The multiverse is real....
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I don't like mangling words.
"Universe" means everything, so it can't be a subset of multiverse.
It's not science. It's vocabulary.
"Universe" means everything, so it can't be a subset of multiverse.
It's not science. It's vocabulary.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Multiverse is a term to replace universe. It does not mean many aspects of one universe.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
It does not mean that, true, and thus cannot be valid as "universe" is already defined in the language to include everything everywhere always.
If it did mean that, then it might be worth considering.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Not sure what you said. "Multiverse" replaces "universe." Were you refuting that?
I think it gets down to the distinction between the observable universe and everything else.
We are only aware of the observable universe because of the limitations of the speed of light.
The actual entire universe, which is forever unobservable to us, could contain bubbles or regions budding off from each other, and having radically different laws and properties compared to the observable universe, supposedly due to cosmic inflation.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Yes.
If the meaning of something is "everything everywhere always," it has no replacement as a concept.
That's what "universe" was intended to mean.
The Many Worlds hypothesis does away with the confusion because it avoids using the term universe, and instead presumes there are parallel quantum realities.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Right, and the multiverse idea refutes the existence of a universe.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Thank you.
"Observable" is the required qualifier, because to me, universe means everything, observable or not.
But if the laws of physics, the conditions, the very nature of matter and energy are completely different in these regions or bubbles that spawn off independently from the inflationary field, can we really say they are part of our universe?
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Again, you're talking science and I'm talking language. To me, universe means "everything."
It's valid to have an all-inclusive word that means "everything."
It's not our universe as if there may be another.
It's the universe...from my perspective, of course....because there can't be two everythings.
I agree it's a semantics problem.
I think when the word universe was typically concieved it referred to everything created after the big bang.
The inflationary hypotheses suggests that there could be individual island universes which spawned off the inflationary field, each with their own big bangs.
I agree it's a semantics problem.
I think the way the word universe was typically concieved it referred to everything created after the big bang.
The inflationary hypotheses suggests that there could be individual island universes which spawned off the inflationary field, each with their own big bangs.
Yakuda
Verified User
All theoretical and nothing more than an attempt to explain away the inescapable realty that the universe had a beginning
When did the universe start???? And by whom????
BidenPresident
Verified User
God did it. A long time ago. All you will get from these dopes.
Technically, we don't know that for a fact.
The Big Bang is often misinterpreted as the beginning.
The big bang technically just refers to a point in time when the universe existed at Planck density (10[SUP]90[/SUP] grams per cm[SUP]3[/SUP]) and began to expand.
We don't understand physics at Planck density, so we can't say if the universe existed for an infinitely long period at Planck density, or whether the universe at Planck density was created just a picosecond before inflation.
.
Last edited: