Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Are Relata Real?

 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 4:08:07 AMPosted: 4 years agoBetween two stars, S1 and S2, there are certain relations between them, the two stars are easily real. But are the relations between them real?I am taller than my sister. My sister exists, and so do I... but does the third thing, a relation, "taller than" exist?I'd like to hear some thoughtful answers and perhaps provoke debate.
 Posts: 13,775 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 2:40:01 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 4:08:07 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:Between two stars, S1 and S2, there are certain relations between them, the two stars are easily real. But are the relations between them real?I am taller than my sister. My sister exists, and so do I... but does the third thing, a relation, "taller than" exist?I'd like to hear some thoughtful answers and perhaps provoke debate.A difference relation amounts to "X is not Y". If it were not real that X were not Y, we would not be able to distinguish them as two distinct entities in the first place. So insofar as X and Y are real, their difference is real as well.
 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 6:12:06 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 2:40:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 3/29/2014 4:08:07 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:Between two stars, S1 and S2, there are certain relations between them, the two stars are easily real. But are the relations between them real?I am taller than my sister. My sister exists, and so do I... but does the third thing, a relation, "taller than" exist?I'd like to hear some thoughtful answers and perhaps provoke debate.A difference relation amounts to "X is not Y". If it were not real that X were not Y, we would not be able to distinguish them as two distinct entities in the first place. So insofar as X and Y are real, their difference is real as well.The proposal sounds nice but I think misses the question. It's not being asked whether X and Y are distinct, what's being asked is whether their relation, whatever it may be, is a third entity that exists.
 Posts: 13,775 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 6:44:24 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 6:12:06 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 2:40:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 3/29/2014 4:08:07 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:Between two stars, S1 and S2, there are certain relations between them, the two stars are easily real. But are the relations between them real?I am taller than my sister. My sister exists, and so do I... but does the third thing, a relation, "taller than" exist?I'd like to hear some thoughtful answers and perhaps provoke debate.A difference relation amounts to "X is not Y". If it were not real that X were not Y, we would not be able to distinguish them as two distinct entities in the first place. So insofar as X and Y are real, their difference is real as well.The proposal sounds nice but I think misses the question. It's not being asked whether X and Y are distinct, what's being asked is whether their relation, whatever it may be, is a third entity that exists.Yeah, you're right. I guess I'm saying the fodder for the abstraction is real.
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 6:46:59 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 6:12:06 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 2:40:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 3/29/2014 4:08:07 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:Between two stars, S1 and S2, there are certain relations between them, the two stars are easily real. But are the relations between them real?I am taller than my sister. My sister exists, and so do I... but does the third thing, a relation, "taller than" exist?I'd like to hear some thoughtful answers and perhaps provoke debate.A difference relation amounts to "X is not Y". If it were not real that X were not Y, we would not be able to distinguish them as two distinct entities in the first place. So insofar as X and Y are real, their difference is real as well.The proposal sounds nice but I think misses the question. It's not being asked whether X and Y are distinct, what's being asked is whether their relation, whatever it may be, is a third entity that exists.But exists in what sense? Is an entity in what sense? Is an entity in that it is an abstraction which relates a reality? In which case, yes, it exists. Are you asking if it has an existence independent of that? I'm not even sure that would even be coherent...Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 6:52:47 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 6:44:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 3/29/2014 6:12:06 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 2:40:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 3/29/2014 4:08:07 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:Between two stars, S1 and S2, there are certain relations between them, the two stars are easily real. But are the relations between them real?I am taller than my sister. My sister exists, and so do I... but does the third thing, a relation, "taller than" exist?I'd like to hear some thoughtful answers and perhaps provoke debate.A difference relation amounts to "X is not Y". If it were not real that X were not Y, we would not be able to distinguish them as two distinct entities in the first place. So insofar as X and Y are real, their difference is real as well.The proposal sounds nice but I think misses the question. It's not being asked whether X and Y are distinct, what's being asked is whether their relation, whatever it may be, is a third entity that exists.Yeah, you're right. I guess I'm saying the fodder for the abstraction is real.Not sure what you mean by fodder.Anyhow, I think where folks come down on this issue has important implications for how they think about the universe.IN Substantivalism, there is one whole, a substance that is THE universe.IN Relationalism, there isn't any one substance and to speak of the universe is just to speak of the relations that many existing things have with one another, but there is no real "universe." That's just what we call the collective sum of the relations.But then in either case we're forced to say something "extra" and unobserved is real. Both in substantivalism (an absolute frame of rest) or in relationalism (the relata are real).
