The Ealing Interpretation

[Noax]

One strand of the story is that big bang stuff is still spreading according to an inverse square law

You seem to equate 'big bang stuff' to material or energy, but since the universe is 3D, that spreads out according to an inverse cube law. When the universe expands to double its size, the density of most stuff (not dark energy) drops to 1/8 the prior value. This is presuming that energy is conserved in an expanding frame, which it isn't, but for mass, it sort of works.

I'm mixing up work and energy.

Those are the same thing with the same units. Work is a specific type of energy is all. Your boat/water wave analogy doesn't work since light does not behave like water. Do the math. The total energy of a pulse of light is frame dependent. In a redshifted frame, sure the pulse duration is twice as long, but the longer wavelength carries half the energy, and the intensity is also half (one plus, two minuses). It's easier to figure if you work with quanta since the duration makes no difference and all that is left is the lower frequency (no plus, one minus).

As I understand it, the expansion of space literally stretches photons, but there's nothing to stop us running towards them to increase their energy.

Indeed. As I said, one can make the energy of a photon anything you want by choosing the correct frame. Running is unnecessary.

Ok. So did I not make my case and give the impression that light is a valid frame?

The internet is so full of talk about the frame of light, and it's all wrong, but there's enough of it that the chatbots learn it and spit back rubbish. That's one of the main audiences I'm concerned about. I'm trying to do my part to stamp it out where it is seen. Sure, Einstein, back in the 1890's, considered the frame of light, and hit so many contradictions that he knew a new theory was needed. Nowhere in the SR paper is such a frame described.

It's not a quote, I'm just trying to convey the gist of relativity in language most non physicists will be comfortable with.

"If you travel in space and time, then it takes longer to reach the same 'time'"
This seems to be false in any frame. In any frame, it takes an hour to reach an hour from now.
If you looking at it from a dilation perspective, the moving guy sees less time, not more, to get to an hour from now.
I just think it would be far less confusing to the non-physicists
For one thing, one does not travel through spacetime. One traces a worldline through spacetime, but is everywhere present anywhere on that worldline, so it isn't travel. One travels through space. That's what travel means, making it a frame dependent concept.
A more correct statement would be "If you travel in space, then it takes less proper time than coordinate time to reach a given destination", but then one must define proper and coordinate time for your audience.

It was a stylistic decision not to define words as physicists understand them, since it is not my intention to teach physics to physicists. I know that is fingernails on a chalkboard to some, but again, it's just a story to create a context that some might find helpful.

It is fingernails since if your story actually piques an interest in physics to anybody enough for them to take up the study (or even to get through the mandatory physics pre-req to a college non-physics degree), then it would be a shame if the first steps are to unlearn all the wrong definitions. OK, yes, physics was mandatory for my non-physics engineering degree, but relativity was never part of that prereq. They only teach that if you want it.

Incidentally, we asked several chatbots if GR is required to describe an accelerated frame, and they all got the answer wrong.

Probably because the algorithms don't adequately distinguish between people who do and don't know what they are talking about. Who is "we", by the way?

Group contributing to a similar topic on another science (not philosphy) forum, one in which I'm a moderator. No, that is not said to bolster my credentials since there's plenty that blow me away with their knowledge of various subjects on hard-core sites like physicsforums (where I'm just a contributor) or especially physics stack exchange where I don't even have an account. But they're my go-to site for answers to hard questions. Site for the worst answers is perhaps Quora.

[Age]

The story goes that, once upon a time, there was a incredibly compact field of big bang stuff.

Are you able to elaborate at all, here?

Did I mention that I've written a book? https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

So, this one's answer is, OBVIOUSLY, 'No'. it cannot, at all, elaborate any further than just 'big bang stuff'. Which actually explains further WHY it still has a lot more to comprehend, learn, and understand about what actually exists, about what actually occured, and occurs, and how all of this actually behaves, and works.

And, 'Yes', is my answer to your clarifying question, here. you have mentioned that you have written a few books many times over, like those who continually seek out notoriety and/or more money commonly do.

