There ARE parallel universes

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Noax »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's a consensus among many physicists:
Where in that article is a 'consensus' expressed? Three guys have a different interpretation. Your labeling of this as a consensus seems to be the totality of your contribution to the discussion beyond your usual posting of links without any comment at all.

Alternate universes have been around since at least inflation theory and the description of the Hubble sphere. The article speaks of a quantum multiverse (a third type), adding interaction into the mix, making it not really a multiverse at all, but rather just one universe with a more complex description.

ken is correct in asking what your definition of 'universe' is in this context. Is it all there is/can-be? It it only what can causally interact with us? The latter definition gives rise to the concept of a multiverse, but is a very idealistic definition of 'universe', confining it to what is subjectively experienced.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: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
So the past is possibly a different universe, but the quantum multiverse spoken of in the article is not since the laws are the same there. You consider type 2 (inflation bubbles) to be alternate universes, but type 1 (distant places) and type 3 (the ones discussed in your link) to not be examples of a multiverse. They're just part of 'our universe'.
ken wrote: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.
OK, So no multiverse at all. Why is a different definition laughable? It is just a different definition. Also, nothing new is being discovered. It is a new interpretation of existing data.

So you then need different names to refer to the local parts you subjectively experience. OK, the Hubble-sphere is a nice name for our local slice, with other locations of the universe being overly distant. We have our inflation bubble, and other bubbles of this one universe. So far so good. What do you call our quantum state as opposed to the one where a different quantum measurement was taken? If the dead and live cat are both part of the universe, what do you call the subset with only the live cat?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

Scott Mayers wrote:
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.
Where would a person think heaven, hell or any other place could exist if it did not exist in 'the absolute all'? By definition 'the absolute all' means ALL places. If Universe means 'the absolute all', then all POSSIBLE scenarios MUST also exist in 'the one and only absolute all' collective place.

If the definition of 'Universe' used to BE one thing but has now changed, when did that change take place? The place that we physically live can and does hold ALL the places that people talk about and refer to. The trouble of not fully understanding this yet by some people is because they have very varying and differing definitions of things. Discover what places like heaven, hell, and multiverse really mean, then those definitions will fall into place with everything else to show the true and accurate picture of all there is - the Universe. The proper definitions for all things shows how they all fit perfectly together to form into one big picture.
Scott Mayers wrote: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.
To Me it is not forcefully preventing others from anything. If people want to communicate clearer of 'other" places, then just communicate clearer how those places could exist. Please explain how there could be 'other' if Universe means 'the absolute all'? How could there be 'other' in relation to 'all there is'? Is it just Me who sees the obviousness that no matter what else is discovered, if Universe means 'the absolute all' or 'totality', then no matter what else is discovered it HAS TO BE within the realms of the one and only 'all there is' Universe? The view of what consists can logically expand, within totality or the absolute all, but the totality or the absolute all can not logically change to become separate nor other things. By definition there is no outside, beyond nor above of 'the absolute all' or 'totality'.

I could quite clearly communicate how there could very easily be multiverse LIKE places but still belonging within the realm of the one and only Universe. Just maybe why people can not communicate clearly the idea of how different and separate multiverses could actually be possible is because then they would have to explain how they are separate or other places. How would any person expect to explain that? Where and how could a separation or divide actually exist between things?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

Noax wrote:
ken wrote: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.
OK, So no multiverse at all. Why is a different definition laughable? It is just a different definition. Also, nothing new is being discovered. It is a new interpretation of existing data.
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. 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?

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. To Me it is like the priest or the scientist trying to quickly change the definition of a word, at the very last minute, when they are being questioned about how that thing could or could not exist with the current definition of that word.

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? Even after they go through all the explaining and trying so hard to come up with all the answers and responses for all the clarifying questions I will ask. I will then say, "Yes we can change the definition and explain all of that, just like you have", BUT what word are we now going to come up with for 'the absolute all' or 'all there is'? We have the definition 'all there is' now what word are we going to come up with for that definition? AND, are we going to change that definition also and if so, when? And, WHY?