 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 6:55:40 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 6:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:But exists in what sense?I don't see how existence would have modes.Is an entity in what sense?In the sense that it is a thing, that is, a thing if it exists.Is an entity in that it is an abstraction which relates a reality? In which case, yes, it exists. Are you asking if it has an existence independent of that? I'm not even sure that would even be coherent...Interesting, so you think abstractions exist. Are you a Platonist?
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 7:11:30 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 6:55:40 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 6:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:But exists in what sense?I don't see how existence would have modes.Is an entity in what sense?In the sense that it is a thing, that is, a thing if it exists.Is an entity in that it is an abstraction which relates a reality? In which case, yes, it exists. Are you asking if it has an existence independent of that? I'm not even sure that would even be coherent...Interesting, so you think abstractions exist. Are you a Platonist?Goodness no. But that was kinda my point, I wasn't sure whether YOU were.I would say the relationship exists in the sense that expressing it is expressing a true statement.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 7:15:35 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 7:11:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/29/2014 6:55:40 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 6:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:But exists in what sense?I don't see how existence would have modes.Is an entity in what sense?In the sense that it is a thing, that is, a thing if it exists.Is an entity in that it is an abstraction which relates a reality? In which case, yes, it exists. Are you asking if it has an existence independent of that? I'm not even sure that would even be coherent...Interesting, so you think abstractions exist. Are you a Platonist?Goodness no. But that was kinda my point, I wasn't sure whether YOU were.I would say the relationship exists in the sense that expressing it is expressing a true statement.I'm not a Platonist to clear that up. And I agree that there can be certain true descriptions of relationships between existing things. But the question is whether there is a third, existing entity between those two or more existing things; namely their relationship.
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 7:19:44 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 7:15:35 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 7:11:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/29/2014 6:55:40 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 6:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:But exists in what sense?I don't see how existence would have modes.Is an entity in what sense?In the sense that it is a thing, that is, a thing if it exists.Is an entity in that it is an abstraction which relates a reality? In which case, yes, it exists. Are you asking if it has an existence independent of that? I'm not even sure that would even be coherent...Interesting, so you think abstractions exist. Are you a Platonist?Goodness no. But that was kinda my point, I wasn't sure whether YOU were.I would say the relationship exists in the sense that expressing it is expressing a true statement.I'm not a Platonist to clear that up. And I agree that there can be certain true descriptions of relationships between existing things. But the question is whether there is a third, existing entity between those two or more existing things; namely their relationship.The relationship exists as a set of true statements, if that's what you mean. But if you'd ask about an existence BEYOND that, I'd come back to questioning what that means.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 9:00:09 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 7:19:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/29/2014 7:15:35 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 7:11:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/29/2014 6:55:40 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 6:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:But exists in what sense?I don't see how existence would have modes.Is an entity in what sense?In the sense that it is a thing, that is, a thing if it exists.Is an entity in that it is an abstraction which relates a reality? In which case, yes, it exists. Are you asking if it has an existence independent of that? I'm not even sure that would even be coherent...Interesting, so you think abstractions exist. Are you a Platonist?Goodness no. But that was kinda my point, I wasn't sure whether YOU were.I would say the relationship exists in the sense that expressing it is expressing a true statement.I'm not a Platonist to clear that up. And I agree that there can be certain true descriptions of relationships between existing things. But the question is whether there is a third, existing entity between those two or more existing things; namely their relationship.The relationship exists as a set of true statements, if that's what you mean. But if you'd ask about an existence BEYOND that, I'd come back to questioning what that means.That's what I'm trying to question! Haha, if the relata of all bodies are factual, then those facts were facts long before any human being evolved to put them into statements.Semantics aside, I think that if you contended that the relata are no more than abstractions, then space and time are abstractions.