[Age]

One strand of the story is that big bang stuff is still spreading according to an inverse square law

You seem to equate 'big bang stuff' to material or energy, but since the universe is 3D, that spreads out according to an inverse cube law. When the universe expands to double its size, the density of most stuff (not dark energy) drops to 1/8 the prior value. This is presuming that energy is conserved in an expanding frame, which it isn't, but for mass, it sort of works.

The reason this one continues to make False claims and Wrong measurements here is because it has not yet learned how to just let go of its False and faulty BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS, which can be very clearly recognised, and seen, here.

I'm mixing up work and energy.

Those are the same thing with the same units. Work is a specific type of energy is all. Your boat/water wave analogy doesn't work since light does not behave like water. Do the math. The total energy of a pulse of light is frame dependent. In a redshifted frame, sure the pulse duration is twice as long, but the longer wavelength carries half the energy, and the intensity is also half (one plus, two minuses). It's easier to figure if you work with quanta since the duration makes no difference and all that is left is the lower frequency (no plus, one minus).

As I understand it, the expansion of space literally stretches photons, but there's nothing to stop us running towards them to increase their energy.

Indeed. As I said, one can make the energy of a photon anything you want by choosing the correct frame. Running is unnecessary.

Ok. So did I not make my case and give the impression that light is a valid frame?

The internet is so full of talk about the frame of light, and it's all wrong, but there's enough of it that the chatbots learn it and spit back rubbish. That's one of the main audiences I'm concerned about. I'm trying to do my part to stamp it out where it is seen. Sure, Einstein, back in the 1890's, considered the frame of light, and hit so many contradictions that he knew a new theory was needed. Nowhere in the SR paper is such a frame described.

It's not a quote, I'm just trying to convey the gist of relativity in language most non physicists will be comfortable with.

"If you travel in space and time, then it takes longer to reach the same 'time'"
This seems to be false in any frame. In any frame, it takes an hour to reach an hour from now.
If you looking at it from a dilation perspective, the moving guy sees less time, not more, to get to an hour from now.
I just think it would be far less confusing to the non-physicists
For one thing, one does not travel through spacetime. One traces a worldline through spacetime, but is everywhere present anywhere on that worldline, so it isn't travel. One travels through space. That's what travel means, making it a frame dependent concept.
A more correct statement would be "If you travel in space, then it takes less proper time than coordinate time to reach a given destination", but then one must define proper and coordinate time for your audience.

It was a stylistic decision not to define words as physicists understand them, since it is not my intention to teach physics to physicists. I know that is fingernails on a chalkboard to some, but again, it's just a story to create a context that some might find helpful.

It is fingernails since if your story actually piques an interest in physics to anybody enough for them to take up the study (or even to get through the mandatory physics pre-req to a college non-physics degree), then it would be a shame if the first steps are to unlearn all the wrong definitions. OK, yes, physics was mandatory for my non-physics engineering degree, but relativity was never part of that prereq. They only teach that if you want it.

Incidentally, we asked several chatbots if GR is required to describe an accelerated frame, and they all got the answer wrong.

Probably because the algorithms don't adequately distinguish between people who do and don't know what they are talking about. Who is "we", by the way?

Group contributing to a similar topic on another science (not philosphy) forum, one in which I'm a moderator. No, that is not said to bolster my credentials since there's plenty that blow me away with their knowledge of various subjects on hard-core sites like physicsforums (where I'm just a contributor) or especially physics stack exchange where I don't even have an account. But they're my go-to site for answers to hard questions. Site for the worst answers is perhaps Quora.

LOL Asking followers and/or believers of a particular group, system, or community is NEVER necessarily the Right place to go seeking the Truth and the Right Accurate and Correct answers.

These people really were so BLINDINGLY CLOSED, and NARROWED.

These ones were SO BLIND that they did not even realise that they just kept doing the very thing, which the ones that they followed and sought out for 'answers' DID NOT and WOULD NOT DO.

[attofishpi]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Age
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀pompage
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀stickelage
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀fifage⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀fifage
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀stickelage
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀that's how you spell Age
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

[Will Bouwman]

One strand of the story is that big bang stuff is still spreading according to an inverse square law

You seem to equate 'big bang stuff' to material or energy...

