When does philosophy break down?

MisterEpicurus

I've been thinking about this lately and haven't really come up with any definitive answers so thought I'd post it here and see what you guys made of it.

Philosophy relies on 'rational argument' and 'logic' to back up any point of view. But what are the limits to how we define what's rational anymore? For example, when it comes to quantum effects it doesn't make any 'rational' sense, but it does make scientific sense and works for that reason. We can't apply any rational argument to certain quantum effects and so does that provide a barrier to how philosophy operates?

The reason I'm posting this in the Atheism forum is that when we talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, it often refers to 'pre-Big Bang' (or in other words, the 'cause') as timeless, spaceless, changeless, and then infers properties such that the entity/cause must be personal and omniscient etc.

But if our rational minds only operate within the laws of physics in this universe, why on earth would humans rational arguments apply to causes outside the universe? Surely this undermines the concept of a philosophical argument for the existence of a being outside the universe, or even an argument for the nature of the cause of said universe.

Anyway, let me know what you think. :-)

[In other words, just as the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang, maybe so does philosophy]

mallachyrivers

Just there! You broke it!

sbsquarepants

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Philosophy relies on 'rational argument' and 'logic' to back up any point of view...........

The reason I'm posting this in the Atheism forum is that when we talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, it often refers to 'pre-Big Bang' (or in other words, the 'cause') as timeless, spaceless, changeless, and then infers properties such that the entity/cause must be personal and omniscient etc.

I see no logic in this argument whatsoever. The premise is basically something "caused" the universe to exist and therefore that something must be god.
That seems patently ridiculous to me, if this "god" has to be the cause of the universes existence, then the obvious question is what caused his, and so on for infinity. At some point in the game you have to reach a begining - either something must have come from nothing, without a manufacturer, divine or otherwise, or else it's always existed in one form or another - this to me is absolute proof that there is no "need" whatsoever for a god. Almost the exact opposite of what this argument concludes.
I don't see it as any argument for or against gods existence, only against the neccessity of his existence. The universe quite obviously could exist without being made by anyone or anything.
Or am i missing something here?

robindch

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

when we talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument

You could infer safely that the Kaboom Cosmological Argument is rubbish for no other reason than it's one of the pigs-bladder-on-a-stick props used by Mr William Lane Craig.

Rational argument, btw, does apply to quantum mechanics, which is why, in terms of its predictions, it's arguably the most precise scientific theory ever developed.

And logic only breaks down when deistic arguments show up. Logic works fine once it's not bent to demonstrate the impossible, render the invisible visible, and sensible, what is patently absurd.

mikhail

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I've been thinking about this lately and haven't really come up with any definitive answers so thought I'd post it here and see what you guys made of it.

Philosophy relies on 'rational argument' and 'logic' to back up any point of view. But what are the limits to how we define what's rational anymore? For example, when it comes to quantum effects it doesn't make any 'rational' sense, but it does make scientific sense and works for that reason. We can't apply any rational argument to certain quantum effects and so does that provide a barrier to how philosophy operates?

The reason I'm posting this in the Atheism forum is that when we talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, it often refers to 'pre-Big Bang' (or in other words, the 'cause') as timeless, spaceless, changeless, and then infers properties such that the entity/cause must be personal and omniscient etc.

But if our rational minds only operate within the laws of physics in this universe, why on earth would humans rational arguments apply to causes outside the universe? Surely this undermines the concept of a philosophical argument for the existence of a being outside the universe, or even an argument for the nature of the cause of said universe.

Anyway, let me know what you think. :-)

[In other words, just as the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang, maybe so does philosophy]

I'm with this guy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
Philosophy had its day, but it's just roadkill in science's rearview mirror these days.

eoin5

I don't think philosophy breaks down as such, it may be hard to come to any conclusion about what the hell "spaceless" might mean etc but even just thinking about these things helps to broaden the mind.

Sarky

About 2:30am when science walks by with a new girlfriend and there's been nothing but gin to drink for the last hour.

18AD

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Philosophy relies on 'rational argument' and 'logic' to back up any point of view. But what are the limits to how we define what's rational anymore?

