Do you mind if we use this definition?Arising_uk wrote:You could understand it this way but then you'd be missing the exact metaphysical concept of a multiverse as opposed to a universe.SpheresOfBalance wrote:If there is more 'outside' the universe, once known, does it become part of the universe? Would the fact of a multiverse preclude it being understood as a universe? You know, 'one' in terms of everything.
I don't see it as that hard to understand.
"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy."
My point is: if multiverse, then 'all that exists.' I see that universe becomes archaic with the truth of multiverse. Like the current universe contains galaxies, so the multiverse contains all other universes, that can be seen as galaxies, thus the multiverse is in fact the 'one' (uni) largest container of things that can ever be in existence. By whatever name and function, matters not, of course! We don't call the universe the Multi-Galaxy do we?