No, those are the stuff of physics. Big bang stuff is ontological. One of the oldest questions in philosophy is what is the universe made of? Some time ago, I wrote an article on this for Philosophy Now: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches The key point being that while Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus and others were arguing about which of the Greek elements was primordial, Anaximander came to the conclusion that there is some stuff, which he called the apeiron, that all elements are made of. What distinguishes them is the measurable qualities of heat and wetness, which to me marks the division of philosophy and physics. Fundamentally it's the same idea as Kant's phenomena and noumena. There is some cause for the measurable phenomena, which may be some substance, in the philosophical sense, not to be confused with material, or even energy. We can measure material and energy, just as we can measure heat and humidity, but we don't know the underlying cause.
As I said before:

..nobody knows what conditions were like before the big bang, so there are all sorts of theories about what actually went bang and why it did so. The more mainstream theories are based on the idea of one or more fields, a bit like electric or magnetic fields. However you think about it, it’s some sort of big bang stuff with a staggering capacity to spread itself out and become a universe filled with particles.

So I don't know exactly what big bang stuff is, or even if any such thing exists, I am simply taking the metaphysical option that the universe is made of something, and that something manifests in ways that science has discovered.

It was a stylistic decision not to define words as physicists understand them, since it is not my intention to teach physics to physicists. I know that is fingernails on a chalkboard to some, but again, it's just a story to create a context that some might find helpful.

It is fingernails since if your story actually piques an interest in physics to anybody enough for them to take up the study (or even to get through the mandatory physics pre-req to a college non-physics degree), then it would be a shame if the first steps are to unlearn all the wrong definitions.

To anyone wishing to study physics, learning the definition of velocity, if not easy, will be sign they are going to struggle. Again, it is not my intention to teach physics, but for anyone who does, they will have to distinguish between speed and velocity anyway. I don't think reading my book will have much long term deleterious effect.

[Impenitent]

everyone knows the best monkey wrenches are forged from apeiron...

-Imp

[Age]

One strand of the story is that big bang stuff is still spreading according to an inverse square law

You seem to equate 'big bang stuff' to material or energy...

No, those are the stuff of physics. Big bang stuff is ontological. One of the oldest questions in philosophy is what is the universe made of? Some time ago, I wrote an article on this for Philosophy Now: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches The key point being that while Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus and others were arguing about which of the Greek elements was primordial, Anaximander came to the conclusion that there is some stuff, which he called the apeiron, that all elements are made of. What distinguishes them is the measurable qualities of heat and wetness, which to me marks the division of philosophy and physics. Fundamentally it's the same idea as Kant's phenomena and noumena. There is some cause for the measurable phenomena, which may be some substance, in the philosophical sense, not to be confused with material, or even energy. We can measure material and energy, just as we can measure heat and humidity, but we don't know the underlying cause.

What the Universe, Itself, is fundamentally made up of, a d how It works, exactly, I have already informed you human beings, in the days when this was being written.

But, OBVIOUSLY, some just REFUSE TO LISTEN.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, and PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, throughout this forum.

As I said before:

..nobody knows what conditions were like before the big bang, so there are all sorts of theories about what actually went bang.

I have ALSO ALREADY INFORMED you human beings of the ANSWER to this, as well.

[Noax]

One of the oldest questions in philosophy is what is the universe made of?

That question pretty much begs that the universe is meaningfully made of something, and for that matter, that it is meaningfully made at all. They should first ask if it is made of something before going on to ask 'of what?'.
OK, you take the option to say it is, but then it's not the problem of those that say it isn't to answer the question.

The key point being that while Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus and others were arguing about which of the Greek elements was primordial, Anaximander came to the conclusion that there is some stuff, which he called the apeiron, that all elements are made of. What distinguishes them is the measurable qualities of heat and wetness, which to me marks the division of philosophy and physics.

All that seems to concern what things are made out of, not what the universe (not to be treated as a 'thing/object') is made out of.

[Will Bouwman]

One of the oldest questions in philosophy is what is the universe made of?

