ken wrote:It is laughable, to Me, only because it would be like saying our home is defined by all there is, within the exterior of the building, and then saying, "Oh no I have changed the definition and now the 2nd and 3rd bedroom and the kitchen is not part of all there is, within the exterior of the building. They are in some other place now.
Nobody is taking away a bedroom that was once part of your house. We're saying you want to sleep but the 3 bedrooms are occupied. You have a dozen more unoccupied ones, but are they really part of your house if you cannot go to them to get the sleep you want?
I would, "Yes, they are really part of the home". The definition of the 'home' was all there is, within the exterior of the building
, so if the dozen more unoccupied rooms are within the exterior of the building, then they are really part of the home, no matter if I can go to them or not.
Noax wrote: Does your house have 40 bedrooms, or only the three that you can get to?
The 'home' has all there is, within the exterior of the building
. Nothing more and nothing less.
Noax wrote:Anyway, not sure why you disagree with PhilX since he also consideres 'alternate' quantum universes (MWI) to be one universe, not a multiverse, since the laws are the same there. You're in agreement, and yet you find conflict. Actually, I think Phil is inconsistent with his own definition. The title of his thread states the existence of parallel universes, but then he goes on to define those parallel universes as just being this one, not a parallel one. You at least are consistent in your usage of your definition.
I am not sure if i am in conflict with philx personally or not. I am just in conflict with people who try to change already defined words so that things fit in with the way they look at things, instead of the other way around and changing the way they look to fit in with already suitably defined words. The use of the words "parallel universes" means there is more than one Universe, which I am querying how that possibly could be if 'Universe' means all there is
. People can not have two or more all there is
universes, or places. There can only be one Universe, if that word is going to be defined as all there is.
The Universe by definition means (or used to mean?) all there is, without any stipulation whatsoever of its boundary. So, to Me, just because any thing new is discovered or any new interpretation of existing data is provided this does not change the fact that Universe (once meant) all there is. Why change Its definition?
Some just don't include inaccessible parts in their acknowledgement of 'all there is'.
Why not? There was no prior stipulation to 'all there is' about accessibility or inaccessible parts. 'All there is' means ALL parts.
Noax wrote: Do unicorns exist outside imagination? If not, you are not consistent with your own definition.
But imagination is a part of 'all there is', so I am not sure how you think I am not consistent with the 'all there is' definition. To Me, there is nothing apart from, above, nor beyond 'all there is'. Absolutely every single thing is a part of the one everything, obviously imagination is included also.
Sure we can, and actually do, change the definitions of many words throughout history. But to Me it just seems nonsensical and funny to change a word that specifically was used to explain a place, in which all things consisted. There can NOT be a place where other things exist if there is a place that ALL things exist and that consists of ALL things.
Not all existing things are in what could ever be considered a 'place'.
Why not exactly? If the Universe is a place where all existing things are, then why could the Universe never be considered a place?
Noax wrote:Don't change your definition to all things that exist in a place.
I agree that this could cause confusion. I did not mean to.
What I find funny the most is when they change the definition, like in the home example, and then are further questioned for clarification and the responses I then get. How does a person explain the kitchen and the two bedrooms are now not part of our home now? But used to BE. How are they separate, where is the exact division, and what is it exactly that divides those things from the home, or the Universe?
How about rooms that are accessible to me vs those that are not?
That is just defining the subsets into separate things. It is perfectly fine to compartmentalize all things into separate, divided things, with clearly defined distinct definitions. This is how human beings can make more sense of the "world", Universe they live in. We do this so that we each know what we each other is actually talking about.
Okay we have separated the accessible rooms from the inaccessible ones, but they still ALL remain within the boundary, and definition, of the home right?
Noax wrote: Pretty nice (and obvious) division, and you've not come up with a name for the accessible subset if 'house' includes the inaccessible ones.
Yes nice (and obvious) division of subsets. But it was NOT a divide that separated those subsets from
the home itself. The word 'accessible subset' is suitable enough in my view to separate and make a division between two different subsets.
Noax wrote: I notice that you declined my asking of that question before.
I apologize I must of not noticed it before.
Honestly you are going way over my head with what you are talking about exactly.
Simple case: Is there a star about 30 billion light years from here? Is that part of 'all that exists'?
If there is that star, then "Yes" it is part of 'all that exists'. The Universe is 'all there is' temporally and spatially.
Noax wrote: It's actually quite debatable and depends heavily on your interpretation of 'all that exists'.
Exactly, and my whole point all along. But surely "all that exists" means what it says. That is absolutely every
thing that exists. There can be no other thing existing some where else. Every thing that exists, exists in the one and only Universe.
Noax wrote:Does Socrates exist? If not, your definition is confined to 'all that exists now', which sounds like you're not counting all the bedrooms.
Firstly here I would ask a clarifying question to you like, "What do you mean by 'socrates'?" Maybe there is a human being existing right now who is labelled socrates, in which you talk about. But if you mean the human being who existed some years ago, then of course that socrates is included in the 'all there is'. Whether that socrates exists now or not has nothing to do with the Universe meaning 'all there is'. If the Universe related to or only meant 'now', then that would appear it in its definition.
But, 'our' quantum state is one way to define that state, (although it is actually not correct to use the word 'our', but some people will still gain some sort of understanding of what you are talking about), and using the word 'different' perfectly explains another quantum state where a different measurement was taken. So, 'our' and 'different' are two words that can be, and do get used quite often, to explain differing things. But it still has to be acknowledged that all these quantum states happen within one total place of which there is the absolute all, or the all there is.
Agree. Phil says he agrees as well, but the title of this thread contradicts that. The title calls these 'parallel' things, not part of 'this thing', whatever word gets designated to describe the thing I subjectively experience. There's a contradiction in that last sentence of mine, but I won't get into it.
The subset, with only the live cat.
This subset is still part of the Universe, right? The Universe (all there is) is made up of and consists of many (countless?) subsets. All those subsets together form part of the one and only set of all there is. The Universe is the sum of all Its parts.
Not a name though, just a description.
You asked what do I call the subset. I just explained what i call it. I did not make up a name because there is no real purpose to. But if you really want Me to I can.
Noax wrote: If you're going to quibble about what a word means, you need a different word to describe the thing that it isn't. So those that use 'universe' for 'this subset', they made up the word 'multiverse' to label the superset of all those subsets.
That is fine as long as it agreed upon and accepted that the word now that means 'all there is' is Multiverse. My question now is how exactly do we separate this universe from all the other universes in the one and only Multiverse. By the way is the name 'universe' the right and proper name to use for all the alleged different universes that exist in the now one and only Multiverse.