Has there ever been a good reason as to why reason is good? Is it not the case that you can't rationally prove reason is good without assuming your conclusion, i.e. that reason is how we should go about this.

The reason I'm posting this in the Atheism forum is that when we talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, it often refers to 'pre-Big Bang' (or in other words, the 'cause') as timeless, spaceless, changeless, and then infers properties such that the entity/cause must be personal and omniscient etc.

But if our rational minds only operate within the laws of physics in this universe, why on earth would humans rational arguments apply to causes outside the universe? Surely this undermines the concept of a philosophical argument for the existence of a being outside the universe, or even an argument for the nature of the cause of said universe.

Would it be fair to say that this is your argument?

1. Rationality operates within the laws of the universe.
2. There are no laws of the universe outside of itself.

Conclusion.
Rationality doesn't apply to what is outside of the universe.

robindch

18AD wrote: »

Rationality doesn't apply to what is outside of the universe.

And since there isn't anything outside the universe, it's irrelevant whether rationality applies there or not.

18AD

robindch wrote: »

And since there isn't anything outside the universe, it's irrelevant whether rationality applies there or not.

I guess the argument is useless against someone who considers that there was something prior to existence.

Would you consider maths a form of rationality? Does that apply to beyond the universe, e.g. pre-big bang?

robindch

18AD wrote: »

Would you consider maths a form of rationality?

No. It's the manipulation of symbols which may (or may not) encode rational thought by one convention or another.

18AD wrote: »

Does that apply to beyond the universe, e.g. pre-big bang?

If time started with the big bang, then there is no pre-big-bang, so the question is as meaningless as any answer to it.

Soul Winner

mikhail wrote: »

I'm with this guy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
Philosophy had its day, but it's just roadkill in science's rearview mirror these days.

If he really thinks that philosophy is dead then why does he still use it in his books? The first half of his new book (Grand Design) is comprised totally of philosophic argumentation in order to make a scientific point in the second half. Weird.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

If time started with the big bang, then there is no pre-big-bang, so the question is as meaningless as any answer to it.

Everyone in science is pretty much in agreement that time, space matter and energy all came into existence at the big bang, before which there was no time, no space and no matter, in other words 'nothing'. So the universe either came into existence from nothing and by nothing or it was caused by something which is immaterial, space-less and timeless (eternal i.e having no beginning). So its really just a matter of what you think makes more sense as an option.

King Mob

Soul Winner wrote: »

Everyone in science is pretty much in agreement that time, space matter and energy all came into existence at the big bang, before which there was no time, no space and no matter, in other words 'nothing'. So the universe either came into existence from nothing and by nothing or it was caused by something which is immaterial, space-less and timeless (eternal i.e having no beginning). So its really just a matter of what you think makes more sense as an option.

First those aren't the only two viable options. Scientists have posited many many more.
And second they are gross simplifications of the two options you are providing.
And third immaterial, space-less and timeless doesn't imply god.

IRWolfie-

Actually very near the time of the big bang current physical theories break down (i.e the Planck Epoch) so it does not posit what occured at the big bang itself.

Turtwig

"Science"* is philosophy that works. And contrary to that Kalam piece of sh1te philosophy is amazingly beautiful,intriguing and just as relevant as it ever was. If not, more so.

*Actually here's one for you : What exactly is science? At what point does something become science and at what point does it stray from science?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Everyone in science is pretty much in agreement that time, space matter and energy all came into existence at the big bang [...]

Uuh, no.

As King Mob points out above, that's just one of the ideas being thrown around at the moment.

There are plenty more -- do feel free to ask about them if you're interested.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Everyone in science is pretty much in agreement that time, space matter and energy all came into existence at the big bang, before which there was no time, no space and no matter, in other words 'nothing'. So the universe either came into existence from nothing and by nothing or it was caused by something which is immaterial, space-less and timeless (eternal i.e having no beginning). So its really just a matter of what you think makes more sense as an option.

Can you explain how something is caused when there is no time?

Soul Winner

King Mob wrote: »

And third immaterial, space-less and timeless doesn't imply god.

