Talk:World

A large part of this article should be deleted.

The World (disambiguation) nailed it: The world is a common name for the whole of human civilization, specifically human experience, history, or the human condition in general, worldwide, i.e. anywhere on Earth. Yes, there are other meanings of "world". Those meanings are discussed in other articles. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I responded to you below. Is there a specific reason why you started two sections for your suggestion? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry. The first one was just frustration. The next morning I decided to try to be helpful. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Consensus to refocus this article

The topic "world" has several different meanings. Merriam Webster has 14 definitions.] Cambridge dictionary has 7 definitions. Since we are not a dictionary we write articles about concepts, not about words. I propose we focus this article on the first definition Cambridge

• the earth and all the people, places, and things on it

and the second and first in Merriam-Webster

• the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it
• the earthly state of human existence

Closely related definitions like a planet or other part of the universe, especially one where life might or does exist would be prominently discussed. Minor definitions like The world can also mean the whole physical universe and the system of created things : universe would be mentioned in hatnotes directing readers to corresponding concept articles (universe in this case). Please reply with Support or Oppose or a comment, thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Johnjbarton and thanks for the suggestion. It might be best to discuss things first and wait for feedback before starting to vote. This is a broad-concept article, which should present the broadest understanding of the term (see WP:Broad-concept article). The meaning you mention associating the term world with the Earth is not the broadest understanding. It is found in everyday expressions (e.g. world championship) but is usually not the focus of academic sources (from fields such as philosophy, religion, and the sciences) dedicated to this concept, which typically focus on the broader meaning encompassing the totality of what is. By the way, we already have an article on the topic Earth, so your suggestion would probably run into problems with WP:Content forks. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Phlsph7. You say "This is a broad-concept article" but we have no indication of this claim. But I do think it fits the definition and we could approach the topic that way. However focusing on the broadest meaning is not appropriate because the broadest meaning is a minor definition and the broadest meaning, "totality of what is" is already Universe and thus a content fork.

I also disagree that philosophy, religion, and science use 'world' as as synonym for 'universe'. In my experience the overwhelming uses of 'world' in these contexts is a counterpoint or grouping word. Historically 'world' did mean "totality of what is" but as we developed telescopes and models of the cosmos we left 'world' to mean either the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it or a container, eg 'secular world'. Yes some writers still use "world" to mean "universe" but these are very much in the minority now.

I think the majority of the article can work as a broad concept article. However the introduction is almost all incorrect as is the section "Scientific cosmology". Johnjbarton (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I have trouble following your line of thought. You say that the main topic of this article should be the Earth. Currently, the article has very little info specifically dedicated to the Earth. At the same time, you say that the majority of article is fine as it is except for one subsection and part of the lead. That doesn't seem to fit together and conflicts with your earlier claim that A large part of this article should be deleted. Could you explain how these points fit together?

Regarding the lead, you say that the first two lead paragraphs are bad and should be changed. Generally speaking, the lead should summarize the body of the article. It seems to me that it does that. Does it not?

If you agree that the terms universe and world are not synonyms in these fields, then maybe there is no problem with WP:CONTENTFORK after all. This is also reflected in the comparison between the two articles: there seems to be not that much overlap. One reason may be that the universe is primarily about physical reality, not the totality of what is in the widest sense. In this sense, the term world may be broader. For example, the section Universe#Composition focuses on different forms of matter or energy but does not discuss abstract objects, like numbers, as part of the totality of what is. Similarly, the article universe does not discuss mental and social entities as part of reality, probably because physicists don't study them in particular. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• "You say that the main topic of this article should be the Earth." I did not say that. I said either 'the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it' or a container, eg 'secular world'. The interior quote is from one of the dictionaries. I interpret it as "Earth and its contents" that is as another container facet of the broad concept.
• "A large part of this article should be deleted." I was wrong and I take it back. I was frustrated by the obviously incorrect first sentence. The rest of the article explores the philosophical and historical meanings of World well enough.
• I disagree with several aspect of the intro. Let's take this key point up below.
• There is no problem with a content fork if the intro(s) is fixed. My specific problem is the overlap between The world is the totality of entities, the whole of reality, or everything that exists. and the The universe comprises all of existence.... I agree with your point of view that Universe should remain focused on the use of that term in cosmology.
• The idea that abstractions like numbers are part of the universe a disputed philosophical claim. We seem to agree that the discussion of this point belongs in World not in Universe.

I appreciate your calm replies and apologize for overreacting. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

No problem. I have responded below. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Starting off on the wrong foot

There are three sentences in the intro I disagree with:

• The world is the totality of entities, the whole of reality, or everything that exists. These are three different ways of saying "world==universe", which is only a minor meaning of "world". As a broad-concept article, the first sentence should acknowledge that the topic is faceted. The first or second sentence should characterize the common aspects of the topic. Here "totality/everything" should be expressed as relative to a specific context. So the many "world of" constructs are analogies leveraging the "totality/everything" within a specific context. The most common use of "world" is "totality/everything on Earth", but more interesting uses are "sensory world" "secular world", "possible world" and so on as described in the article.
  • What do you think of the following to start the lead: In the broadest sense, the world is the totality of entities or the whole of reality. Depending on the context, the term can also denote a specific domain and everything within it, such as the Earth and all life on it or the whole of human existence.

  One way to address the overlap with the lead sentences of the article Universe would be to include the term "physical" in the Universe lead sentence, i.e. The universe comprises all of physical existence or something similar, hinting that the universe is about the physical world. That would have the positive side effect that the article Universe does not need to justify itself for not discussing the existence of abstract objects. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• In scientific cosmology, the world or universe is commonly defined as "the totality of all space and time; all that is, has been, and will be". Modern cosmology does not use the term "world" as a synonym for "universe". Astrophysics uses "world" in reference to "totality/everything on specific planets".
  • This sentence could be used to clarify the link between world and universe. Maybe: Scientific cosmology discusses the universe as the physical world encompassing the totality of space, time, matter, and energy.
• In various contexts, the term "world" takes a more restricted meaning associated, for example, with the Earth and all life on it, with humanity as a whole, or with an international or intercontinental scope. This is a description of the broad concept, selecting concrete "small" examples. In almost all uses of "world" amount to a restricted meaning of "totality/everything". One restricted meaning is in discussions of the universe-as-container and whether this container holds abstractions or is an abstraction etc. Such philosophical points belong in World, but it is just one facet of the broad concept. Placing this sentence last and using "small" examples makes it seem like this a minor aspect of the topic rather than a description of the broad concept that happens to use minor examples.
  • I'm not sure about how unified or conceptually interesting those meanings are. What about starting the paragraph with In everyday discourse, the world often denotes the Earth, humanity as a whole, or an international or intercontinental scope. In this sense,....

Can these sentences be changed? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! However I don't think I have convinced you of the most important issue here: the concept "world" is an a totality of entities, not the totality of entities. What is included in a world depends upon context, including definitions of what an "entity" means. Here are some sentences from the article that supports this claim:

• Priority monism allows that there are other concrete objects besides the world.
• World-conceptions in this field differ both concerning their notion of spacetime and of the contents of spacetime.
• A possible world is a complete and consistent way how things could have been.
• Within phenomenology, worlds are defined in terms of horizons of experiences.
• According to a realist position, the world is something distinct and independent from the mind.
• Classical theism states that God is wholly distinct from the world.

I just picked these out of every section until I got to History.

Here I try to rewrite your first sentences:

The world is a totality of entities or the whole of a reality. The nature of the entities and the role of a world depends upon its context. In philosophy entities may be abstractions like numbers or ideas. In religion, the role might be to describe opposite of the spiritual domain. The term can also denote a specific domain and everything within it, such as the Earth and all life on it, or the whole of human existence. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence of your suggestion works mostly fine for me. The expression "a reality" is a little odd. If we just say "reality", then we also cover the broad sense in the first sentence. I would leave the sentences philosophy and religion (and the preamble about the nature of entities) out since I'm not sure that they are particularly representative. Maybe we could go with something along the lines The world is a totality of entities or the whole of reality. Depending on the context, the term can also denote a specific domain and everything within it, such as the Earth and all life on it or the whole of human existence. If you prefer to have the broad sense separate, we could use A world is a totality of entities. In the broadest sense, the world is all of existence or the whole of reality. Depending on the context, the term can also denote a specific domain and everything within it, such as the Earth and all life on it or the whole of human existence. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

At the top of page 154 Fraassen addresses the idea that the schematic meaning of the world concept (his punchline) can be applied to the domain of the totality of everything: ...having noted the schematic use of "world", we can still postulate that there exists a single entity of which all others are parts. That entity can then in principle always be taken to be the referent of "world".... But then he concludes The postulate may, if my arguments here have been cogent, lack all support or rationale, its benefits being illusory and its practical consequences nil, but is otherwise unobjectionable. In my view he is saying that the world concept as "the whole of reality" is not its core meaning and moreover "the whole of reality" as a philosophical concept is weak.

How about something like

A world is a totality of entities in a specific domain. A world defines a context for discussions about the entities. Example domains include Earth and all life on it or the whole of human existence or all matter and energy in the universe. Scientific discussions may concern whether entities such as quarks should be admitted to a world; philosophical discussions concern the nature of acceptable entities in variously defined worlds, such as whether numbers are part of our world. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I think Fraassen's article is better suited to support the opposite conclusion about what the core meaning is. He starts the article by outlining what he sees as the established standard view in philosophy (pp. 139–140): The word "world" has become common coin in philosophy ... the world is such that everything that is (except perhaps itself alone), is in it ... there is one thing, one system-the thing we call the world-of which everything (except perhaps itself alone) is part. He also explains the conceptual history of this view, starting from antiquity. He responds by positioning himself against this standard view and presents his account as a novel alternative. As far as core meanings go, I think we should be more interested in the established standard view, than in a recently proposed alternative.

The questions of whether quarks or numbers are part of the world is not the central topic of this article, so I think it's a bad idea to focus the first lead paragraph on those questions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Fraassen's article is 1995, 30 years ago, not exactly recent. He presents a significant point of view that must be represented in the intro. (I don't care about the particular examples used to clarify the position).

But the WP article does not even agree with your point of view. The sections on Plato, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Fink, Goodman all present views that do not align the world is the totality of everything. Fraassen even points to Aristotle as challenging this totality thing, a bit more than recent. In my opinion Fraassen is presenting a trivial starting point rather than a standard point of view. I agree that this trivial starting point should be in the intro, but the overwhelming sources speak against this point of view. That should also come across in the intro. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

For another source stating that this is the standard view, see Declos 2019: It is customary, in metaphysics, to define the world as a maximally inclusive whole, such that all the other entities (and totalities) are part of it. The world, then, is thought of as being the maximal mereological sum of every region of space-time, being perfectly exhaustive for that matter (Lewis 1986, 60). Anything that exists at any given time, under this assumption, would be either the world itself (which is an improper part of itself but a proper part of nothing else) or a part of the world.

I'm not sure that "the overwhelming sources speak against this point of view", but you are right that there are different conceptions and disagreements that should be mentioned. I think the suggestion I made above addresses this concern. If it should be aligned more specifically with Fraassen's formulation, we could start the article with A world is a totality of entities. In the broadest sense, the world is all of existence or the whole of reality. The term is also used as a context-dependent expression to denote a specific domain of discourse and everything within it, such as the Earth and all life on it or the whole of human existence. One way to speak against it would be to mention the paradox of many worlds, maybe by modifying the sentence Some conceptions see the world as unique, while others talk of a "plurality of worlds". to Some conceptions see the world as unique, while others talk of a "plurality of worlds", challenging the idea that the world is an all-inclusive whole. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Considering both Declos and Fraassen, I would be ok with a describing the totality thing as the customary view in philosophy or metaphysics. I also think the many-worlds is just one aspect of the alternatives, with others focussing on fact vs objects, etc. How about something like: A world is a totality of entities. In philosophy, the world is customarily viewed as all of existence or the whole of reality. Some conceptions see the world as unique, while others examine the character of entities that exist in the world or talk of a "plurality of worlds", challenging the idea that the world is a all-inclusive whole. The term is also broadly used as a context-dependent expression to denote a specific domain of discourse and everything within it, such as the Earth and all life on it or the whole of human existence. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I implement your suggestion with some minor adjustments. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Scientific cosmology

The section on scientific cosmology provides a one paragraph synopsis of cosmology, I guess from the philosopher's perspective. It starts off by claiming that cosmology is about the universe. That much is fine and we can quit reading now. The second sentence is based on a dubious source,

• Bolonkin, Alexander (26 December 2011). Universe, Human Immortality and Future Human Evaluation. Elsevier. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-12-415801-6.

The author has written a number of popular but speculative books. It is very much not a mainstream cosmology book. I say this claim is only correct in a limited sense within the field of philosophy. The science of modern cosmology does not use the term "world". It talks about Chronology of the universe, age of the universe, Fate of the Universe and so on.

The third sentence gives a definition of the block universe based on a textbook and two non-English language sources. The quote from the Zeilik textbook on defines "universe", not "world". The textbook uses "world" many times for things like "the moon as a fossil world". It also says on page 494 We have seen that there are a variety of possible-theoretical models for how the Universe behaves. Some of the properties of these world models come from geometric arguments alone; others arise when. we couple the geometry to the matter content. It is clear that Zelik does not consider world==universe.

None of the other sources back up the claim that modern cosmology uses world==universe. The point of equivalence only comes in philosophy when discussing "reality" and "totality of existence", things philosophers consider defining "the world" and philosophers consider defining the universe. Cosmological models are only related to the philosophers "world" to the extent that discussions between the fields lead to new ideas. The "totality of existence" isn't even a logical concept in general relativity where everything has its own time.

This is long way of saying I want to remove the sentence sourced to Bolonkin. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you are right that we shouldn't imply that scientific cosmology uses the term world as a technical term for the universe. Maybe the first two sentences of the section could be changed to Scientific cosmology can be defined as the science of the universe, examining the physical world as a whole. This way, we have the term world in it so the relevance to the article is clear. For a better source, we could use Manton & Mee 2017 The Physical World: An Inspirational Tour of Fundamental Physics. It says We live in a fascinating world, bursting with remarkable phenomena on every scale. Our expanding universe ... Chapter 14 on cosmology surveys the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole... Phlsph7 (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The title "The Physical World An Inspirational Tour of Fundamental Physics" is an example of Fraassen's punchline, ...indicates the domain of discourse of the sentence in which it occurs.... The title announces that the domain of the book will be all things "physical". That is why cosmology is relegated to chapter 14. Cosmology does not examine "the physical world as a whole". It is limited to the study of the largest observable scale, the universe. Similarly, We live in a fascinating world,... tells us that the domain bursting with remarkable phenomena on every scale is the one we all inhabit. These are examples of the use of the word "world" but not discussions of the concept of "world".

Should we repurpose the section as a summary of Fraassen's section on cosmology? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If you don't like the expression "physical world as a whole", we could also use "physical world at the largest observable scale" instead. The subsection already uses information from Fraassen. In principle, I'm open to adding more, but I'm not sure which additions you have in mind and I wouldn't overdo it so the subsection remains concise. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

My problem with the "Scientific cosmology" section is that it is about scientific cosmology and not about the article topic. The phrase "physical world at the largest observable scale" uses the word "world" in its schematic sense. It does not tell us anything about the article topic. Similarly the use of Fraassen is not with regard to the article topic but to verify a claim available in a hundred science books unrelated to this topic. Fraassen discusses scientific cosmology in the context of the article topic and that discussion is what should be summarized. The closest connection to the article topic is the sentence "World-conceptions..." which to me reads as a misunderstanding of "world models". As I have said previously, the fundamental problem is that cosmology does not use "world". Philosophers talking about cosmology use "world", so we need to summarize what they say, not give a synopsis of the field. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

As I understand it, the subsection is currently about the article topic. It would be rather odd to have an article on the topic "World" that does not discuss the scientific perspective. Whether the phrase you cited uses the schematic sense depends on your interpretation. Even if it did, wouldn't that make it part of the article topic?

It's possible that we are talking past each other. As I see it, the subsection should give a brief definition of scientific cosmology since we can't expect readers to know the exact meaning of the term. It should also mention how physicists conceive the universe as a whole, such as relativistic cosmology and quantum cosmology. In addition to relativistic cosmology, Fraassen also discusses Newton's System of the World, which could also be mentioned. We already have a separate subsection on the schematic conception, so I wouldn't also frame this subsection from this perspective unless there is broad agreement across secondary sources on the topic that this is how it is commonly interpreted. I think the length of one paragraph would be fine. If your vision roughly aligns with this, then we can see how to implement your additional points. If not, then it might be helpful to clarify what you see as the main topics that this subsection should discuss, ideally more concrete than noting that it should be a summary of whatever Fraassen says. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Fraasen use fails verification.

