Talk:Cosmos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Sometimes the term 'cosmos' is considered to be only the observed universe, while the term "universe" refers to all that exists whether it has been discovered or not. 'Cosmos' is the "known universe."

Shouldn't the above be the other way around? Of course, traditionally, the universe contains all that exists, but in the modern usage of physicists, as opposed to the traditional usage, the universe is conceived of as containing less than everything, even if perhaps more than what is observed. Cosmos, on the other hand, is more of a theologians' or philosophers' term. Michael Hardy 01:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Aequo 00:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I made the change requested above, and removed the "disputed" tag. I hope that's ok. --Goethean 19:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would think that originally kosmos meant (by Pythagoras) ordered and visible space. Ordered in the sense of mathematically structured. In this context cosmos is synonymous with the term universe as the modern physics see it. But then again universe is from Latin unus vertere (ie to turn into one) and this can be seen connected to greek term holon which means whole. So I would suggest that the first poster here is right making the distinction between cosmos and universe in the way he does. -- Aethralis 14:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Phenomenology? 2 carl sagan 3 Citations? 4 Cosmos as system

[edit] Phenomenology?

"The term is used in phenomenology to describe the view of the world up until the rise of technology in the 20th century." This is interesting remark. Are there any citations for this statemant? In my opinion it is too broad and vague - it certanly does not apply to all phenomenology.

Ask User:Zorio 1. — goethean ॐ 14:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] carl sagan

Carl Sagan is listed in the see also section, but not in the article. we need to add more info about him, and how he relates to the term cosmos.--Alhutch 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

In my opinion this is not good style and needs citations.

Some theologians use the term to denote the created universe, not including God. Many philosophers use the word "absolute", cosmos and universe synonymously to include all that exists. Physicists often use the word universe in a technical way, referring to a space-time continuum; see cosmology.

--Aethralis 11:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmos as system

Reverted edits that defined cosmos as universe. Cosmos is definitely a "system" (closed or open). So we can speak about "inner cosmos" or the like. Universe has different connotations. -- Aethralis 09:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but saying, "The cosmos is thought of as an orderly or harmonious system" does not actually define the term. It's like saying "The United States is thought of as a nice place to live" rather than "The United States is a country in North America" as the first sentence of the article on the US. I will rephrase the first sentence, attempting to retain the generality of the meaning. Strait 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RandyS0725 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Couldn't the term also define, in terms of Greek mythology, the ordered Chaos, or galactic discord, after he mated with the goddess Caligo and fathered the first gods? That seems also probable.