I never said it did. Call it whatever you like.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Uuh, no.

As King Mob points out above, that's just one of the ideas being thrown around at the moment.

There are plenty more -- do feel free to ask about them if you're interested.

I know about them. At some point they all succumb to an ultimate beginning a finite time ago. Throw a few at me an I'll explain them to you if you like.

King Mob

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said it did. Call it whatever you like.

Well I think we both know that's not true.

No comment on the fact you are presenting a false dilemma based on very poor, bordering on dishonest representations of what scientists actually suggest?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I know about them. At some point they all succumb to an ultimate beginning a finite time ago. Throw a few at me an I'll explain them to you if you like.

There are many examples.
The universe being part of a multiverse that is infinite.
The universe being a cycle of big bangs followed by big crunches, possibly an infinite cycle.
The universe arose from a random quantum fluctuation in the quantum foam.
The universe arose from matter entering a black hole in a totally different universe which in turn arose in the same way, and so on.
The universe perhaps could have expanded from a particle of matter of the previous universe which underwent heat death.

And these all are just ones that do not rely on an ultimate beginning a finite time ago.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you explain how something is caused when there is no time?

Only in the context of a timeless, immaterial and space-less existence. There are two candidates: Abstract numbers and immaterial minds. If the universe began to exist then its cause is not part of the universe itself because there was no universe prior to the universe. If time began when the universe began then the cause of the universe is timeless. If matter began when the universe began then the cause of the universe is immaterial. If space began when the universe began then the cause of the universe is space-less. So if we conclude that the cause of the universe cannot be nothing then it must have been caused by a timeless, space-less and immaterial something which exists space-less-ly, immaterially and timelessly yet powerful enough to cause a universe to come into existence from nothing. A supernatural entity perhaps? Who knows? I believe yes, a supernatural entity we have come to call God, what do you think it was?

Soul Winner

King Mob wrote: »

Well I think we both know that's not true.

No comment on the fact you are presenting a false dilemma based on very poor, bordering on dishonest representations of what scientists actually suggest?

Huh???

King Mob wrote: »

There are many examples.
The universe being part of a multiverse that is infinite.

No evidence for this whatsoever but even if there was then what caused the multiverse? If you say that it is un-caused then it is something that exists necessarily i.e. uncaused, but hold on, we say that about God and that is not allowed. Hhhhmm???

King Mob wrote: »

The universe being a cycle of big bangs followed by big crunches, possibly an infinite cycle.

No evidence for this either and has been proven to be physically impossible anyway due to the entropy found in our own universe. Even if if it was proved that our universe came from the crunch of a former universe the entropy suggests that this could only have happened a finite number of times in the past and still suggests a beginning a finite time ago of this so called multiverse so you're just pushing the question back a step or two.

King Mob wrote: »

The universe arose from a random quantum fluctuation in the quantum foam.

Quantum foam is not nothing.

King Mob wrote: »

The universe arose from matter entering a black hole in a totally different universe which in turn arose in the same way, and so on.

Same reply for the multiverse above.

King Mob wrote: »

The universe perhaps could have expanded from a particle of matter of the previous universe which underwent heat death.

Same reply for the multiverse above.

King Mob wrote: »

And these all are just ones that do not rely on an ultimate beginning a finite time ago.

They all fail. Got any more?

King Mob

Soul Winner wrote: »

Huh???

One you provided a false dilemma that those were the only two options, they aren't. You also grossly misrepresented the two options you did present.
I pointed this out, but you failed to comment on it.

Two, you denied that you implied that one of the options was God. In your previous post you admit this.
I was making a guess at the time, which turned out to be right.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No evidence for this whatsoever but even if there was then what caused the multiverse? If you say that it is un-caused then it is something that exist necessarily, but hold on, we say that about God and that is not allowed. Hhhhmm???

Well first off, there's no direct evidence, but there is some mathematical evidence that could indicate this theory is true. But still this is far far more compelling than anything possibly produced for the existence of God.
But as you say, there's nothing to stop it from being uncaused. But that does not mean it "necessarily exists" in the philosophical sense, which I'm sure you know is a very dead argument, hence why that doesn't cut it as proof of God.