That question pretty much begs that the universe is meaningfully made of something, and for that matter, that it is meaningfully made at all. They should first ask if it is made of something before going on to ask 'of what?'.

Well it's chicken and egg. I don't think the answers particularly matter. So the order the questions are asked matters even less. Just for reference, as someone sympathetic to Feyerabend, if you mention meaningful, my go to question is to whom, and to what end? OK, that's two questions, but I'm not a physicist, so I'm not really counting.

OK, you take the option to say it is, but then it's not the problem of those that say it isn't to answer the question.

Yup, for present purposes I do, but here's underdetermination again. Even if we had the truth, we couldn't know it, since it is always possible to create competing stories, hypotheses, theories and mathematics that would explain the same phenomenon as well as the truth.

The key point being that while Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus and others were arguing about which of the Greek elements was primordial, Anaximander came to the conclusion that there is some stuff, which he called the apeiron, that all elements are made of. What distinguishes them is the measurable qualities of heat and wetness, which to me marks the division of philosophy and physics.

All that seems to concern what things are made out of, not what the universe (not to be treated as a 'thing/object') is made out of.

I don't have a problem with treating the universe as a thing. I'm just as comfortable considering it an illusion, a projection, a simulation, an idea in the mind of some deity or madman. Who knows? One possibility is that it is made of something with broadly mechanical properties. My target audience, in this particular work, are people who are at home with that idea and would like to see the universe explained in the same context in language that doesn't hinder their understanding. Maybe I'll knock something up for transcendental idealists next.

[Age]

One of the oldest questions in philosophy is what is the universe made of?

That question pretty much begs that the universe is meaningfully made of something, and for that matter, that it is meaningfully made at all.

Well this is ONE PRESUMPTION.

Now, will you explain to the readers, here, HOW and WHY just wondering what the Universe is, fundamentally or not, just made up of, supposedly, then 'pretty much' begs that the Universe, Itself, is meaningfully made up of something, and, is meaningfully made at all?

you have, previously, presented some weird and/or 'out there' PRESUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, but there is going a 'step further' and beyond.

Just maybe "will bouwman" was 'begging the question' that the Universe is 'meaningfully' made up of something and/or is 'meaningfully' made at all. But, 'we' will have to see if this is what "will bouwman" was 'begging', 'meaning', thinking, or intending, or not, FIRST.

To me, just ASSUMING that this was what meant by "will bouwman" is BEYOND ABSURDITY. But, AGAIN, 'we' will just to WAIT to see, and to find out, for sure.

Until then the Universe, Itself,is made up of just two fundamental things, ONLY, just in case you were slightly interested, and curios, in KNOWING.

They should first ask if it is made of something before going on to ask 'of what?'.

One would have to be a complete IMBECILE, well in this thread anyway, to have not YET ALREADY asked if the Universe is made of some thing. And, to have not YET ALREADY answered that question.

Also, who and/or what is a "noax", exactly, to be TELLING others what they 'should', or 'should not', be doing?

OK, you take the option to say it is, but then it's not the problem of those that say it isn't to answer the question.

Talk about a great example of one who has ended up confusing "its" own 'self' while 'trying to' DEFLECT so as to get out of not being recognised as being 'the one' who, actually, does not yet KNOW what it is 'trying to:talk about, here.

If you, really, want to claim that the whole Universe, Itself, is NOT made up of ANY thing, then aare about to explain and/or elaborate on HOW this could even be a theoretical possibility, let alone an actual physical possibility?

If yes, then will you?

The key point being that while Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus and others were arguing about which of the Greek elements was primordial, Anaximander came to the conclusion that there is some stuff, which he called the apeiron, that all elements are made of. What distinguishes them is the measurable qualities of heat and wetness, which to me marks the division of philosophy and physics.

All that seems to concern what things are made out of, not what the universe (not to be treated as a 'thing/object') is made out of.

1. WHY would ANY one not treat the Universe, Itself, as a 'Thing/Object?

2. Why do you claim that the Universe is not to be treated as a 'thing/object', exactly?

3. What most 'things' are made out of are the EXACT SAME 'things' that the Universe, Itself, is made out of, anyway.

[Noax]

if you mention meaningful, my go to question is to whom, and to what end?