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 9:32:09 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 9:00:09 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:The relationship exists as a set of true statements, if that's what you mean. But if you'd ask about an existence BEYOND that, I'd come back to questioning what that means.That's what I'm trying to question! Haha, if the relata of all bodies are factual, then those facts were facts long before any human being evolved to put them into statements.Not necessarily. IFF the items in question existed before humans, then yes, there were true statements about them.But the same can be said about any statement about any thing, which is a factual statement.X is a star, depends on our definition of star, but once properly understood is merely the representation of a true statement about X.Semantics aside, I think that if you contended that the relata are no more than abstractions, then space and time are abstractions.Why? Time is a measurement of change. So our expressions about time are abstractions--but not time itself. Same withe space, and relata.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/29/2014 11:39:27 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 10:31:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:No the content of those statements we speak of today are... not the statements. Statements are linguistic.True. More accurate would be to say that that which the statements represent would be true.I agree, yes, the content embedded within the statements is what represents the facts... or at least it should it is a true statement.For an example, the proposition, "all hats are blue" is a sentence with content alright, but being that I just found an instance of a green hat, then the content of the original sentence, "all hats are blue", fails to represent the facts of reality.But the same can be said about any statement about any thing, which is a factual statement.X is a star, depends on our definition of star, but once properly understood is merely the representation of a true statement about X.Again don't confuse truth makers (facts) with truth carriers (the content of a proposition) which so happen to be about those facts.I'm not. But relata are statements which convey facts.I agree that we can make statements regarding relata, but did you want to reduce relata AS relata to statements only? Or did you think relata is something more?Semantics aside, I think that if you contended that the relata are no more than abstractions, then space and time are abstractions.Why? Time is a measurement of change. So our expressions about time are abstractions--but not time itself. Same withe space, and relata.Change is time and time is change and passage... see the pattern? Defining time is circular. You speak of measurements but those are operationalist definitions which are covariant under transformations and so can be given up as an operationalist definition. Time isn't our measurements... whatever it is, I agree.But now you say that time, space and relationships between bodies are not abstractions, but are real. Is this your view?The abstractions are tools to understand the facts, the facts are what we call the reality, the reality is real.All of this is true, but are relata facts? Not just abstractions including relata-talk, but actual relata... are relata real in the sense that they exist in reality?
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2014 12:30:34 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/29/2014 11:39:27 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 10:31:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:No the content of those statements we speak of today are... not the statements. Statements are linguistic.True. More accurate would be to say that that which the statements represent would be true.I agree, yes, the content embedded within the statements is what represents the facts... or at least it should it is a true statement.For an example, the proposition, "all hats are blue" is a sentence with content alright, but being that I just found an instance of a green hat, then the content of the original sentence, "all hats are blue", fails to represent the facts of reality.But the same can be said about any statement about any thing, which is a factual statement.X is a star, depends on our definition of star, but once properly understood is merely the representation of a true statement about X.Again don't confuse truth makers (facts) with truth carriers (the content of a proposition) which so happen to be about those facts.I'm not. But relata are statements which convey facts.I agree that we can make statements regarding relata, but did you want to reduce relata AS relata to statements only? Or did you think relata is something more?Yes, I reduce it to statements only, as in no different than saying "X is a star", which is merely the linguistic representation of "X has Y characteristics", which is further just a relation of facts.Semantics aside, I think that if you contended that the relata are no more than abstractions, then space and time are abstractions.Why? Time is a measurement of change. So our expressions about time are abstractions--but not time itself. Same withe space, and relata.Change is time and time is change and passage... see the pattern? Defining time is circular. You speak of measurements but those are operationalist definitions which are covariant under transformations and so can be given up as an operationalist definition. Time isn't our measurements... whatever it is, I agree.But now you say that time, space and relationships between bodies are not abstractions, but are real. Is this your view?The abstractions are tools to understand the facts, the facts are what we call the reality, the reality is real.All of this is true, but are relata facts? Not just abstractions including relata-talk, but actual relata... are relata real in the sense that they exist in reality?Only inasmuch as any statement which is factual exists in reality.