So what precisely is wrong with this explanation?

Soul Winner wrote: »

No evidence for this either and has been proven to be physically impossible anyway due to the entropy found in our own universe. Even if if it was proved that our universe came from the crunch of a former universe the entropy suggests that this could only have happened a finite number of times in the past and still suggests a beginning a finite time ago of this so called multiverse so you're just pushing the question back a step or two.

And when was this found to be physically impossible exactly? And by who?
The theory is still every much possible since there would be no energy lost form the system since there's no where for the energy to go, the entropy would only cause variation.

And it's amazing how you seem to be going back to the same questions that apply to god, but you no doubt have an excuse for each of them.

And why exactly is an infinite regress an issue? I can see why it might be if you want God to be the answer. But to someone who cares about the truth they have to accept the possibility that the list of causes just goes on forever.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Quantum foam is not nothing.

Well it sorta is and isn't.
Either way it's not God and it's a viable explanation that is not included in your false dilemma.

So why is it impossible?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Same reply for the multiverse above.

Same reply for the multiverse above.

And your reply is ignorant nonsense, so both explanations stand.
Also your dismissal of the multiverse theory does not apply to either as these two explanations rely on an infinite cycle of finite universes not something that exists forever.

Soul Winner wrote: »

They all fail. Got any more?

Unfortunately, your ignorance does not make these explanations and theories go away. It just makes you look sillier the more you ignore them.

Soul Winner

King Mob wrote: »

One you provided a false dilemma that those were the only two options, they aren't.

OK then what are the others? I said abstract numbers and immaterial minds. What are your candidates?

King Mob wrote: »

You also grossly misrepresented the two options you did present.

How?

King Mob wrote: »

I pointed this out, but you failed to comment on it.

Comment on what?

King Mob wrote: »

Two, you denied that you implied that one of the options was God. In your previous post you admit this.
I was making a guess at the time, which turned out to be right.

Just because I believe it to be God does not mean that I limited the explanations to that, I asked for your candidates and I've yet to hear any plausible ones.

King Mob wrote: »

Well first off, there's no direct evidence, but there is some mathematical evidence that could indicate this theory is true.

OK then give us the mathematical equations you refer to.

King Mob wrote: »

But still this is far far more compelling than anything possibly produced for the existence of God.

I'll await your mathematics then I'll let you know what I think.

King Mob wrote: »

But as you say, there's nothing to stop it from being un-caused. But that does not mean it "necessarily exists" in the philosophical sense, which I'm sure you know is a very dead argument, hence why that doesn't cut it as proof of God.

Look, anything that exists un-caused by definition exists necessarily, duh????

King Mob wrote: »

So what precisely is wrong with this explanation?

Everything.

King Mob wrote: »

And when was this found to be physically impossible exactly? And by who?
The theory is still every much possible since there would be no energy lost form the system since there's no where for the energy to go, the entropy would only cause variation.

Ever bounce a ball on the ground? Does it bounce forever? Why not? Because of entropy. At some point it runs out of bounces. If we apply the second law of thermodynamics to our universe and to previous universes we can conclude that in an oscillating mutlivesre there must have been a beginning point at some stage because the entropy gets weaker after each bounce, it cannot keep bouncing eternally in the future and hence must not have bounced eternally in the past, hence it had a beginning.

King Mob wrote: »

And it's amazing how you seem to be going back to the same questions that apply to god, but you no doubt have an excuse for each of them.

Not sure what you mean by this.

King Mob wrote: »

And why exactly is an infinite regress an issue? I can see why it might be if you want God to be the answer. But to someone who cares about the truth they have to accept the possibility that the list of causes just goes on forever.

It is both philosophically impossible and scientifically shown not to be the case. Philosophically impossible because if we postulate that an infinite number of events that lead up to our present actually occurred then we can never be in the present because we do not have a starting point in the past in order to get here. Hence there must have been a beginning because we are here in the present, that is the philosophic argument. And scientifically because it has been shown that the universe began a finite time ago by the standard big bang model. Even Stephen Hawking admits that the universe began to exist a finite time ago.

