Originally posted by twhitehead
What is the definition of 'the Whole'? Must the universe fit this definition? Is space for example necessarily unbounded?
By the Whole I mean the totality of facts (actual states of affairs) as an entirety in itself. [I perhaps should have made clear that I was speaking metaphysically.] This is by definition unbounded, since a boundary would require another fact (state of affairs). Whether or not the “universe” is unbounded depends on whether “universe” is defined as all there is (the totality of actual states of affairs). As a single dimension of the universe, I don’t know whether it must be unbounded; but whatever is the complete dimensionality of the Whole (as defined) must be unbounded, or there would be some other dimension that had not been taken account of.
If “universe” is defined so that there can be multiple universes (since that is sometimes suggested on here), and if each one of them is unbounded, they have actually no connection whatsoever, and such a state of affairs
in principle cannot be verified or falsified (defeated). It might be incoherent, it’s imagining depending on treating “nothing” (
nihil) as a “queer kind of something” (G.E. Moore) that is imagined as separating pseudo-dimensionally the separate totalities (but googlefudge can likely answer better). On the other hand, one can perhaps think of a “manifold universe” where U = u(1) + u(2) + … +u(n), however the u’s are connected.
I just mean to say that “universe” may be used to mean different things; those seem to be a couple of examples.
The definition of the “Whole” above is tautological. It says nothing about the nature of the Whole itself. As a nondualist, I posit such a totality as the state of affairs that ontologically holds—as opposed to an ontological dualism, which, though I am working somewhat from the other side on the other thread, I suspect might be simply incoherent.