Philosophy Now Forum

It's a consensus among many physicists:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/7 ... -mechanics

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's a consensus among many physicists:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/7 ... -mechanics

PhilX

I'm for a multiple universe interpretation. But what do YOU think? I'm throwing the question back to you because I'm confused at why you're asking others to contribute without your own contributions. It's a give and take kind of thing to participate in discussions and the constant linking elsewhere without arouses suspicion. I don't mean offence if this is not what you are intending. But this can be potentially hazardous for reasons I won't indulge.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's a consensus among many physicists:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/7 ... -mechanics

PhilX

I'm for a multiple universe interpretation. But what do YOU think? I'm throwing the question back to you because I'm confused at why you're asking others to contribute without your own contributions. It's a give and take kind of thing to participate in discussions and the constant linking elsewhere without arouses suspicion. I don't mean offence if this is not what you are intending. But this can be potentially hazardous for reasons I won't indulge.

If one interprets universe in terms of dimensions, then I think it's possible due to the weakness of gravity as it's theorized that much of it is lost to higher dimensions. Looking at it from another point of view, there's no theory that says our universe is unique, so I can say it's possible. Currently experiments are running looking for more universes so we would have to wait for those results. I can go into further detail; this should do for starters.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's a consensus among many physicists:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/7 ... -mechanics

PhilX

I'm for a multiple universe interpretation. But what do YOU think? I'm throwing the question back to you because I'm confused at why you're asking others to contribute without your own contributions. It's a give and take kind of thing to participate in discussions and the constant linking elsewhere without arouses suspicion. I don't mean offence if this is not what you are intending. But this can be potentially hazardous for reasons I won't indulge.

If one interprets universe in terms of dimensions, then I think it's possible due to the weakness of gravity as it's theorized that much of it is lost to higher dimensions. Looking at it from another point of view, there's no theory that says our universe is unique, so I can say it's possible. Currently experiments are running looking for more universes so we would have to wait for those results. I can go into further detail; this should do for starters.

PhilX

Well, I emailed you and linked you to a proof I had that Bell's Inequality that was used by the Aspect(1980s) experiment fails to provide evidence of the entanglement. However, it CAN work in parallel universes but we cannot actually determine this locally outside of logic.

I argue for a 'totality' that is inclusive of absolutely ALL possibilities derived from absolute nothingness, arguments that I've raised on this site in a few places also that get overlooked. It is just logical to me THAT multiple worlds exist precisely because otherwise it would make us oddly too unique....something 'symmetrically' unbalanced that puts some 'god' in the picture to have devised us as such. How can we be so 'uniquely' privileged as a universe otherwise?

It should be noted that physics and cosmology are undergoing a change in terms of what the scientists are agreeing to, e.g. dark energy, which some scientists are now saying doesn't exist on the basis of new evidence. I know that The Standard Model will have to be revised or scrapped depending on what results from investigation and theorizing of the universe. And this is the tip of the iceberg.

PhilX

If, by definition, the word 'Universe' roughly means all there is, then how could there possibly be other, parallel, or multiple, universes?

The definition of 'Universe' will have to change if any person is going to begin suggesting that there are other universes. For the people who want to suggest that there are different universes, then how do you define 'universe'?

Why are human beings still confused on what the Universe is and how It actually exists?

When are they going to wake up and recognize what is so blindingly obvious?

ken wrote:If, by definition, the word 'Universe' roughly means all there is, then how could there possibly be other, parallel, or multiple, universes?

The definition of 'Universe' will have to change if any person is going to begin suggesting that there are other universes. For the people who want to suggest that there are different universes, then how do you define 'universe'?

Why are human beings still confused on what the Universe is and how It actually exists?

When are they going to wake up and recognize what is so blindingly obvious?

I already offered a definition for the universe that allows for the multiverse.

PhilX

ken wrote:
The definition of universe will have to change if any person is going to begin suggesting there are other universes
For the people who want to suggest that there are different universes then how do you define universe

The word universe has two similar but different meanings. It can literally mean everything that exists or equally
just local cosmic expansion. And long as one knows which definition is being used there should be zero confusion

My definition of a universe that I go by is the following:

"A current universe is a uniform set of physical laws in a space."

Note the term current. This definition doesn't consider the Big Bang where, e.g., the speed of light is said to be greater (in fact the speed of light is defined, not measured and my definition gets around the difficulties of the Big Bang). Since the speed of light is defined and physical law is based on the speed of light, then it's enough to know the speed of light for a space as the speed is absolutely constant in a vacuum. Also note I don't mention "all space" which gets around the idea that the universe is all there is.

