The multiverse is real....

Cypress said:
Unfortunately, that's the way it is in science. Words in science sometimes don't have precisely the same meaning they do in colloquial English. Heat and velocity in colloquial English don't neccesarily mean the same thing as they do in scientific lexicon.
Click to expand...
It's proof that the American education system is severely lacking in both teaching science and critical thinking. :)
 
Cypress said:
Unfortunately, that's the way it is in science. Words in science sometimes don't have precisely the same meaning they do in colloquial English. Heat and velocity in colloquial English don't neccesarily mean the same thing as they do in scientific lexicon.
Click to expand...

I understand. And thus for you, meaningful conversation takes place in the realm of scientific lexicon.
Well, you have indeed made a point, C, and very well at that. Thank you.

At least in that one respect, we do, virtually at least, live in different universes.
Which, of course, is fine, as long as a conversation between us is never impactful on a serious situation.

In the latter situation, I'll go with precise language over an amalgam of philosophy and science.
That's just how I happen to be wired, though.
People are clearly not all the same, nor do we apparently have to be.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed. The chaos theory crossed my mind although I don't understand the math part. Little actions can have big consequences...or not. We don't know, so, again, we can only do the best we can.

Agreed on Carroll. I'd never heard of him before. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Your seed story isn't that silly. It's the kind of thing that cross thoughtful people's minds.

There was a Simpsons episode where Homer went millions of years back in time and accidentally squashed a butterfly, completely changing the future as he knew it. : )
 
Cypress said:
Your seed story isn't that silly. It's the kind of thing that cross thoughtful people's minds.

There was a Simpsons episode where Homer went millions of years back in time and accidentally squashed a butterfly, completely changing the future as he knew it. : )
Click to expand...
Thanks!

The Simpson's episode was lifted from an SF story by Ray Bradbury "The Sound of Thunder": https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Butterfly-Effect-In-Ray-Bradburys-A-A753710A1D90F1AC The story itself gave a name to the "Butterfly Effect".

Spoiler alert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder

It was also a movie, although I don't recall seeing it.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
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.
Click to expand...

it means everything connected

the multiverse is explaining how it is possible that not all things are connected
 
Cypress said:
Your seed story isn't that silly. It's the kind of thing that cross thoughtful people's minds.

There was a Simpsons episode where Homer went millions of years back in time and accidentally squashed a butterfly, completely changing the future as he knew it. : )
Click to expand...

 
NiftyNiblick said:
There needs to be a word that means everything, period, and up until now, "universe" worked for that.

"Uni" means just one.
Click to expand...

ok grandpa. time to go to bed though

6swyt2.jpg
 
Doc Dutch said:
It's proof that the American education system is severely lacking in both teaching science and critical thinking. :)
Click to expand...
Science tends to set up precise and quantifiable definitions which don't always fit neatly into generic colloquial definitions.

The word theory means something different in science than it generally does in conversational colloquial English.
 
Cypress said:
Science tends to set up precise and quantifiable definitions which don't always fit neatly into generic colloquial definitions.

The word theory means something different in science than it generally does in conversational colloquial English.
Click to expand...

All of which points to the glaring failures of American education. :)
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I understand. And thus for you, meaningful conversation takes place in the realm of scientific lexicon.
Well, you have indeed made a point, C, and very well at that. Thank you.

At least in that one respect, we do, virtually at least, live in different universes.
Which, of course, is fine, as long as a conversation between us is never impactful on a serious situation.

In the latter situation, I'll go with precise language over an amalgam of philosophy and science.
That's just how I happen to be wired, though.
People are clearly not all the same, nor do we apparently have to be.
Click to expand...

Collectively we do tend to be sloppy with language.

English, like any language, is dynamic and never static. The word Gay generally isn't used the same way now that it was in 1920. I don't get to attached to any one definition over the long term.
 
There are likely an infinite # of universes, from everything I've heard & read. There are parallel universes, where we exist in either slighty different or radically different realities (so, possibly exploring where our lives would have gone w/ a different decision here, or a different set of circumstances there).

I also think there are completely different universes, with much different physical laws, that we can't even comprehend..

The whole thing is wildly fascinating. I think our brains aren't built to understand a lot of what goes on beyond this universe & this dimension. But, to me, there is an awesome design to it, and a pretty clear purpose. People can say "God" designed it, but that gets into too many religious connotations for me. Ultimately, everything can be explained by science (though, maybe not OUR science).
 
Cypress said:
Collectively we do tend to be sloppy with language.

English, like any language, is dynamic and never static. The word Gay generally isn't used the same way now that it was in 1920. I don't get to attached to any one definition over the long term.
Click to expand...

I agree. The point, though, is to have at least one word that means what no other presently used word really means:
in this case, the total of all that presently exist, anywhere.

Even if we say "at this time,"
that time is in units determined by the simultaneous spinning and orbiting of one very specific planet around one very specific star.
Even if star and planet both cease to exist at some point, the units of time which they created still historically remain unchanged.
The time element isn't subject to discussion just because we know that we're using the concept of time
in such a highly restrictive manner. We know and understand what we're using.

No scientific principles are challenged by the concept of "everything,"
unless you choose to challenge the concept of everything itself,
in which case we couldn't communicate at all
because I see no complexity at all in the concept of "everything."

There should be no problem in having a word to mean everything that exists in any manner or form of existence.
Would it be better to have to say
"everything that exists in any manner or form of existence?"
 
Doc Dutch said:
Are you admitting that unicycle doesn't only mean one cycle, but a single wheeled cycle?

Like Universe means our universe, but all universes?
Click to expand...

The concept of "all universes", though, is linguistically invalid
if "universe" does mean everything that exists-- anywhere in any form.--which is in fact what it means.

If we can't be specific about what words mean, we're essentially still grunting like cavemen.

I'll admit that I care about this a lot more than some do,
but I was raised and educated in an environment where it seriously mattered.
 
BartenderElite said:
There are likely an infinite # of universes, from everything I've heard & read. There are parallel universes, where we exist in either slighty different or radically different realities (so, possibly exploring where our lives would have gone w/ a different decision here, or a different set of circumstances there).

I also think there are completely different universes, with much different physical laws, that we can't even comprehend..

The whole thing is wildly fascinating. I think our brains aren't built to understand a lot of what goes on beyond this universe & this dimension. But, to me, there is an awesome design to it, and a pretty clear purpose. People can say "God" designed it, but that gets into too many religious connotations for me. Ultimately, everything can be explained by science (though, maybe not OUR science).
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with most of the above.

You're saying that there can't be one word that means "everything that exists in any form, anywhere."
That's what universe was coined to mean. If not, what other word applies to everything with no exceptions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top