- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by josephwI think that might depend on what you mean by 'universe', and for that matter, 'contained'.
Does the universe contain everything that exists?
Is everything that exists contained in the universe?
You could define the universe as everything that exists, but then we'd have to make a distinction by introducing the term 'known universe' for what we know about so far.
Some people, a subset of whom are theoretical physicists, cosmologists or mathematicians, like to speculate that viewed from the perspective of a higher number of dimensions, we live in a multiverse.
Originally posted by Lord SharkIndeed Lord Shark. It is becoming more apparent that we live in a cretain universe that is a part of the multiverse.(Different universes may have quite different rules than the one which we occupy)
I think that might depend on what you mean by 'universe', and for that matter, 'contained'.
You could define the universe as everything that exists, but then we'd have to make a distinction by introducing the term 'known universe' for what we know about so far.
Some people, a subset of whom are theoretical physicists, cosmologists or mathematicians ...[text shortened]... at viewed from the perspective of a higher number of dimensions, we live in a multiverse.
As for questions like" Does the universe conatain everything?", I think we need to move beyond such questions,lest we in up in a world like that depicted on the movie "Wall-E".
Originally posted by karoly aczelBecoming more apparent?
Indeed Lord Shark. It is becoming more apparent that we live in a cretain universe that is a part of the multiverse.(Different universes may have quite different rules than the one which we occupy)
As for questions like" Does the universe conatain everything?", I think we need to move beyond such questions,lest we in up in a world like that depicted on the movie "Wall-E".
I'm not so sure about that. It's certainly the theory of choice for many theoretical cosmologists to be sure, but there's no evidence for a multiverse, beyond the philosophical musings of your Martin Rees's and the like.
The universe is simply a term we apply to whatever the hell we like. Do you want the universe to be everything that exists? Then it is. Do you want it to be only the things that we can observe? Then it is.
Originally posted by amannionYes , I see your point but if I take your second point as well then I could have my little multiverse, could I not?
Becoming more apparent?
I'm not so sure about that. It's certainly the theory of choice for many theoretical cosmologists to be sure, but there's no evidence for a multiverse, beyond the philosophical musings of your Martin Rees's and the like.
The universe is simply a term we apply to whatever the hell we like. Do you want the universe to be everything t ...[text shortened]... at exists? Then it is. Do you want it to be only the things that we can observe? Then it is.
So can the universe be whatever I want. Perhaps , but its not instanteanous. Not yet anyway😵
Originally posted by Lord SharkIs the universe a place, a location?
I think that might depend on what you mean by 'universe', and for that matter, 'contained'.
You could define the universe as everything that exists, but then we'd have to make a distinction by introducing the term 'known universe' for what we know about so far.
Some people, a subset of whom are theoretical physicists, cosmologists or mathematicians ...[text shortened]... at viewed from the perspective of a higher number of dimensions, we live in a multiverse.
How many meanings can "universe" have?
Is the word "contained" too complicated?
Are the terms "everything" and "exists" too complicated?
Originally posted by amannionThe universe is simply a term we apply to whatever the hell we like. Do you want the universe to be everything that exists?
Becoming more apparent?
I'm not so sure about that. It's certainly the theory of choice for many theoretical cosmologists to be sure, but there's no evidence for a multiverse, beyond the philosophical musings of your Martin Rees's and the like.
The universe is simply a term we apply to whatever the hell we like. Do you want the universe to be everything t ...[text shortened]... at exists? Then it is. Do you want it to be only the things that we can observe? Then it is.
It doesn't matter what I want the term "universe" to mean.
I would expect to have to define what the term universe means to a child, but not to an adult.
Is it possible to have a common sense discussion in this forum? Or has everyone lost the capacity to apply sound common sense reasoning?
The universe is the universe for crying out loud. I've understood what that means since I was a child. Twisting and turning the meaning around until it means nothing won't change the meaning. All it does is render a person incapacitated.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by josephwYou want a common sense discussion about an area which I'm willing to bet is outside your expertise and possibly formally beyond the bounds of possible human knowledge. I gave an honest answer as best I could because the distinctions between what different people hold as the definitions of 'universe', 'multiverse' and 'known universe' would be important if you really did want a sensible discussion. However, I doubt that you do, given your responses here.
Is the universe a place, a location?
How many meanings can "universe" have?
Is the word "contained" too complicated?
Are the terms "everything" and "exists" too complicated?
Originally posted by josephwYou're being either silly or naive. Words often have multiple definitions, and the Fallacy of Equivocation is a common fallacy. By asking for clarification this person is trying to avoid that.
[b]The universe is simply a term we apply to whatever the hell we like. Do you want the universe to be everything that exists?
It doesn't matter what I want the term "universe" to mean.
I would expect to have to define what the term universe means to a child, but not to an adult.
Is it possible to have a common sense discussion in this forum? Or ...[text shortened]... t means nothing won't change the meaning. All it does is render a person incapacitated.[/b][/b]
Originally posted by josephwI was simply pointing out that definintions can be reworked to suit whatever your agenda is. Of coursemost of us agree that the universe is the collection of stars and galaxies and space and includes everything that exists.
[b]The universe is simply a term we apply to whatever the hell we like. Do you want the universe to be everything that exists?
It doesn't matter what I want the term "universe" to mean.
I would expect to have to define what the term universe means to a child, but not to an adult.
Is it possible to have a common sense discussion in this forum? Or ...[text shortened]... t means nothing won't change the meaning. All it does is render a person incapacitated.[/b][/b]
That's certainly the definition I tell my kids and the one that I use as a matter of course. But it's not the only one we can describe and this needs to be pointed out.
Originally posted by karoly aczelYes of course, I see nothing wrong with the multiverse hypothesis - it resolves some issues quite neatly.
Yes , I see your point but if I take your second point as well then I could have my little multiverse, could I not?
So can the universe be whatever I want. Perhaps , but its not instanteanous. Not yet anyway😵
I was merely pointing out that we haven't quite got to the stage where we can say that it is a dominant theory.
Originally posted by barstuddWhat the?
I can see glory all around..thanks goes to our heavenly father...but sadly if you people want it to be what ever you want then the question must be asked....when did you create it?
Maybe it'stime to head back to your box ...
On second thoughts, maybe you could explain something: Why is this god thing a father? Why not a mother? Or a sister or brother? Why any sort of family connection at all?