Heaven and hell are not just "illusory"

[Dubious]

you are an absolute idiot if you want to continue to believe that there is such a thing as 'our universe' and/or 'other universes'.

You may want to reconsider that statement, since there is nothing in all the laws of physics nor anything in logic that would preempt a multiverse from existing.

Except for the very fact that the definition for the 'multiverse' word has already been taken by the 'Universe' word.

Maybe you would like to re-consider this, again.

In fact string theory - probably the most abstract of all theories - requires a multiverse existence for the theory to have any probability of being functional.

Why delve into 'theories' when the actual irrefutable Truth is already HERE, for all to 'look at' and 'see'?

At present...and perhaps always, theories on a multiverse existing depends on a probability status which certainly exists since there are no physical laws which negate its possibility. Either way, the problem remains theoretical meaning in no way conclusive.

Is there a difference between the definitions of the 'multiverse' and 'Universe' words, to you?

If yes, then what are they, exactly?

Yes! One is singular, the other plural. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is which!

[Age]

You may want to reconsider that statement, since there is nothing in all the laws of physics nor anything in logic that would preempt a multiverse from existing.

Except for the very fact that the definition for the 'multiverse' word has already been taken by the 'Universe' word.

Maybe you would like to re-consider this, again.

In fact string theory - probably the most abstract of all theories - requires a multiverse existence for the theory to have any probability of being functional.

Why delve into 'theories' when the actual irrefutable Truth is already HERE, for all to 'look at' and 'see'?

At present...and perhaps always, theories on a multiverse existing depends on a probability status which certainly exists since there are no physical laws which negate its possibility. Either way, the problem remains theoretical meaning in no way conclusive.

Is there a difference between the definitions of the 'multiverse' and 'Universe' words, to you?

If yes, then what are they, exactly?

Yes! One is singular, the other plural. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is which!

See how, once again, I ask the most simplest of clarifying questions but yet an answer is not provided.

Do you know what a definition is, exactly?

If yes, then what is/are the definition/s to the words 'multiverse' and 'Universe', to you, exactly?

[Dubious]

Except for the very fact that the definition for the 'multiverse' word has already been taken by the 'Universe' word.

Maybe you would like to re-consider this, again.


Why delve into 'theories' when the actual irrefutable Truth is already HERE, for all to 'look at' and 'see'?


Is there a difference between the definitions of the 'multiverse' and 'Universe' words, to you?

If yes, then what are they, exactly?

Yes! One is singular, the other plural. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is which!

See how, once again, I ask the most simplest of clarifying questions but yet an answer is not provided.

Do you know what a definition is, exactly?

If yes, then what is/are the definition/s to the words 'multiverse' and 'Universe', to you, exactly?

My opinion doesn't count. It's what the science says, which has already been mentioned. What's your definition and exactly how do you define exactly

[Age]

Yes! One is singular, the other plural. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is which!

See how, once again, I ask the most simplest of clarifying questions but yet an answer is not provided.

Do you know what a definition is, exactly?

If yes, then what is/are the definition/s to the words 'multiverse' and 'Universe', to you, exactly?

My opinion doesn't count. It's what the science says, which has already been mentioned.

'Science' does not say things. Only you human beings do.

What definition are you using?What's your definition

The definition I already gave here when asked, 'What definition are you using?'

and exactly how do you define exactly

Considering the 'exactly' word was in relation 'to you' and 'to your definition', then how, exactly, I define the 'exactly' word here is in you using the most accurate description, or for you to provide the most accurate definition, 'to you'. But, as you are showing, none of this will ever come to be provided.

Now, if you would like to have a Truly fully open, honest, and in depth discussion here, then by all means let us continue. If, however, you do not, then okay. But,

The Universe is infinite, and eternal, and there is One, only. Now, as there is proof for this, this means that this is irrefutable.

[Dubious]

The Universe is infinite, and eternal, and there is One, only. Now, as there is proof for this, this means that this is irrefutable.

If your opinion is proof then you're right, it's irrefutable.

[Age]

The Universe is infinite, and eternal, and there is One, only. Now, as there is proof for this, this means that this is irrefutable.

If your opinion is proof then you're right, it's irrefutable.