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2014 1:03:35 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/30/2014 12:30:34 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/29/2014 11:39:27 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 10:31:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:No the content of those statements we speak of today are... not the statements. Statements are linguistic.True. More accurate would be to say that that which the statements represent would be true.I agree, yes, the content embedded within the statements is what represents the facts... or at least it should it is a true statement.For an example, the proposition, "all hats are blue" is a sentence with content alright, but being that I just found an instance of a green hat, then the content of the original sentence, "all hats are blue", fails to represent the facts of reality.But the same can be said about any statement about any thing, which is a factual statement.X is a star, depends on our definition of star, but once properly understood is merely the representation of a true statement about X.Again don't confuse truth makers (facts) with truth carriers (the content of a proposition) which so happen to be about those facts.I'm not. But relata are statements which convey facts.I agree that we can make statements regarding relata, but did you want to reduce relata AS relata to statements only? Or did you think relata is something more?Yes, I reduce it to statements only, as in no different than saying "X is a star", which is merely the linguistic representation of "X has Y characteristics", which is further just a relation of facts.Semantics aside, I think that if you contended that the relata are no more than abstractions, then space and time are abstractions.Why? Time is a measurement of change. So our expressions about time are abstractions--but not time itself. Same withe space, and relata.Change is time and time is change and passage... see the pattern? Defining time is circular. You speak of measurements but those are operationalist definitions which are covariant under transformations and so can be given up as an operationalist definition. Time isn't our measurements... whatever it is, I agree.But now you say that time, space and relationships between bodies are not abstractions, but are real. Is this your view?The abstractions are tools to understand the facts, the facts are what we call the reality, the reality is real.All of this is true, but are relata facts? Not just abstractions including relata-talk, but actual relata... are relata real in the sense that they exist in reality?Only inasmuch as any statement which is factual exists in reality.So then space and time are abstractions, these are real. The "universe" doesn't really exist, rather just individual physical things with distinct properties.
 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2014 1:03:58 AMPosted: 4 years ago*are not real.
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2014 2:01:36 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/30/2014 1:03:35 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/30/2014 12:30:34 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/29/2014 11:39:27 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 10:31:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:No the content of those statements we speak of today are... not the statements. Statements are linguistic.True. More accurate would be to say that that which the statements represent would be true.I agree, yes, the content embedded within the statements is what represents the facts... or at least it should it is a true statement.For an example, the proposition, "all hats are blue" is a sentence with content alright, but being that I just found an instance of a green hat, then the content of the original sentence, "all hats are blue", fails to represent the facts of reality.But the same can be said about any statement about any thing, which is a factual statement.X is a star, depends on our definition of star, but once properly understood is merely the representation of a true statement about X.Again don't confuse truth makers (facts) with truth carriers (the content of a proposition) which so happen to be about those facts.I'm not. But relata are statements which convey facts.I agree that we can make statements regarding relata, but did you want to reduce relata AS relata to statements only? Or did you think relata is something more?Yes, I reduce it to statements only, as in no different than saying "X is a star", which is merely the linguistic representation of "X has Y characteristics", which is further just a relation of facts.Semantics aside, I think that if you contended that the relata are no more than abstractions, then space and time are abstractions.Why? Time is a measurement of change. So our expressions about time are abstractions--but not time itself. Same withe space, and relata.Change is time and time is change and passage... see the pattern? Defining time is circular. You speak of measurements but those are operationalist definitions which are covariant under transformations and so can be given up as an operationalist definition. Time isn't our measurements... whatever it is, I agree.But now you say that time, space and relationships between bodies are not abstractions, but are real. Is this your view?The abstractions are tools to understand the facts, the facts are what we call the reality, the reality is real.All of this is true, but are relata facts? Not just abstractions including relata-talk, but actual relata... are relata real in the sense that they exist in reality?Only inasmuch as any statement which is factual exists in reality.So then space and time are abstractions, these are real. The "universe" doesn't really exist, rather just individual physical things with distinct properties.The universe exists, inasmuch as it's the term we use for "the set of all things" or however you choose to define it.It's like looking at a house...it could be described as "four walls, floor, and roof", too.