Is it misleading to say "IN the universe"

[Sorcerer]

When speaking of the universe and parts of it, it is common for people to refer to those parts as being "in" the universe. I think this is sloppy wording. By definition if something has the position considered as "in", then there is an opposing position "out". Given that by definition the universe is everything the position of outside the universe is nonsensical.

 

For example should the sentence: "It is the largest known star in the universe." Instead be worded as: "It is the universe's largest known star."

 

This semantic error I believe actually causes a lot of problems with visualisation when picturing the universe on a large scale, leading to "God's eye" views of the universe when the only viewpoint which makes any sense is from that of an observer surrounded by the rest of the universe.

 

I would however allow the use of something being "in the observable universe", since there is unobservable universe surrounding it.

 

You may be thinking, "how pedantic". However correct use of English is very important especially when teaching people new concepts. Attributing the position of "in" to something relative to the universe can lead to critical errors in thinking until the false concept is realised, which may be never, many will go their lives thinking this way. The error is very similar, and as easy to make as attributing intention or desire to evolution. Errors like these were common throughout my school,for instance when learning of covalent bonding, we were told the atoms "wanted" to have a full shell of electrons. The teacher was astute enough to point out they don't actually have any desire, but without ever trying to explain why it was otherwise.

 

So what do you think, should we try our hardest to stop referring to things being "in" the universe?

Edited August 5, 2015 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

By definition if something has the position considered as "in", then there is an opposing position "out".

 

I don't see why.

 

And if so, then ...

 

For example should the sentence: "It is the largest known star in the universe." Instead be worded as: "It is the universe's largest known star."

 

... saying "the universe's" implies the star could belong to something else.

 

By your logic, one should never mention "the universe" at all because it is otiose.

 

 

You may be thinking, "how pedantic".

 

Pedantic is not the word I would use.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Strange

[Sorcerer]

 

I don't see why.

 

And if so, then ...

 

... saying "the universe's" implies the star could belong to something else.

 

By your logic, one should never mention "the universe" at all because it is otiose.

 

 

Pedantic is not the word I would use.

Any preposition which has a direct opposite infers that direct opposite exists. Name something which occurs "in" any proper noun which doesn't have a relative position called "out".

 

The star can "belong" to many other things it is also that solar system's star. It is the star that was created from a particular nebula in a particular part of a galaxy, which are all a part of the universe. It doesn't imply that it can "belong" to a set of objects greater than the universe though. Since the universe is the entire set.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

Any preposition which has a direct opposite infers that direct opposite exists. Name something which occurs "in" any proper noun which doesn't have a relative position called "out".

 

The universe?

[Acme]

...Name something which occurs "in" any proper noun which doesn't have a relative position called "out".

...

In a dither.

[Delta1212]

In the nick of time?

 

In a second?

 

In mourning?

 

In front?

 

In denial?

[timo]

I am not sure I agree with your statements about language that for "in" to have a meaning you must have an opposing "out" - or even that there was a definition requiring it. "Not in" may be more suitable opposite, and even that may require mental parentheses that are mathematically common but create strange language. Take the sentence "last year I have been in Portugal and Australia", for example (fun fact: that sentence being true necessarily requires that "last year I have been out of Portugal and out of Australia" is also true ).

 

Nitpicking about language aside, I agree with the statement that "in the universe" is often redundant (maybe not if you want to make a distinction between hypothetical things and actually-existing things). It may indeed be a good idea to avoid it when sensibly possible. Altogether. That is, your example would simply become "it is the largest known star". My experience also confirms your suspicion that "in the observable universe" can be a sensible thing to say: I wrote this (or just "the observable universe") quite a few times in the last years because that was required for the statement to be true.

 

Also note that language or conversation in a wider sense is not necessarily about transporting factual information. Arguably, most of human communication is not about exchange of facts, both in oral communication and in writing (-> novels). It may not be bad if this familiar "story-telling style" also appears in scientific texts, especially at lower levels. As an extreme example: Math books written for mathematicians can be extremely efficient and careful about their choice of language. But it takes a university degree in mathematics to understand this kind of writing.

Edited August 11, 2015 by timo

[Sorcerer]

In the nick of time?

 

In a second?

 

In mourning?

 

In front?

 

In denial?

"nicks" of time have times other than that instant.

"seconds" have a second before and after them.

"mourning" is an emotional state which infers that there was an emotional state before which wasn't mourning and an emotional state after which isn't mourning.