Why introduce something so off topic and so deflective here?

The Universe being infinite and eternal is irrefutable because of the proof.

Do you even know what 'proof' is?

Obviously, opinions are not proof. So, there is never an, 'If your opinion is proof then ...'. you implying there is or even could be, is just ridiculous.

[Dubious]

The Universe being infinite and eternal is irrefutable because of the proof.

Do you even know what 'proof' is?

Saying "because of the proof" means nothing unless you show it. So where's the proof? Kindly present it since you say it's irrefutable.

[Sculptor]

Yes at last a thread title I can agree with.

Yes they are not just illusory they are pure invention!!

[godelian]

Yes at last a thread title I can agree with.

Yes they are not just illusory they are pure invention!!

You seriously underestimate the consequences of Godel's incompleteness theorems. Furthermore, Godel did not invent them. He painstakingly discovered them.

Godel and Einstein were close friends during their time at Princeton. It is still not clear who will eventually turn out to be the most influential of both.

[Age]

The Universe being infinite and eternal is irrefutable because of the proof.

Do you even know what 'proof' is?

Saying "because of the proof" means nothing unless you show it.

Saying, 'because of the proof', does not mean nothing. Saying, 'because of the proof', means that a claim is being made. Now, if anyone has the curiosity or interest to follow up on the claim, or not, is another thing.

I have shown, and proven, time and time again throughout this forum how much the people within this forum at least, in the days when this is being written, have little to no curiosity nor interest when something is claimed that they believe is not true.

So where's the proof? Kindly present it since you say it's irrefutable.

1. It is logically and physically impossible for absolutely any thing to come from absolutely no thing. Therefore the Universe did not begin, and thus is eternal, temporally.

2. There is absolutely nothing that could bound an area, which could then be referred to as 'the Universe'. Therefore the Universe is not limited, and thus is infinite, spatially.

3. Just by definition the 'Universe' is all and every thing, as a whole. Therefore the Universe is, spatially, infinite and, temporally, eternal, as there can not be absolutely any thing outside of, apart from, nor beyond the Universe, Itself.

4. There is not one thing that could suffice as proof of a beginning nor expanding universe, as all proof proves otherwise.

Now, what actually verifies and confirms my claim to be an irrefutable Fact is by absolutely anyone trying to provide absolutely any thing that could refute my claim, and by allowing me a chance to reply.

[Sculptor]

Yes at last a thread title I can agree with.

Yes they are not just illusory they are pure invention!!

You seriously underestimate the consequences of Godel's incompleteness theorems. Furthermore, Godel did not invent them. He painstakingly discovered them.

Godel and Einstein were close friends during their time at Princeton. It is still not clear who will eventually turn out to be the most influential of both.

FFS.
The thread title talks about "Heaven and Hell" not logical or mathematical constructs.
Are you from a different planet?

[godelian]

Yes at last a thread title I can agree with.

Yes they are not just illusory they are pure invention!!

You seriously underestimate the consequences of Godel's incompleteness theorems. Furthermore, Godel did not invent them. He painstakingly discovered them.

Godel and Einstein were close friends during their time at Princeton. It is still not clear who will eventually turn out to be the most influential of both.

FFS.
The thread title talks about "Heaven and Hell" not logical or mathematical constructs.
Are you from a different planet?

Read the initial post.

[Sculptor]

You seriously underestimate the consequences of Godel's incompleteness theorems. Furthermore, Godel did not invent them. He painstakingly discovered them.

Godel and Einstein were close friends during their time at Princeton. It is still not clear who will eventually turn out to be the most influential of both.

FFS.
The thread title talks about "Heaven and Hell" not logical or mathematical constructs.
Are you from a different planet?

Read the initial post.

The idea of the universe is the substrate of all things. Definitely the SINGLE "unit" of everything that there is. If a concept such as "multiverse" exists at all it has to be a sub-set of universe.
In other world all items that consist of multiverse are part of the universe by definition.
IN truth, though the "multiverse" is just a pure fantasy with no basis in evidence, and was invented on a whim. It might get people's mathematical juices going or even their philosophical one, but as not evident it is not "SCIENCE".
In this sense the comments I made concerning Heaven and Hell attend to multiverse too.

