It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What in reality may we label an idea or notion? That which is pondered, written and spoken about the word we are considering.
To say that something exists, yet it has no discernible boundary nor a beginning and an end, is human folly.
The "universe" is an imaginary boundary drawn around that which is discernible and sensible. First and foremost it is a word before it is a reality.
Also found in: Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.
[From pl. of Middle English methaphisik, from Medieval Latin metaphysica, from Medieval Greek (ta) metaphusika, from Greek (Ta) meta (ta) phusika, (the works) after the Physics, the title of Aristotle's treatise on first principles (so called because it followed his work on physics) : meta, after; see meta- + phusika, physics; see physics.]
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
n (functioning as singular)
1. (Philosophy) the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles, esp of being and knowing
2. (Philosophy) the philosophical study of the nature of reality, concerned with such questions as the existence of God, the external world, etc
3. (Philosophy) See descriptive metaphysics
4. (popularly) abstract or subtle discussion or reasoning
[C16: from Medieval Latin, from Greek ta meta ta phusika the things after the physics, from the arrangement of the subjects treated in the works of Aristotle
met•a•phys•ics (ˌmɛt əˈfɪz ɪks)
n. (used with a sing. v.)
1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
a branch of philosophy concerned with being, first principles, and often including aspects of cosmology and epistemology. — metaphysician, n. — metaphysical, adj.
See also: Philosophy
Air, photosynthesis for example exist though aren't clearly defined by boundaries, ends or beginnings because they are cyclical processes.
The ''Universe'' is a word to describe something already there, generally that is the purpose of words, to describe.
The knowledge accrued on Earth is initiated in the realms of Metaphysics and Philosophy, which explore the basic tenets of comprehension and wisdom that leads to research, analysis and factual data, as well as more abstract truths.
Clearly, as is known from Math and Physics, the Universe is subject to concepts and principles that affect matter but are not matter themselves.
The questions you are asking are about Metaphysics, hence the definition.
Abstract concepts are ''things'' in that they exist as concepts but not as clearly defined matter, similarly for air, photosynthesis, gravity, Math and Physics theory etc. hence they are initiated by or inclusive of the Metaphysical.
All matter is subject to energies, subtle and otherwise. The very nature of matter in subatomic structure is that of the dynamics of energies.
You think a tennis ball can be a ''thing'' because it is physical matter of clearly defined boundaries but if you looked at it's subatomic structure and realised it's atoms are recycled from space, and that it is held together with resonant energies, you wouldn't think of matter as so clearly defined, instead realising that matter is the result of and influenced by energy, which by definition is a metaphysical concept.
Take one of your non-object notions, for example. You believe it is not a thing because it can not be physically held, yet within the mind of the one who sees it, it is truly there. Further, what the thing is (that they're seeing) is a glimpse of a spirit or desire as they desire to see it be translated [into the light/body].
The forms are spiritual, they are within the spirit, and they are being translated into the light / physicality.
Ask yourself, who came up with a trapdoor -- where did it exist before it was physical? Was it man who made one up out of "nothing", or was it the trapdoor spider? Or what about wings? Or legs? Or eyes? Where did those things truly come from?
Or maybe ask yourself where the words of your post came from? The words are obviously the image of your awareness, the image of what you see in your spirit or desire, as you desire to see / translate them into the body...
The forms are physical. I can point them out if you wish.
If every human died, would notions still be things? Would they still exist without their understanding? Can a word lose its meaning, thereby ceasing to exist, in truth, or as they were willed? If not, where do they exist?
I am saying they exist where they have always existed. That chair at the end of the universe is there, in the spirit, and it has, pretty much, always been there - it was, however, not always in the light / in label / in image - it has not always been translated into the light.
What does it mean to ask if existence is a property? A full answer to this question requires a general theory of properties, which is well beyond the scope of this article. I briefly sketch the landscape to set up our discussion of existence. (See the entries on properties and substance for deeper discussion.) Properties contrast with individuals. This distinction can be explicated using the instantiation relation.
While properties also instantiate—the property of being red, for example, has the property of being a color—only properties are instantiated; individuals only instantiate. So, our first question is whether existence is instantiated and, if so, whether it is instantiated by individuals like Obama, my chair, and the fig tree in my backyard. Do individuals, in addition to ordinary properties like being human, being comfortable to sit in, and needing more water, instantiate a property expressed by the English verb ‘exists’?
Empirical and conceptual objects
Objects and their properties
Further information: Problem of universals
The world seems to contain many individual things, both physical, like apples, and abstract, such as love and the number 3; the former objects are called particulars. Particulars are said to have attributes, e.g., size, shape, color, location, and two particulars may have some such attributes in common. Such attributes are also termed Universals or Properties; the nature of these, and whether they have any real existence and if so of what kind, is a long-standing issue, realism and nominalism representing opposing views.
Metaphysicians concerned with questions about universals or particulars are interested in the nature of objects and their properties, and the relationship between the two. Some, e.g., Plato, argue that properties are abstract objects, existing outside of space and time, to which particular objects bear special relations. David Armstrong holds that universals exist in time and space but only at their instantiation and their discovery is a function of science. Others maintain that particulars are a bundle or collection of properties (specifically, a bundle of properties they have).
Think about which apple is the one true apple. You know it exists, but where? Where does it exist?
And on a side question... Do I seem like I am talking gibberish to you? You understand everything I'm referencing, right? The chair is just as the word nothing. Nothing exists as a word, and is an image of something, but nothing as a thing does not. Nothing, more or less, just expresses an inability to see, or a lack of desire to express what you see.