The multiverse is real....

NiftyNiblick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hence, the limitations of liguistics versus science.

How do you say "before the Big Bang" when Space-Time began after the Big Bang?
 
Doc Dutch said:
Hence, the limitations of liguistics versus science.

How do you say "before the Big Bang" when Space-Time began after the Big Bang?
Click to expand...

Big Bang?????

My first experience with coitus probably had no impact at all on anybody's space time others than mine and possibly hers.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't think the words used are important, personally. The physical universe that we know is not all that is, imo . I believe that there are not just many more universes, but also dimensions separate from the physical plane.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The big, beautiful trees are neatly spaced in the Boston Common and Public Gardens, Oom.

I can see everything, thanks.
Click to expand...
Your posts in this thread say otherwise, neef. You get wrapped around trees AKA words, and miss the bigger picture.

It's akin to the self-styled Christians who focus upon specific verses in the Bible without seeing the message of the New Testament as a whole.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Your posts in this thread say otherwise, neef. You get wrapped around trees AKA words, and miss the bigger picture.

It's akin to the self-styled Christians who focus upon specific verses in the Bible without seeing the message of the New Testament as a whole.
Click to expand...

You may actually see the bigger picture, Oom, but after seeing it,
you can't accurately explain it to me
because you're not careful enough with the words.

The Bible itself was so horrific with words that nobody can agree on what any of it means.
Our Constitution has the very same problem.

Irresponsible procreation is obviously the world's greatest problem, Oom,
but after that,
can irresponsible articulation be far behind?
I don't personally think so.
 
This is where we get back to a version of Schrödinger’s idea. In the Everett version of the cat puzzle, there is a single cat up to the point where the device is triggered. Then the entire Universe splits in two. Similarly, as DeWitt pointed out, an electron in a distant galaxy confronted with a choice of two (or more) quantum paths causes the entire Universe, including ourselves, to split. In the Deutsch–Schrödinger version, there is an infinite variety of universes (a Multiverse) corresponding to all possible solutions to the quantum wave function.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
 
NiftyNiblick said:
You may actually see the bigger picture, Oom, but after seeing it,
you can't accurately explain it to me
because you're not careful enough with the words.

The Bible itself was so horrific with words that nobody can agree on what any of it means.
Our Constitution has the very same problem.

Irresponsible procreation is obviously the world's greatest problem, Oom,
but after that,
can irresponsible articulation be far behind?
I don't personally think so.
Click to expand...
Disagreed, neef. I know the bigger picture exists even if I can't accurately describe it. You deny it exists and focus upon minutia.

An example is this thread; it's about multiverses. You get wrapped around the trees on the verbiage. You can't accurately tell how to describe time before time began because you are limited by your own words. You can't see the bigger picture.
 
The universe can split more times than did Apple stock shares,
but if 'Uni" means one,
there can only be ONE universe.

Multiverse is using the prefix "multi" to describe the complete, unified existence,
which is linguistically inartful to say the very least.

People don't seem to care, which is a frightening indication of how far civilization has fallen.
 
Last edited:
NiftyNiblick said:
The universe can split more times than did Apple stock shares,
but if 'Uni" means one,
there can only be ONE universe.

Multiverse is using the prefix "multi" to describe the complete, unified existence,
which is linguistically unartful to say the very least.

People don't seem to care, which is a frightening indication of how far civilization has fallen.
Click to expand...

Again, the forest for the trees, neef. What do you call a universe outside of our own universe? What do you call a group of alternate universes that exist outside of our own.

My guess is you "disbelieve" those other universes exist based upon the singular definition of "universe". You're basing existence upon the definition of a term that was created before alternate universes were thought to exist.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The universe can split more times than did Apple stock shares,
but if 'Uni" means one,
there can only be ONE universe.

Multiverse is using the prefix "multi" to describe the complete, unified existence,
which is linguistically inartful to say the very least.

People don't seem to care, which is a frightening indication of how far civilization has fallen.
Click to expand...

You are stupid as shit. My god, have some self respect. You are one of the worst trolls on the forum.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
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.
Click to expand...

the caveman here is you

uni - latin for one - only really makes sense if there is a only one universe. the very concept of a metaverse means we should just abolish the term universe

so again gramps - time for bed.
 
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...

The universe does seem to have an organization and mathmatical structure that is inexplicable at the metaphysical level.

Einstein famously said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Again, the forest for the trees, neef. What do you call a universe outside of our own universe? What do you call a group of alternate universes that exist outside of our own.

My guess is you "disbelieve" those other universes exist based upon the singular definition of "universe".
Click to expand...

No, I don't really care if they exist or not, and I don't even have an opinion.

Linguistically, all entities that exist,
including ours, somebody else's, and alternate ones,
are not themselves "universes" because
because universe means "everything."

It's not science.
It's not philosophy.

It's His Majesty the King's English Language.

We didn't opt to codify any of our Native American languages.
We chose English.

I'm far from perfect at it,
but I make an effort to use it as well as I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top