[godelian]

FFS.
The thread title talks about "Heaven and Hell" not logical or mathematical constructs.
Are you from a different planet?

Read the initial post.

The idea of the universe is the substrate of all things. Definitely the SINGLE "unit" of everything that there is. If a concept such as "multiverse" exists at all it has to be a sub-set of universe.
In other world all items that consist of multiverse are part of the universe by definition.
IN truth, though the "multiverse" is just a pure fantasy with no basis in evidence, and was invented on a whim. It might get people's mathematical juices going or even their philosophical one, but as not evident it is not "SCIENCE".
In this sense the comments I made concerning Heaven and Hell attend to multiverse too.

Science can successfully take on the subject if evidence can be produced by experimental testing. This is clearly not possible in this context.

As I have pointed out in the initial post, the existence of nonstandard universes will always have an impact on the standard one. Our physical universe could be sufficiently similar to the one of the natural numbers for Gödel's incompleteness theorem to dominate its structure. If there are fundamentally unpredictable elements in our own universe, such as free will, then the existence of nonstandard universes is unavoidable.

Nonstandard universes were not invented on a whim.

The multiverse emerged out of the successive attempts at axiomatizing the natural numbers, which is something that Immanuel Kant incorrectly deemed impossible in his critique of pure reason. As usual, Kant was wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

The importance of formalizing arithmetic was not well appreciated until the work of Hermann Grassmann, who showed in the 1860s that many facts in arithmetic could be derived from more basic facts about the successor operation and induction.[2][3] In 1881, Charles Sanders Peirce provided an axiomatization of natural-number arithmetic.[4][5] In 1888, Richard Dedekind proposed another axiomatization of natural-number arithmetic, and in 1889, Peano published a simplified version of them as a collection of axioms in his book The principles of arithmetic presented by a new method (Latin: Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita).

The ninth, final axiom is a second-order statement of the principle of mathematical induction over the natural numbers, which makes this formulation close to second-order arithmetic.

The second-order axiomatization of arithmetic was unsustainable because it implicitly includes naive set theory and makes it impossible to define arithmetic without being inseparably coexistent with sets. Therefore a switch to first-order arithmetic was necessary. This order reduction, however, created another problem:

Although the usual natural numbers satisfy the axioms of PA, there are other models as well (called "non-standard models"); the compactness theorem implies that the existence of nonstandard elements cannot be excluded in first-order logic.[27]

It is natural to ask whether a countable nonstandard model can be explicitly constructed. The answer is affirmative as Skolem in 1933 provided an explicit construction of such a nonstandard model.

Gödel pointed out another serious issue. A consistency proof for this axiomatization would be self-defeating:

When the Peano axioms were first proposed, Bertrand Russell and others agreed that these axioms implicitly defined what we mean by a "natural number".[16] Henri Poincaré was more cautious, saying they only defined natural numbers if they were consistent; if there is a proof that starts from just these axioms and derives a contradiction such as 0 = 1, then the axioms are inconsistent, and don't define anything.[17] In 1900, David Hilbert posed the problem of proving their consistency using only finitistic methods as the second of his twenty-three problems.[18] In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved his second incompleteness theorem, which shows that such a consistency proof cannot be formalized within Peano arithmetic itself, if Peano arithmetic is consistent.[19]

The notion of multiverse is the result of almost a century of analyzing the structure of the universe of the natural numbers. It naturally emerged out of a century of work by various successive mathematicians. You call the multiverse just a pure fantasy with no basis in evidence, and was invented on a whim because you are ignorant of its long history.

[Sculptor]

The notion of multiverse is the result of almost a century of analyzing the structure of the universe of the natural numbers.

Yes, in science fiction.
But even the proponents cannot agree what the idea is for, and what such a reality would look like in practice.

It naturally emerged out of a century of work by various successive mathematicians. You call the multiverse just a pure fantasy with no basis in evidence, and was invented on a whim because you are ignorant of its long history.

No. Because it is lunatic.
It's academic masturbation, and a desperate attempt to squeeze stuff we cannot understand into a theory that cannot be verified.
In this sense it is religious.