If in a different part of space, the laws of physics are different, then I say that part of space is a different universe and we do indeed have a multiverse.

With this definition it's debatable whether during the time of the Big Bang, we had a different universe.

PhilX

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
The definition of universe will have to change if any person is going to begin suggesting there are other universes
For the people who want to suggest that there are different universes then how do you define universe

The word universe has two similar but different meanings. It can literally mean everything that exists or equally
just local cosmic expansion. And long as one knows which definition is being used there should be zero confusion

Yes exactly. But when did the definition of 'local cosmic expansion' come into existence? Was it only after some people wanted to change it to something other than "literally mean everything"? If 'Universe' literally means everything, then why do some people (want to) change the definition? Just to suit their own new view?

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
The definition of universe will have to change if any person is going to begin suggesting there are other universes
For the people who want to suggest that there are different universes then how do you define universe

The word universe has two similar but different meanings. It can literally mean everything that exists or equally
just local cosmic expansion. And long as one knows which definition is being used there should be zero confusion

Yes exactly. But when did the definition of local cosmic expansion come into existence? Was it only after some people wanted to change it to something other than literally mean everything? If universe literally means everything why do some people ( want to ) change the definition?

Before multiverse came into common use the universe only referred to this one. That was thought to be everything there
was. But with the possibility of other universes now existing everything has been extended to also mean those. And so to
avoid any confusion when referencing only this universe another term had to be discovered. Hence local cosmic expansion

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's a consensus among many physicists:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/7 ... -mechanics

It's only theoretical and has been recently disproven by Supersymmentri being disproven.

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: The word universe has two similar but different meanings. It can literally mean everything that exists or equally
just local cosmic expansion. And long as one knows which definition is being used there should be zero confusion

Yes exactly. But when did the definition of local cosmic expansion come into existence? Was it only after some people wanted to change it to something other than literally mean everything? If universe literally means everything why do some people ( want to ) change the definition?

Before multiverse came into common use the universe only referred to this one. That was thought to be everything there
was. But with the possibility of other universes now existing everything has been extended to also mean those. And so to
avoid any confusion when referencing only this universe another term had to be discovered. Hence local cosmic expansion

Do others notice the laughabilty of this here?

The Universe means everything there is, but with the so called "discovery" of "new" places or things we will just change the definition of Universe. Would it not be more sensible to just add the "new" places or things into everything there is department? The Universe can not mean everything there is one day and not the next. I mean it "can", but it does not make much sense to do that. Unless of course some people want to try to change things to fit in with their ever changing views of things.

If it is not obvious to others yet. People are trying to change the definition of Universe so that that definition will fit into and with their currently held view that they have. They are trying so desperately to hold onto this view, but they cannot keep because it is so obviously totally incorrect. Watching their views so very slowly die out is excruciatingly and tedious to see but eventually like nearly all things they will pass away completely.

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: Before multiverse came into common use the universe only referred to this one. That was thought to be everything there
was. But with the possibility of other universes now existing everything has been extended to also mean those. And so to
avoid any confusion when referencing only this universe another term had to be discovered. Hence local cosmic expansion

Do others notice the laughabilty of this here?

The Universe means everything there is, but with the so called "discovery" of "new" places or things we will just change the definition of Universe. Would it not be more sensible to just add the "new" places or things into everything there is department? The Universe can not mean everything there is one day and not the next. I mean it "can", but it does not make much sense to do that. Unless of course some people want to try to change things to fit in with their ever changing views of things.

If it is not obvious to others yet. People are trying to change the definition of Universe so that that definition will fit into and with their currently held view that they have. They are trying so desperately to hold onto this view, but they cannot keep because it is so obviously totally incorrect. Watching their views so very slowly die out is excruciatingly and tedious to see but eventually like nearly all things they will pass away completely.

"Universe" used to BE the term to collectively speak of 'the absolute all' collectively. But for philosophy, it is limiting to the literal CONTINGENT place we physically live in. "Contingent" means that which we are in touch with as in one of POSSIBLE many scenarios. Then, to be unbiased, most, including myself, will use, "totality" to represent this absolute all in a logical sense to include anything anyone could propose that belongs to the ALL realms, which may be one's belief in places like Heavens & Hells or multi-verses (more than simply our contingent physical world), etcetra.

To assert we can't speak of anything BUT a 'universe' is forcefully preventing others to communicate clearer what they mean. A "multiverse" refers to the possible (real or not) other similar physical spaces that we live in excluding religious or mystical places.