Noax wrote:So you then need different names to refer to the local parts you subjectively experience.
That is perfectly normal and fine to have different names for differing parts and things, but one name for all parts collectively does come in handy. The word Universe used to do just well for that.
Noax wrote:OK, the Hubble-sphere is a nice name for our local slice, with other locations of the universe being overly distant. We have our inflation bubble, and other bubbles of this one universe. So far so good. What do you call our quantum state as opposed to the one where a different quantum measurement was taken?
Honestly you are going way over my head with what you are talking about exactly. 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.

By the way although scientist's are not known for coming up with the most creative of names, for example, the 'big' bang and the 'large' hadron collider, they still manage to find names to call things. I am sure one day some person could think up a suitable name for one quantum state compared to another different quantum state.
Noax wrote: If the dead and live cat are both part of the universe, what do you call the subset with only the live cat?
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.

Absolutely every thing in the Universe has a name or a label. To even explain one thing, which supposedly does not have a name or label, a name or label is used.

To distinguish one quantum state from another you did this with words. You used the labels such as 'our' and 'different' to make the distinction for Me to understand what you were talking about.

Absolutely every thing has a name so that we can separate and distinguish absolutely every thing. Even everything together as one has a name, that is the Universe, which by definition means all of Its parts together as one, or all there is. If we change this definition, then the only we are really doing is having to discover another name for all there is. WHY do this?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Scott Mayers »

ken wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
ken wrote:
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.
Where would a person think heaven, hell or any other place could exist if it did not exist in 'the absolute all'? By definition 'the absolute all' means ALL places. If Universe means 'the absolute all', then all POSSIBLE scenarios MUST also exist in 'the one and only absolute all' collective place.

If the definition of 'Universe' used to BE one thing but has now changed, when did that change take place? The place that we physically live can and does hold ALL the places that people talk about and refer to. The trouble of not fully understanding this yet by some people is because they have very varying and differing definitions of things. Discover what places like heaven, hell, and multiverse really mean, then those definitions will fall into place with everything else to show the true and accurate picture of all there is - the Universe. The proper definitions for all things shows how they all fit perfectly together to form into one big picture.
Scott Mayers wrote: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.
To Me it is not forcefully preventing others from anything. If people want to communicate clearer of 'other" places, then just communicate clearer how those places could exist. Please explain how there could be 'other' if Universe means 'the absolute all'? How could there be 'other' in relation to 'all there is'? Is it just Me who sees the obviousness that no matter what else is discovered, if Universe means 'the absolute all' or 'totality', then no matter what else is discovered it HAS TO BE within the realms of the one and only 'all there is' Universe? The view of what consists can logically expand, within totality or the absolute all, but the totality or the absolute all can not logically change to become separate nor other things. By definition there is no outside, beyond nor above of 'the absolute all' or 'totality'.

I could quite clearly communicate how there could very easily be multiverse LIKE places but still belonging within the realm of the one and only Universe. Just maybe why people can not communicate clearly the idea of how different and separate multiverses could actually be possible is because then they would have to explain how they are separate or other places. How would any person expect to explain that? Where and how could a separation or divide actually exist between things?
YOU are missing the actual reality of politics that also get involved. Just as you are pigheaded to demand we use the term, "Universe", if you and I alone are discussing this, that would be fine. All that matters is that we keep our terms defined in common. But this is NOT the case often. What happens is that just as religions, cults, or political extremists burn books to hide past histories, the same is done with words. It is why the euphemisms of groups of people are constantly changing also. (Indians -> Aboriginals -> Natives -> Indigenous). Think of the term for Black people too. "Nigers" used to actually be the reference to the label describing "Nigerians". While it attained a derogatory meaning, those who insist using it NON-derogatorily, are those within their community. This is because while there really ARE good people who define it without insult, most still treat this as its derogatory meaning from outsiders. As such, we opt to use new words for terms to expand our meaning by simultaneously granting those who used the old term in its OLD state need to update terms.

"Universe" used to mean by some a the strict unknown absolute all. But even Saint Anselm defined this as "God". So you can't win. When we use different terms today, the expansion of meaning helps us treat these definitions more distinctly without updating the meaning of the old so that when I say, 'universe', you don't try to argue how or why God fits into this. Otherwise you're just being politically exclusionary by forcing ME to require dislodging your interpretation that 'God' does not exist. To separate the issues, we thus treat these in distinct domains.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Noax »

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? Does your house have 40 bedrooms, or only the three that you can get to?

