, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794/44 "2007-04-14T07:14:04Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] If there is a creator of the Universe, what’s a label for everything including the creator? [/QUOTE] If you want a philosophical answer…God. If self-awareness is the definition of senescence then collectively you can extrapolate that we are God. Senescence allows us to create what does not exist therefore the total is greater than the sum. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2007, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794/45 "2007-04-14T07:26:24Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] If you want a philosophical answer…God. If self-awareness is the definition of senescence then collectively you can extrapolate that we are God. Senescence allows us to create what does not exist therefore the total is greater than the sum. [/QUOTE] Senescence is, roughly speaking, aging. I think you mean ‘sentience.’ Now tell me though, how is it that sentience is what allows us to create things that don’t exist? (What exactly do you mean by saying we can do that, anyway?) Also, when you say “The total is greater than the sum,” which total and which sum do you mean? Thirdly, how do you arrive at the conclusion that we are God from the assumption that we can create things that don’t exist? Finally, why do you say that since (as you say) we are God, it follows that the name for everything in the universe including God is “God?” -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2007, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794/46 "2007-04-14T07:51:51Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Senescence is, roughly speaking, aging. I think you mean ‘sentience.’ Now tell me though, how is it that sentience is what allows us to create things that don’t exist? (What exactly do you mean by saying we can do that, anyway?) Also, when you say “The total is greater than the sum,” which total and which sum do you mean? Thirdly, how do you arrive at the conclusion that we are God from the assumption that we can create things that don’t exist? Finally, why do you say that since (as you say) we are God, it follows that the name for everything in the universe including God is “God?” -FrL- [/QUOTE] Fylock, thanks for the spelling correction. It’s difficult enough trying to exchange ideas if the medium is miss-used. As for your questions, I’m not sure I can answer them beyond what I’ve said unless I’ve misspelled something else. Sentience is self-awareness capable of creating something from nothing (such as music). The objects that produce the music are not aware of the concept of the composition. Conceptually that is different than something like a volcano which randomly spews matter according to the laws of physics. The example of music is something that exists apart from the physical realm. It is something from nothing and thus greater than the sum of the parts (physical life). If God exists it is because the universe is understood, which is self-awareness of everything. The awareness of everything is greater than the sum of the parts. Best I can do with what I’ve got. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2007, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794/47 "2007-04-14T08:20:49Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Fylock, thanks for the spelling correction. It’s difficult enough trying to exchange ideas if the medium is miss-used. As for your questions, I’m not sure I can answer them beyond what I’ve said unless I’ve misspelled something else. Sentience is self-awareness capable of creating something from nothing (such as music). The objects that produce the music are not aware of the concept of the composition. Conceptually that is different than something like a volcano which randomly spews matter according to the laws of physics. The example of music is something that exists apart from the physical realm. It is something from nothing and thus greater than the sum of the parts (physical life). If God exists it is because the universe is understood, which is self-awareness of everything. The awareness of everything is greater than the sum of the parts. Best I can do with what I’ve got. [/QUOTE] I’ll take your intention to be poetic rather than argumentative. 🙂 -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2007, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794/48 "2007-04-14T14:20:52Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] If you want a philosophical answer…God. If self-awareness is the definition of senescence then collectively you can extrapolate that we are God. Senescence allows us to create what does not exist therefore the total is greater than the sum. [/QUOTE] I can accept that someone’s idea of _everything_ is God. (Though I can’t quite get a grasp on the recursive definition.) Can you see how, to others, the word _God_ is not an apt synomym for _everything_? Putting aside the question of “what makes up _everything_”, can we agree on what to call that set? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2007, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794/49 "2007-04-14T18:52:16Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] I can accept that someone’s idea of _everything_ is God. (Though I can’t quite get a grasp on the recursive definition.) Can you see how, to others, the word _God_ is not an apt synomym for _everything_? Putting aside the question of “what makes up _everything_”, can we agree on what to call that set? [/QUOTE] We could agree on a name but I’m not capable of understanding what it means. I know the definition of infinity but I can’t comprehend the reality of it. I can’t grasp the idea that something always exists without a beginning as easy as I can understand the concept that once created, something can exist forever from that point on. It’s like believing in 1/2 of infinity. It hurts my brain. I’m not trying to interject religion but every time I imagine a bigger picture I end up seeing the laws of physics. These laws cover everything from sub-atomic matter to energy in the form of photons. The connectivity of matter and energy (and time?) makes it an ordered structure. I can’t really verbalize the idea that to understand something in total it must be a part of you. I’m not the best wordsmith in manners philosophical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-name-for-everything/399794.md?page=2)