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 255 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2014 5:40:30 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/30/2014 2:01:36 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/30/2014 1:03:35 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/30/2014 12:30:34 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/29/2014 11:39:27 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 10:31:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:No the content of those statements we speak of today are... not the statements. Statements are linguistic.True. More accurate would be to say that that which the statements represent would be true.I agree, yes, the content embedded within the statements is what represents the facts... or at least it should it is a true statement.For an example, the proposition, "all hats are blue" is a sentence with content alright, but being that I just found an instance of a green hat, then the content of the original sentence, "all hats are blue", fails to represent the facts of reality.But the same can be said about any statement about any thing, which is a factual statement.X is a star, depends on our definition of star, but once properly understood is merely the representation of a true statement about X.Again don't confuse truth makers (facts) with truth carriers (the content of a proposition) which so happen to be about those facts.I'm not. But relata are statements which convey facts.I agree that we can make statements regarding relata, but did you want to reduce relata AS relata to statements only? Or did you think relata is something more?Yes, I reduce it to statements only, as in no different than saying "X is a star", which is merely the linguistic representation of "X has Y characteristics", which is further just a relation of facts.Semantics aside, I think that if you contended that the relata are no more than abstractions, then space and time are abstractions.Why? Time is a measurement of change. So our expressions about time are abstractions--but not time itself. Same withe space, and relata.Change is time and time is change and passage... see the pattern? Defining time is circular. You speak of measurements but those are operationalist definitions which are covariant under transformations and so can be given up as an operationalist definition. Time isn't our measurements... whatever it is, I agree.But now you say that time, space and relationships between bodies are not abstractions, but are real. Is this your view?The abstractions are tools to understand the facts, the facts are what we call the reality, the reality is real.All of this is true, but are relata facts? Not just abstractions including relata-talk, but actual relata... are relata real in the sense that they exist in reality?Only inasmuch as any statement which is factual exists in reality.So then space and time are abstractions, these are real. The "universe" doesn't really exist, rather just individual physical things with distinct properties.The universe exists, inasmuch as it's the term we use for "the set of all things" or however you choose to define it.It's like looking at a house...it could be described as "four walls, floor, and roof", too.Right, so the universe is just an abstraction. There really isn't any universe, there's just stuff everywhere with many different properties. No space or time, just material things.
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2014 7:12:20 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 3/30/2014 5:40:30 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/30/2014 2:01:36 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/30/2014 1:03:35 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/30/2014 12:30:34 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 3/29/2014 11:39:27 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:At 3/29/2014 10:31:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:No the content of those statements we speak of today are... not the statements. Statements are linguistic.True. More accurate would be to say that that which the statements represent would be true.I agree, yes, the content embedded within the statements is what represents the facts... or at least it should it is a true statement.For an example, the proposition, "all hats are blue" is a sentence with content alright, but being that I just found an instance of a green hat, then the content of the original sentence, "all hats are blue", fails to represent the facts of reality.But the same can be said about any statement about any thing, which is a factual statement.X is a star, depends on our definition of star, but once properly understood is merely the representation of a true statement about X.Again don't confuse truth makers (facts) with truth carriers (the content of a proposition) which so happen to be about those facts.I'm not. But relata are statements which convey facts.I agree that we can make statements regarding relata, but did you want to reduce relata AS relata to statements only? Or did you think relata is something more?Yes, I reduce it to statements only, as in no different than saying "X is a star", which is merely the linguistic representation of "X has Y characteristics", which is further just a relation of facts.Semantics aside, I think that if you contended that the relata are no more than abstractions, then space and time are abstractions.Why? Time is a measurement of change. So our expressions about time are abstractions--but not time itself. Same withe space, and relata.Change is time and time is change and passage... see the pattern? Defining time is circular. You speak of measurements but those are operationalist definitions which are covariant under transformations and so can be given up as an operationalist definition. Time isn't our measurements... whatever it is, I agree.But now you say that time, space and relationships between bodies are not abstractions, but are real. Is this your view?The abstractions are tools to understand the facts, the facts are what we call the reality, the reality is real.All of this is true, but are relata facts? Not just abstractions including relata-talk, but actual relata... are relata real in the sense that they exist in reality?Only inasmuch as any statement which is factual exists in reality.So then space and time are abstractions, these are real. The "universe" doesn't really exist, rather just individual physical things with distinct properties.The universe exists, inasmuch as it's the term we use for "the set of all things" or however you choose to define it.It's like looking at a house...it could be described as "four walls, floor, and roof", too.Right, so the universe is just an abstraction. There really isn't any universe, there's just stuff everywhere with many different properties. No space or time, just material things."The universe" is an abstract concept of "the whole of everything", yes.Space and time aren't abstractions, I don't think though--well, depending on how you define time specifically.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!