King Mob wrote: »

Well it sorta is and isn't.

How can quantum foam be both nothing and something at the same time?

King Mob wrote: »

Either way it's not God and it's a viable explanation that is not included in your false dilemma.

Circular argumentation. Conclusion already drawn before drawing a conclusion.

King Mob wrote: »

So why is it impossible?

It is logically impossible for quantum foam to be both nothing and something at the same time. If you disagree then please explain why.

King Mob wrote: »

And your reply is ignorant nonsense, so both explanations stand. Also your dismissal of the multiverse theory does not apply to either as these two explanations rely on an infinite cycle of finite universes not something that exists forever.

But an infinite cycle of finite universes IS something that exists forever hello!!!! Where you on the beer tonight? :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunately, your ignorance does not make these explanations and theories go away.

I agree, but your explanations do the job just fine.

King Mob wrote: »

It just makes you look sillier the more you ignore them.

Does it now? I beg to differ.

guitarzero

Its breaks down at "Why?"

King Mob

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK then what are the others? I said abstract numbers and immaterial minds. What are your candidates?
How?
Comment on what?

I provided many others. even if your childish dismissals held, they still exist, meaning your two options are a false dilemma.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just because I believe it to be God does not mean that I limited the explanations to that, I asked for your candidates and I've yet to hear any plausible ones.

So you weren't saying it was god, you're just saying that it's the only viable option and that the only thing that can fill that hole is God? :rolleyes:

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK then give us the mathematical equations you refer to.
I'll await your mathematics then I'll let you know what I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory

Go nuts.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look, anything that exists un-caused by definition exists necessarily, duh????

Everything.

No I don't think you understand what necessary existence is.
Also there's a difference between being un-caused and existing infinity.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ever bounce a ball on the ground? Does it bounce forever? Why not? Because of entropy. At some point it runs out of bounces.

Lol, no it doesn't. I think there's another word you use but don't actually understand.
A ball eventually stops bouncing because of friction with the air and ground, a non perfectly efficient bounce and the pull of gravity.
Entropy doesn't really play into it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If we apply the second law of thermodynamics to our universe and to previous universes we can conclude that in an oscillating mutlivesre there must have been a beginning point at some stage because the entropy gets weaker after each bounce, it cannot keep bouncing eternally in the future and hence must not have bounced eternally in the past, hence it had a beginning.

But since the universe starts off the with same amount of matter, contains the same amount of matter and ends with same amount of matter, where do you think this energy is going?
If the universe ends in a singularity and also began as a singularity there would not be any difference between the two states meaning that there would be no reason that the cycle can't start again.

The only way entropy plays in is when it determines how the matter of the universe ends up, which could cause entirely different universes on each bounce.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by this.

You keep asking for evidence and pointing out stuff like "it just pushes the question back". All of which apply to your god and becomes something of a problem for you.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It is both philosophically impossible and scientifically shown not to be the case. Philosophically impossible because if we postulate that an infinite number of events that lead up to our present actually occurred then we can never be in the present because we do not have a starting point in the past in order to get here. Hence there must have been a beginning because we are here in the present, that is the philosophic argument.

Except that time as we know it probably only makes sense in a physical universe, but for the multi verse things are not so straightforward.
I think you are illustrating where philosophy (especially the fettered, half cooked religious kind) breaks down in the face of physics.
And of course this too applies to your God as well.
If he existed for an infinite amount of time, then it was an infinite amount of time between when he began to exist and when he decided to poof us all into existence.
So just apply whatever excuse you have for him onto the other explanation.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And scientifically because it has been shown that the universe began a finite time ago by the standard big bang model. Even Stephen Hawking admits that the universe began to exist a finite time ago.

But I was referring to explanations leading up to a big bang. There could possibly be an infinite chain of events that lead up to a finite universe.
An infinite regress is only a problem for your God cause you want him specifically to be the explanation, rather than actual scientists who are more interested in what is true.

Soul Winner wrote: »

How can quantum foam be both nothing and something at the same time?