The question of why/how the universe exists is mostly a philosophical one, not a scientific one. To that end, one might put forth a proposal to 'explain it all', and things like 'universe was made of something' may or may not be meaningful in that proposal.

As an example, tensed verbs are not meaningful under eternalism. They constitute an implied reference to something the view denies.

Even if we had the truth, we couldn't know it, since it is always possible to create competing stories, hypotheses, theories and mathematics that would explain the same phenomenon as well as the truth.

Worse, there very well not be a 'the truth', however unknowable.

I don't have a problem with treating the universe as a thing.

Well I do. I find the assumption to be a source of all sorts of bad philosophy.

I'm just as comfortable considering it an illusion, a projection, a simulation, an idea in the mind of some deity or madman.

Some of that list qualify as 'things', if not objects. They are all arguably things contained by time for instance, which seems to be one critical property of a 'thing'.

Hey, maybe the universe really is a thing. The view simply creates more problems than it solves it seems.

[Age]

One of the oldest questions in philosophy is what is the universe made of?

That question pretty much begs that the universe is meaningfully made of something, and for that matter, that it is meaningfully made at all. They should first ask if it is made of something before going on to ask 'of what?'.

Well it's chicken and egg.

What came first between the chicken and the egg is, ALSO ALREADY KNOWN, AS WELL, by the way. Again, for ANY who is OPEN and INTERESTED

I don't think the answers particularly matter.

So, WHY bring them up and mention them, here?

So the order the questions are asked matters even less.

Really?

For example HOW can one find out WHY some thing happened, if and when WHAT, actually, happened is NOT YET, ALREADY, KNOWN?

Just for reference, as someone sympathetic to Feyerabend, if you mention meaningful, my go to question is to whom, and to what end? OK, that's two questions, but I'm not a physicist, so I'm not really counting.

OK, you take the option to say it is, but then it's not the problem of those that say it isn't to answer the question.

Yup, for present purposes I do, but here's underdetermination again. Even if we had the truth, we couldn't know it, since it is always possible to create competing stories, hypotheses, theories and mathematics that would explain the same phenomenon as well as the truth.

I am not sure what the word 'truth' means, nor refers to, exactly, in ALL countries and to ALL of you people's, but I see and take the word 'Truth' to mean or refer to 'that', what is accepted, agreed upon, and/or just taken as being an irrefutable Fact. Which can ONLY happen and occur when some thing is KNOWN, and NOT just assumed NOR just believed to be true.

So, in other words you have, arrived at, the Truth ONLY AFTER things are KNOWN, for sure, and NOT just THOUGHT.

To me, it is always POSSIBLE to KEEP creating more and more stories, hypotheses, and/or theories, but they can NEVER EVER compete with what is KNOWN, for sure, as being ALREADY True.

Only 'that' what is not YET KNOWN, or is UNKNOWN, could there be actual so-called 'competing' stories, hypotheses, or theories.

But, ONCE AGAIN, to me, just making up stories, hypotheses, or theories in order to find the ACTUAL Truth of things is just a complete waste of time, energy, money, and resources when 'trying to' to verify or refute those just made up stories, hypotheses, or theories.

The key point being that while Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus and others were arguing about which of the Greek elements was primordial, Anaximander came to the conclusion that there is some stuff, which he called the apeiron, that all elements are made of. What distinguishes them is the measurable qualities of heat and wetness, which to me marks the division of philosophy and physics.

All that seems to concern what things are made out of, not what the universe (not to be treated as a 'thing/object') is made out of.

I don't have a problem with treating the universe as a thing. I'm just as comfortable considering it an illusion, a projection, a simulation, an idea in the mind of some deity or madman.

So, you are, supposedly, just as comfortable considering that the WHOLE Universe is just an illusion or idea, but, still, want to BELIEVE and PERSIST that there is A 'mind', and something else, which ACTUALLY EXISTS.