"front" has the object, behind the object and all the range of positions in a continuum that include the position front.

"denial" can change to being aware, or end in death, where there is no long a state of denial, and also must come at a certain time, in which before you weren't in denial.

 

Nice try at using english semantics to confuse the issue, thanks for playing

Take the sentence "last year I have been in Portugal and Australia", for example (fun fact: that sentence being true necessarily requires that "last year I have been out of Portugal and out of Australia" is also true ).

No it would only suggest that there are other places that exist outside of those places.

Yes I would agree mathematics can explain it sensibly, with the universe being the greatest possible set of all things. However my point was that a simple phrase like "in the universe" can lead to a false supposition that the universe has something exterior to it.

[Strange]

Nice try at using english semantics to confuse the issue.

 

I thought that was the purpose of the thread. There certainly wasn't any physics in the OP.

[Sorcerer]

Yes perhaps I am in the wrong forum for the topic, it does however relate to science communication and cosmology.

[Strange]

Yes perhaps I am in the wrong forum for the topic, it does however relate to science communication and cosmology.

 

True. It does point out the dangers of being pointlessly pedantic.

[Sorcerer]

I think it's quite important for people who contribute here to be able to understand how to communicate science in a way that is easily acessible to everyone and not misleading. This topic may seem inconsequential or pedantic to you Strange, but please consider how something so simple as the word "in" leads to a misnomer for the word "universe", which then leads to trains of thought which distract from correct thinking, leading to non productive tangents, when otherwise linear logical trains of thought could be followed. And that something so simple as a rephrasing of descriptions of the universe can fix this. If you do so, then the merit of why we should communicate with this pedantic clarity should be obvious.

Perhpas there are or were creative geniuses who lost the chance to follow an idea which could have brought a revolution in science, all because they assumed that the universe has something external to it, all because they misunderstood the literal meaning of the word due to english's misleading semantics.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Sorcerer

[ajb]

It is true that the two following statements are equivalent

 

i) RMC 136a1 is the most massive star known to astronomers.

ii) RMC 136a1 is the most massive star in the Universe known to astronomers.

 

 

Does ii) imply that there are stars known to astronomers outside of the Universe? (Well, there maybe models of larger stars on the computer!)

[Strange]

I think it's quite important for people who contribute here to be able to understand how to communicate science in a way that is easily acessible to everyone and not misleading.

 

Some of us are professional communicators.

 

This topic may seem inconsequential or pedantic to you Strange, but please consider how something so simple as the word "in" leads to a misnomer for the word "universe", which then leads to trains of thought which distract from correct thinking, leading to non productive tangents

 

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

 

 

And that something so simple as a rephrasing of descriptions of the universe can fix this. If you do so, then the merit of why we should communicate with this pedantic clarity should be obvious.

 

But your awkward rephrasing doesn't remove the thing you object to.

 

Perhpas there are or were creative geniuses who lost the chance to follow an idea which could have brought a revolution in science, all because they assumed that the universe has something external to it, all because they misunderstood the literal meaning of the word due to english's misleading semantics.

 

Or maybe not. Perhaps any such people understood the physics involved and didn't get distracted by your petty misunderstandings.

[ajb]

Or maybe not. Perhaps any such people understood the physics involved and didn't get distracted by your petty misunderstandings.

Or they looked hard at their understanding and realised it was wrong and so learnt more physics.

 

Either way, I cannot see many people giving up on physics due to confusion with 'in'.

[Sorcerer]

It is true that the two following statements are equivalent

 

i) RMC 136a1 is the most massive star known to astronomers.

ii) RMC 136a1 is the most massive star in the Universe known to astronomers.

 

 

Does ii) imply that there are stars known to astronomers outside of the Universe? (Well, there maybe models of larger stars on the computer!)

Computer models are a part of the universe.

 

Without having first having a clear definition of the word universe, people assume it is an object like all the lesser objects to it, rather than the ultimate object. From there telling someone that something is "in" the universe leads to the inference that there is an "out" of the universe, just as all the objects lesser to the universe have a position "out" of them.

 

Perhaps it is best to make sure the correct understanding of the word "universe" is gained. However because of the way english is learned as a first language, simply by emersion, definitions are rarely gained by research, but rather inferred by the surrounding sentences meaning.

 

iii) RMC136a1 is the Universe's most massive star that is known to astronomers.

