The parts being trees, dogs, stars, time, the color purple, my cousin Jason, orange juice, the texture rough, wooly mammoths,....etc.
2007-10-25 05:40:30 · 13 answers · asked by Link 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The universe is the set that contains the parts. In order to judge whether or not the universe is equivalent to the sum of its parts, we would need to have access to all of the parts of the universe, not just some of them (no offense to your cousin Jason or wooly mammoths).
2007-10-25 07:43:53 · answer #1 · answered by mitten 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well if you factor everything into being a part of the sum I dont see how it could be more then the sum of its parts... But with that said I think what they mean when they say something is more then the sum of its parts is related to the amount of information about a given thing that an outsider can have on it vs what that thing actualy does. To actualy know every part of the universe on every level and understand how they all work together for me seems like a "huge" and I use the word huge lightly accomplishment. So to ever be able to actualy say the universe is not more then the sum of its parts must mean you're fairly smart lol...
2007-10-25 13:38:16 · answer #2 · answered by magpiesmn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The universe as observed by humans seems to be the sum total of its parts. However; there seems to be things in our universe that do not have their origin here. For example, gravitational force although it is uniform throughout the universe does not have a point of creation within the universe which defies physical laws. Also; intelligence, is not created by the brain, and is not considered matter or energy. Matter and energy being the sum total of the universe. There are other examples.
2007-10-25 15:09:06 · answer #3 · answered by HeyDude 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is more than the sum of its parts.
Consider a whole men's suit, for example. Clearly, without its parts it isn't whole, in some sense. Yet, it has the property of being a men's suit when none of its parts has that same property.
Being a "universe" is not a property that suns, trees, light, dark matter, black holes, moons, planets, chihuahuas, or the rings of Saturn have. Hence, while the Universe needs its parts it does "go beyond" them in some sense.
HTH
Charles
2007-10-25 12:51:59 · answer #4 · answered by Charles 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Isn't it really just a feeble attempt by culture/society to name something we have no way of symbolizing? What could possibly symbolize the sensory world? What can define what is not sensory but still a part of what is known as 'universe'?Is there even a division between what we sense and what is sensing? Is there really a complete division between anything? If no real parts then no sum and only a whole.
2007-10-25 12:56:13 · answer #5 · answered by @@@@@@@@ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like to think that the universe is more then just the sum of it's parts.To me the parts are just that parts that when is all added up adds to the sum of the universe if that makes any sense to you at all.
2007-10-25 13:18:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The parts you used merely describe reality as we perceive it. I think the universe is far more complex than this reality.
In other words, I don't think we see the big picture, nor are we (as a whole) even capable of seeing the big picture.
2007-10-25 13:30:53 · answer #7 · answered by rorybuns 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Emerging in the Universe is Up Dog, the emergent coalescent, Up Dog.
2007-10-25 14:15:24 · answer #8 · answered by Qyn 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends on how one defines Universe.
2007-10-25 13:44:29 · answer #9 · answered by Edward 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Summation is defined as the aggregate of parts. Unless you re-define this term it can mean nothing else.
~
2007-10-25 12:49:29 · answer #10 · answered by Order In Chaos 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