Also, if there is a so-called "deity" or "madman", in 'the way' you are presenting, here, then 'that one' is, ACTUALLY, 'YOU'. As it IS 'YOU', ALONE, who is actually having, and 'seeing' the illusion, simulation, and/or ideas, here.

It is 'YOU', and could only be, 'YOU', who is the "deity" or the "madman", who 'projects'.

Now, besides the very few things that can be KNOWN, for ABSOLUTELY SURE, one of them being Existence, Itself, then what this Existence, (some Thing), consists of, or is made up of, exactly, can be discussed, and UNCOVERED, UNVEILED, and REVEALED.

Who knows?

'I' DO.

One possibility is that it is made of something with broadly mechanical properties. My target audience, in this particular work, are people who are at home with that idea and would like to see the universe explained in the same context in language that doesn't hinder their understanding.

So, this one's audience is a very NARROWED and CLOSED audience, by the sounds of it.

Maybe I'll knock something up for transcendental idealists next.

While you 'knock something up' for, as you call it, I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that you START and Begin with what is ACTUALLY True, and Right, or what has ALREADY been proved or verified as an IRREFUTABLE Fact, and stay on 'that T.R.A.C.K', ONLY

[Age]

if you mention meaningful, my go to question is to whom, and to what end?

The question of why/how the universe exists is mostly a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

But, and as you just VERY CLEARLY POINTED OUT, HOW and WHY the Universe exists is, still, a scientific question, which obviously means that the question can then be answered, and solved, scientifically.

Which, by the way, ALREADY HAS BEEN.

To that end, one might put forth a proposal to 'explain it all', and things like 'universe was made of something' may or may not be meaningful in that proposal.

As an example, tensed verbs are not meaningful under eternalism. They constitute an implied reference to something the view denies.

The Universe IS eternal, and this can NOT be refute.

Even if we had the truth, we couldn't know it, since it is always possible to create competing stories, hypotheses, theories and mathematics that would explain the same phenomenon as well as the truth.

Worse, there very well not be a 'the truth', however unknowable.

Will you express this more clearly?

I don't have a problem with treating the universe as a thing.

Well I do. I find the assumption to be a source of all sorts of bad philosophy.

So, this one is absolutely fine assuming and treating A 'Thing' as NOT 'A thing'.

I'm just as comfortable considering it an illusion, a projection, a simulation, an idea in the mind of some deity or madman.

Some of that list qualify as 'things', if not objects. They are all arguably things contained by time for instance, which seems to be one critical property of a 'thing'.

So, to this one, 'time' is an ACTUAL 'thing', but the Universe, Itself, is NOT.

Hey, maybe the universe really is a thing. The view simply creates more problems than it solves it seems.

That view, by itself, literally, does NOT create ANY, actual, 'problem', AT ALL.

[Will Bouwman]

if you mention meaningful, my go to question is to whom, and to what end?

The question of why/how the universe exists is mostly a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

Well yes, and this is the Philosophy Now forum.

To that end, one might put forth a proposal to 'explain it all', and things like 'universe was made of something' may or may not be meaningful in that proposal.

Perhaps, but the proposal I put forth in The Ealing Interpretation is that the universe is made of something.

Even if we had the truth, we couldn't know it, since it is always possible to create competing stories, hypotheses, theories and mathematics that would explain the same phenomenon as well as the truth.

Worse, there very well not be a 'the truth', however unknowable.

In which case that would be the truth.

I don't have a problem with treating the universe as a thing.

Well I do. I find the assumption to be a source of all sorts of bad philosophy.

Every premise that has ever been premised has been the source of all sorts of bad philosophy. The trick is identifying the good stuff.

I'm just as comfortable considering it an illusion, a projection, a simulation, an idea in the mind of some deity or madman.

Some of that list qualify as 'things', if not objects. They are all arguably things contained by time for instance, which seems to be one critical property of a 'thing'.

Hey, maybe the universe really is a thing. The view simply creates more problems than it solves it seems.

Swings and roundabouts. My own view is that treating time as a container creates its own problems.

[Belinda]

My own view is that treating time as a container creates its own problems.

Is change itself a container?