It is logically impossible for quantum foam to be both nothing and something at the same time. If you disagree then please explain why.

Because stuff at that scale doesn't quite make sense for words like "nothing".
It really depends on how you define the word. It could mean empty space, but space can be considered something...
Quantum foam is not even space...

Soul Winner wrote: »

Circular argumentation. Conclusion already drawn before drawing a conclusion.

No it's not circular reasoning.
Quantum foam does not have any of the qualities that could possibly allow it to be defined as any sort of God, let alone whichever version you prefer.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But an infinite cycle of finite universes IS something that exists forever hello!!!! Where you on the beer tonight? :rolleyes:

Except it's not really. In some examples only one universe exists at a time which arose from a previous one and will give raise to a new one when it dies.
So the cycle doesn't "exist" in a sense.
Just because you define a word from the English language a certain way it doesn't make it a physical law.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree, but your explanations do the job just fine.

Does it now? I beg to differ.

Well consider you are dismissing explanations simply because you don't know anything about them or don't understand them, you look pretty silly.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

And scientifically because it has been shown that the universe began a finite time ago by the standard big bang model. Even Stephen Hawking admits that the universe began to exist a finite time ago.

Just to remind you of my post from nine hours ago:

robindch wrote: »

Soul Winner wrote: »

Everyone in science is pretty much in agreement that time, space matter and energy all came into existence at the big bang [...]

Uuh, no.

As King Mob points out above, that's just one of the ideas being thrown around at the moment.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ever bounce a ball on the ground? Does it bounce forever? Why not? Because of entropy. At some point it runs out of bounces. If we apply the second law of thermodynamics to our universe and to previous universes we can conclude that in an oscillating mutlivesre there must have been a beginning point at some stage because the entropy gets weaker after each bounce, it cannot keep bouncing eternally in the future and hence must not have bounced eternally in the past, hence it had a beginning.

The universe is not a rubber ball and macro-level entropy, even in the incorrect sense you appear to understand it, doesn't apply to quantum-level effects.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics really ought to come with a health warning stuck to it.

BluntGuy

robindch wrote: »

The Second Law of Thermodynamics really ought to come with a health warning stuck to it.

Indeed. It seems to be one of those laws that's routinely subjected to either wilful abuse or lack of understanding.

Soul Winner wrote:

Just because I believe it to be God does not mean that I limited the explanations to that, I asked for your candidates and I've yet to hear any plausible ones.

When you continue to exempt god from the impossible and contradictory standards you set for all other possible explanations, of course nothing is going to sound "plausible" to you.

sbsquarepants

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ever bounce a ball on the ground? Does it bounce forever? Why not? Because of entropy. At some point it runs out of bounces. If we apply the second law of thermodynamics to our universe and to previous universes we can conclude that in an oscillating mutlivesre there must have been a beginning point at some stage because the entropy gets weaker after each bounce, it cannot keep bouncing eternally in the future and hence must not have bounced eternally in the past, hence it had a beginning.

My physics knowledge only extends to leaving cert level, but surely the ball analogy is not accurate. The ball is transfering its energy to other systems, it's loosing out to friction, it's creating sound, it's moving air, it's creating miniscule amounts of heat and so on. In the case of the universe, there is no where else for the energy to go, therefore a big crunch followed by a big bang would loose or gain nothing. No?
Even if it's loosing out to some other part of a multiverse or whatever, the total is remaining the same?
Now for the scoolboy pondering......By that reasoning, the whole thing must be eternal? It may well be changing forms or whole other universes could be popping in an out of existence like quantum particles but on a bigger and slower scale. Outside of our universe there could be any number of others, we have no way of knowing as yet and possibly never will. But no matter what is going on - i see no "requirement" for a munufacturer.

18AD

robindch wrote: »

And since there isn't anything outside the universe, it's irrelevant whether rationality applies there or not.

Just to probe further, for the lulz. :pac:

Doesn't your comment render itself irrelevant?

Edit: And surely, OP, you're not talking about only philosophy, you're talking about language and thought itself breaking down in the face of such a concept. The impact of language being somewhat more profound, I would say. Even science itself breaks down at that point.