Universe means Everything. So yes you can point to anything and everything and say “this is universe”. The ideal that there is something “outside, before, after” the universe, is what physicists and scientists conjecture about, hence the “Big Bang Theory” which is a postulation of “the beginning” of the universe.
You should know this by now. This is elementary quality, common sense, knowledge. That you don’t know this, or are feigning ignorance, will make me and everybody else lose what little respect there can be, for your intellect. I can only hope at this point that you’re playing the fool. Or you are a fool. Either way these lessons on causality are a bargain for you.
Infinity is a process of change, hence it is always demonstrated. A person can keep counting and counting, hypothetically forever. Or a computer could. Chaos theory depends on the concept of infinity, as does change. Change is eternal, “Flux”, the fundamental condition of existence. Everything is always changing. Hence humans evolved intelligence, as do other organisms, to anticipate, find direction, and predict the universe and particular environments.
That’s your problem here. You can’t understand the observation that just because doesn’t identify the cause to an event, doesn’t mean the event has no cause.
That’s also why you are solipsistic. Just because you don’t understand something, or I don’t understand something, doesn’t make it uncaused, or impossible. That’s foolish. It’s ignorance. And you are admitting to your ignorance casually. To claim that events “have no cause” is absurd, which is to say, you’re ignoring whatever causes that led to the event anyway. Some people do, correctly and accurately, identify the causes to events and processes. You ought to admit this, with your reliance on science and Bertrand Russel. He would agree with me. Logic means that some minds and brains, are suited to some tasks and environments, and thus can identify causes within certain sets of problems, or even language, that other brains and minds would not associate. Because the ‘logic’ of one person is not the same as others, although people can reach the same conclusions, and agree upon certain premises.
Logic is a series of conditions, when granted truth, people can follow one cause to the next, to the next, to the next, and understand why and how any particular event occurs.
In science, this is most obvious with Chemistry and chemical reactions, physical processes which have clear and immediate evidence, results, when inoculated with other elements.
If you cannot defend your assertion about “uncaused events”, then it is mysticism, the same as ‘god’ or divinity.
Go ahead and explain yourself. You already did. “I don’t know the cause of this or that event, therefore, it has no cause.” That is retarded. You seem to be an irrational person.
I don’t cling to dead, nor living, authorities. Philosophy is about becoming your own authority, concerning the essential qualities of life and existence.
It’s about speaking for yourself. If you need dead philosophers to argue on your behalf then that’s your problem.
I probably know more about what Bertrand Russel wrote, and meant, than you do. So it’s a moot point. His critical points were/are about how logic is tied up to language mechanics and how people communicate limits what they can relay about logic and rationality.
What a cop-out. You obviously have limits when attempting to understand things, and this topic particularly. If nothing else then you should learn about limits to knowledge, Epistemology. You are the subjectivist to imply, repeatedly, that “because we don’t know something” then it must not exist.
That’s not my argument. See how you cleverly insert “God” into the analogy??? That’s not my doing; it’s your doing. What I am saying is that human knowledge, wisdom, experience, any given perspective, an individual, has limits. People have blind-spots in vision. Just because you don’t see something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s you position, Solipsism. What I’m saying, about the unseen and unknown, is that it must follow the rules and natural law to which humanity has axioms, insofar as those axioms have held true historically, and they have. For example, you cannot produce counter-evidence as to the theory of gravity, relativity, or the physical explanations of mass, matter, conservation of energy, and the like. And because you cannot counter-argue them, and show no significant nor deep knowledge of them currently, you don’t know shit. You obviously argue from a position of ignorance.
Newton’s Laws still reign supreme. You cannot demonstrate or really even imagine any circumstance that mass or energy is created or destroyed. Thus the axioms are given, and beyond common doubt. People trust them. You trust them, without even knowing or realizing it. And the fact of the matter is the physical theories are dependent upon “the objective” world, and how the human mind attempts to rationalize, and apply logic to, existence. It’s not a matter of subjectivity. It’s not “dependent upon my experience” or “your experience”.
You are an obvious novice in philosophy when you admit ignorance about scientific essentials. Science and philosophy have already covered the matter of sensation and experience. Berkeley, for example, studied the human cognitive and perceptual blind spots in depth. It’s very obvious to those who are educated, then, that what one person cannot sense does not coincide with another, necessarily. Hence this is why the philosophy of “Perspectivism” and scientific “Relativity” emerged.
You have a long, long way to go, before talking about concepts that you barely know an ounce about.