 

While I think (i), is the most clear, I think (ii) is misleading when compared to (iii).

Given your use of words, it shows that the use of the word "universe" can be excluded in almost all cases, and those it can't it can easily be replaced by "everything". I think in modern usage "universe" has become a hype word.

 

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

 

There is anecdotal evidence, I have met many people who have posed the question to me "what is outside the universe", I have also read alot of people's ideas about the nature of existence and alot of them come from a view of them or something outside the universe watching it coming into existence.

 

There is direct evidence from semantics, which is that the position of "in" infers the relative position of "out".

 

I would place a bet on a hypothesis that if you asked a large random sample of people the question "what is outside the universe", the majority answer would be something other than "nothing". It wouldn't be hard to test.

[Strange]

Without having first having a clear definition of the word universe, people assume it is an object like all the lesser objects to it

 

You have evidence to support this, of course?

 

From there telling someone that something is "in" the universe leads to the inference that there is an "out" of the universe, just as all the objects lesser to the universe have a position "out" of them.

 

You have evidence to support this, of course?

 

I will admit that some do think that given the number of people who ask what the universe is expanding into. Although I doubt it has anything to do with the preposition "in" because they jump to this conclusion from the statement "the universe is expanding," which does not contain or imply "in".

 

However, even if people do jump to an erroneous conclusion the answer is simply to explain their misapprehension.

 

iii) RMC136a1 is the Universe's most massive star that is known to astronomers.

 

Your naive reader is going to think:

... so if there are "universe's stars" does that mean there can be something-else's stars?

 

So your (unnatural) rewording doesn't help at all.

 

[Sorcerer]

I'll repeat what I wrote in case you missed it.

There is anecdotal evidence, I have met many people who have posed the question to me "what is outside the universe", I have also read alot of people's ideas about the nature of existence and alot of them come from a view of them or something outside the universe watching it coming into existence.

There is direct evidence from semantics, which is that the position of "in" infers the relative position of "out".

 

I would place a bet on a hypothesis that if you asked a large random sample of people the question "what is outside the universe", the majority answer would be something other than "nothing". It wouldn't be hard to test.

I have changed my mind, I now think: that the use of the word "universe" should be excluded in almost all cases, and those in which it can't it should be replaced by "everything".

There's probably better ways to phrase that question for the experiment, which aren't leading. It's not much of an "experiment" either, there isn't any control.

Perhaps just an opinion survery would work, ask the question " does saying something is "in" the universe infer that there is something "out" of the universe".

 

It is also a theistic idea (some of them) that God is external to the universe, so I'd be ok with excluding theists.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Sorcerer

[ajb]

The examples you give are typical misunderstandings. I think many are due to analogies rather than minor language issues. They also arise from not understanding the mathematics involved and how we do not need to think of space-time as sitting inside some larger space in order to model an expanding Universe.

[Sorcerer]

and how we do not need to think of space-time as sitting inside some larger space

If I was to learn over again I would prefer to begin with concepts which are true, the idea of the universe having something exterior to it wasn't just from the word "in", but from the very beggining I was fed misleading information. Teachers who has the wrong concepts passing on the bad ideas, even body language made a difference, hands would motion to show an encircling shape when speaking of the universe.

 

It's a repeated theme throughout my schooling, the mathematical concept of a sphere wouldn't just be made analogous to a ball, the ball WAS a sphere. There was no mention of it being a polyhedron with numerous minute faces, there was no mention of the microscopic inperfections. There was too much worry of making the issue complicated or confusing, but really it's dumbing it down. Concepts like these which would've made calculus just so natural. A few I mentioned above. Learning about valence electrons for instance, using Lewis dot diagrams, with no mention of how it was an oversimplification, we were taught to see the electrons like this, they WERE in perfect dots and all in ring oribitals.

 

The word "IN" when referencing the universe IS one of these analogies you speak of.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Sorcerer

[ajb]

Teachers who has the wrong concepts passing on the bad ideas, even body language made a difference, hands would motion to show an encircling shape when speaking of the universe.

 

There was too much worry of making the issue complicated or confusing, but really it's dumbing it down.

 

This is one of the problems with general education; it does need to be age and level appropriate. You should not think of high school science or mathematics classes as presenting all the details.

 

With your example of electrons, could you imagine a teacher writing down the Schrödinger equation and solving it for hydrogen-like atoms? Could you imagine a science teacher in school starting a lesson on space by stating that space-time is a 4-d Lorentzian manifold?