Renowned philosopher Bas van Fraassen has an article on "World" which should be a reliable source for this article.

• Fraassen, Bas C. van (1995). "'World' is Not a Count Noun". Noûs. 29 (2): 139–157. doi:10.2307/2215656. JSTOR 2215656.

It is used in the Scientific cosmology section for a claim only weakly connected to his article (a short bit about spacetime), and for expression "the New World" it refers to the landmass of North and South America. which Fraasen does not say, and third for Talk of different worlds is also common in everyday language, for example, with reference to the world of music, the world of business, the world of football, the world of experience or the Asian world. But at the same time, worlds are usually defined as all-inclusive totalities. in the section "Paradox of many worlds" which almost gets the point of Fraasen's comprehensive article if it were not in that section and was changed.

Fraasen's article is very dense and long (did I mention he was a philosopher?). His punchline is on page 153: To sum up then, here is my suggested alternative to the idea that world is a count noun. It is instead a context-dependent term which indicates the domain of discourse of the sentence in which it occurs, on the occasion of utterance. It plays this role sometimes by denoting the domain (a set), and sometimes by purporting to denote an entity of which the members of the domain.

The rest of the "Paradox of many worlds" touches on this approach but the way the section is constructed is WP:Synthesis. The problem is the first sentence is not sourced: The idea that there exist many different worlds is found in various fields. This is an editorial observation, not a summary of a source. Given the prominence of Fraassen and the exact match of his article to the topic, we should summarize his article, not use it to verify (or not) tibbits in the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Fraassen 1995 discusses the theory of relativity on page 144, which is used in the first reference. He discusses a plurality of worlds on the pages 140–141 and 151, which is used in the second reference. He discusses the expressions "Around the World in Eighty Days" and "the Roman world" on page 151, which is used in the third reference. Fraassen mentions the term "New World" as an example. He does not provide a precise definition, but it shouldn't be difficult to add another sources for that part, a dictionary entry would probably do the job. It's possible that some details claimed in those sentences are not explicitly supported by Fraassen 1995, but stating that the source generally fails verification is not correct. The sentence The idea that there exist many different worlds is found in various fields has several sources besides Fraassen. Have you looked through them? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure Fraassen discusses relativity, but our content is not a summary of what Fraassen says about the relationship between relativity and the concept 'world'. Fraassen discusses relativity in a section in which he concludes that science does not prove that there is a totality of everything". ("Hence, there is no reason of principle for the scientific realist to say that cosmology implies that there is such a thing as the (whole) world.") I added "the Roman world" after posting, to fix the New World problem.

Sorry I failed to be clear about The idea that there exist many different worlds is found in various fields. Sure this is true, but it is not true that this idea is viewed as a paradox in many fields as asserted by using this as the first sentence of the section "Paradox of many worlds".

But the important thing is Fraassen's punchline. His conclusion on the nature of "world" is what we should summarize, not random tidbits of his arguement. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Our subsection is not saying that the paradox of many worlds is viewed as a paradox in many fields. It merely introduces the topic by saying that the idea of many worlds is relevent to several fields to prepare the following explanation of what some philosophers see as a paradox. "Fraassen's punchline" you mentioned above is about the world not being a single entity. The paradox of many worlds is one of the "random tidbits of his arguement" that leads him to the punchline. I think the whole of Fraassens paper counts as a reliable source that can be used to support statements. In this sense, we don't have to limit ourselves to only the conclusion it seeks to establish. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Fraassen does not say many worlds is a paradox anymore than he says the New World is the Americas. The sourcing was wrong. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I made some changes. I solved the "not saying that the paradox of many worlds" by not saying it ;-). The contradiction or paradox is one side of an argument, but the subject of the section is "multiple worlds as a subtopic of world". So I changed the section title. The contradiction/paradox aspect remains but I separated Fraassen so we can discuss his core argument without subjugating it to multiple worlds. See what you think.

There are sources on the QM concept of multiple worlds that treat it wrt to "world". I can try to find those. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the modification works for me. It might be good to add a reference to the last sentence about the many-worlds interpretation. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)