I like that reply a lot, Ian. I recognize a strong thinker in you, and I do not mind that you put your feet firmly on something you then claim is not there.
You are actually in good company with many accomplished physicists who have their feet standing firmly on space or on spacetime instead of on matter and energy.
--
With words, we point to certain aspects, we both agree, and the words are just words. We, ourselves, we make them real for ourselves. That is where the fun starts.
I make a distinction between universe and universal and I hope I can make it clear to you that my feet are standing on solid grounds. Yet first let me make the specific distinction of these two words obvious here with other examples.
Free - freely
Craze - crazy
Moment - momentarily
Just simple examples to show that words that appear one and the same are actually not one and the same. The second word is reminiscent of the first word but has a distinctly different meaning. Same for universe and universal.
With the word Universe we find that the largest of levels is just a word, a name tag, containing everything we can think of plus everything we know we cannot even think of. The word points to something real and is non-functional.
Yet universal is functional and the word can be used to express absolute truths.
Two examples of universal truths.
When an alien lands on planet Earth on a sunny day, and we show the alien the color book, then the alien will pick blue from the color book to declare the color of the sky.
That is a universal truth.
When aliens have developed themselves to the point they understand the atomic reality, then they will have put together a periodic table that we will recognize as such.
The organization may be slightly different due to cultural preferences and perspectives, but we have another universal truth with the periodic table in our hands.
--
In the beginning there was the word, and so we better pay attention to words.
Words are tools and the tool we received at birth, our brain, can understand and use these words. Yet take tools to the max and the word will show us that it is just a tool. The brain, too, will show us that it is just a tool.
Gödel already proved to us 100 years ago that the completeness that we long for is not found at the top level, but at the levels underneath.
As such, the universe shows us a model of models.
To make the point perhaps better to recognize, and just using matter here as the subject to insert here:
Incorrect: The material model of models.
Correct: The model of material models.
As you know, all matter in the universe is on the move. There is no matter that exists at a standstill. The universe can therefore not provide us a material model. Rather, we have to move to a level lower to find a material model, for instance, with the Milky Way.
The Milky Way provides us the largest material model in the universe, and it is replicated (perhaps in imperfect ways) billions times over. Anything larger and we find divergence, which undermines the idea that a universal model can be singular. The ‘single’ model of the universe points to billions of other (smaller) models, and this collective of independent models is then what makes up the model.
--
To declare a point truthful, one must declare the context in which the point is made.
At the largest of levels, there are only two kinds of truths and not all three kinds:
1. Negative
2. Neutral
and the one that is not there:
3. Positive
Famous examples of negative truths at the overall level are:
* There is no truth.
* The only certainty is uncertainty.
With these two examples, one can see that we can declare a truth indeed, but in the positive we can't do it. The positive does not exist. I like this a lot, because the denial itself can be placed at the largest of levels. It is still non-functional and yet it is a truth.
Then there are the neutral words.
Universe
Everything
God
Mankind
Whole
Life
Nature
Matter
Balance
All
These words can be placed at the largest of levels, and actually have a little bit of a meaning to them (we have no problem using any of these words). Yet they are all neutral in essence. Basically, they are just what they are. They are all-inclusive in their own way, not caring if Mankind, for instance, is male, female, young, old, dead or alive.
Words are just words, Ian, we both agree. Yet the minute we use a word, we started up a system in which that word exists.
That is the entire point I am making. The system itself is not functional. It is the item that is functional.
1 + 1 = 2 is meaningless.
Yet 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is meaningful.
Thank you so much for a very good reply. I like how you think. I hope I was able to provide you food for thought to consider a little more whether there are universal truths to be had or not.