 

It is just a fact of life that you cannot give everyone all the details from the start.

 

 

The word "IN" when referencing the universe IS one of these analogies you speak of.

I am not so sure. However, to some extent 'in the Universe' is a bit redundant as anything physical is in the Universe almost by definition.

[Sorcerer]

This is one of the problems with general education; it does need to be age and level appropriate. You should not think of high school science or mathematics classes as presenting all the details.

 

With your example of electrons, could you imagine a teacher writing down the Schrödinger equation and solving it for hydrogen-like atoms? Could you imagine a science teacher in school starting a lesson on space by stating that space-time is a 4-d Lorentzian manifold?

 

It is just a fact of life that you cannot give everyone all the details from the start.

 

 

I think it's important for teachers to be honest about the topic, it needs to be stated that when teaching simplifications that they are just that and there are deeper more complex models. They also need to explain that models are only styilised ways of descibing reality and not necessarily the pecise reality itself. I don't think this concept is hard to grasp for anyone at any age or level.

 

 

I am not so sure. However, to some extent 'in the Universe' is a bit redundant as anything physical is in the Universe almost by definition.

I agree, the mention of the universe itself is superfluous. Everything is a part of the universe, the confusion lies with the seperation of the object with the structure it is a part of. When objects are normally seen as being "in" something, it seperates them from that thing. I can be in my room, when I am not in my room, my room still exists. But if I was not in the universe, then that universe wouldn't be the same, because I am a part of the universe.

[Delta1212]

Nice try at using english semantics to confuse the issue, thanks for playing

 

This entire topic is literally about confusing the issue with English semantics.

[Sorcerer]

This entire topic is literally about confusing the issue with English semantics.

 

Yes it is. It's also about referring to the universe as a container, when it's actually the entirety. Every other possible use of the word in, implies that the object refered to was either added at some point or can be removed.

 

I understand english does this alot and often it's not confusing, because we don't think about it, we equate the container for the substance. For instance, "the water is in the swimming pool", when actually the swimming pool is the water and it's in a hole, or container. In English there can be an empty swimming pool (but you can't swim in it), and the water (which is the pool) can be taken out and put back in the pool.

 

Or the human body, organs can be said to be "in" the body, the organs can be removed, but it's not much of a body without the organs, its more of a corpse, unless you put them or a suitable replacement back in. Rather, the body is actually made of organs, organs are a PART of the body.

 

In the case of the universe, all parts of it are conserved, there is no physical boundary between in and out. Nothing can be added or removed. And as ajb stated the use of the word itself is redundant as everything is a part of the universe.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So I just hurt my brain, using the definition of "in" and giving the universe a boundary or limits and trying to visualise something "in" nothing.

 

I went through the possibilities of it being the boundary of our physical laws and there being something else outside, because to assume there's nothing is just as big as an assumption as assuming there is something* (marshmellow or a big bowl of flying spaghetti monsters), but then realised that if there's something, by definition it is inclusive of the universe. So, as a boundary of out physical laws, just like the "observable universe", we would have to give it a diminutive name, as a subset of the Universe.

 

*you might say to go with the most simple hypothesis, and that 0 parts is more simple that any other number of parts. However it isn't relevant here because there is no way to test the hypothesis, which therefore doesn't make it a hypothesis at all and just another speculation.

 

So anyway, trying to visualise a boundary with nothing surrounding something is extremely hard. The best I can do is visualise a bubble of nothing with something surrounding it, I'm not sure why that's easier. I guess I'm more familiar with empty vessels than I am with vessels inside emptiness.........

Edited August 16, 2015 by Sorcerer

[ajb]

I think it's important for teachers to be honest about the topic, it needs to be stated that when teaching simplifications that they are just that and there are deeper more complex models. They also need to explain that models are only styilised ways of descibing reality and not necessarily the pecise reality itself. I don't think this concept is hard to grasp for anyone at any age or level.

Okay, this is now a complaint (a valid one) about teaching philosophy and methods in school. Remember that few school children will really go on to study science at a higher level and that most teachers are not very highly educated in science. Some teachers will have PhD's, but generally teachers are not scientists. They do not necessarily themselves understand the cutting edge models.

 

The real problem is the 'dumbing down' of science at school level. Well, again I am not sure how we can really change this without loosing the children completely.