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.
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'. Do unicorns exist outside imagination? If not, you are not consistent with your own definition.
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'. Don't change your definition to all things that exist in a place.
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? Pretty nice (and obvious) division, and you've not come up with a name for the accessible subset if 'house' includes the inaccessible ones. I notice that you declined my asking of that question 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'? It's actually quite debatable and depends heavily on your interpretation of 'all that exists'. Does Socrates exist? If not, your definition is confined to 'all that exists now', which sounds like you're not counting all the bedrooms.
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. 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.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

Scott Mayers wrote:
ken wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: "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.
Where would a person think heaven, hell or any other place could exist if it did not exist in 'the absolute all'? By definition 'the absolute all' means ALL places. If Universe means 'the absolute all', then all POSSIBLE scenarios MUST also exist in 'the one and only absolute all' collective place.

If the definition of 'Universe' used to BE one thing but has now changed, when did that change take place? The place that we physically live can and does hold ALL the places that people talk about and refer to. The trouble of not fully understanding this yet by some people is because they have very varying and differing definitions of things. Discover what places like heaven, hell, and multiverse really mean, then those definitions will fall into place with everything else to show the true and accurate picture of all there is - the Universe. The proper definitions for all things shows how they all fit perfectly together to form into one big picture.
Scott Mayers wrote: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.
To Me it is not forcefully preventing others from anything. If people want to communicate clearer of 'other" places, then just communicate clearer how those places could exist. Please explain how there could be 'other' if Universe means 'the absolute all'? How could there be 'other' in relation to 'all there is'? Is it just Me who sees the obviousness that no matter what else is discovered, if Universe means 'the absolute all' or 'totality', then no matter what else is discovered it HAS TO BE within the realms of the one and only 'all there is' Universe? The view of what consists can logically expand, within totality or the absolute all, but the totality or the absolute all can not logically change to become separate nor other things. By definition there is no outside, beyond nor above of 'the absolute all' or 'totality'.

I could quite clearly communicate how there could very easily be multiverse LIKE places but still belonging within the realm of the one and only Universe. Just maybe why people can not communicate clearly the idea of how different and separate multiverses could actually be possible is because then they would have to explain how they are separate or other places. How would any person expect to explain that? Where and how could a separation or divide actually exist between things?
YOU are missing the actual reality of politics that also get involved. Just as you are pigheaded to demand we use the term, "Universe", if you and I alone are discussing this, that would be fine. All that matters is that we keep our terms defined in common. But this is NOT the case often. What happens is that just as religions, cults, or political extremists burn books to hide past histories, the same is done with words.
I think I am not missing the actual reality of politics that gets involved. I know throughout history human beings change the definitions and meanings of words, for various reasons. One of those reasons is so that they can get some words to fit in with their own personal view of things. Human beings have a tendency to change words and their definitions to fit in with the way they look at things instead of doing what is right and better to do, that is changing the way they look. Human beings try to change the way things really are, to suit in with the way they look and view things. The best thing to do is for human beings to change the way they look at, and see things, so that they see things for how they truly are.

I seem to view things far differently than all human beings do. I am not "pigheaded" to demand we use the term 'Universe', or any other term, in any specific, fixed way. But what I might be, as you call it, "pigheaded" about is if any person is going to use any term in a specific way, then be prepared to be challenged as to how that can and will fit in with the definitions of ALL the other words and definitions that they want to use. If there is any confusion or unclear picture forming, then I suggest they start changing the way they start looking. That is instead of believing or assuming that they know what is right, they just remain open and inquisitive.

My point was if, and when, people try to change words, or the definition of words to suit their own personal view, which then conflicts with a previous universal agreed view, then I will continue to challenge them on that. A word that defines everything, like 'Universe', does not need to be changed just because some people can not explain what it is that they are trying to explain and are being challenged on.
Scott Mayers wrote:It is why the euphemisms of groups of people are constantly changing also. (Indians -> Aboriginals -> Natives -> Indigenous). Think of the term for Black people too. "Nigers" used to actually be the reference to the label describing "Nigerians". While it attained a derogatory meaning, those who insist using it NON-derogatorily, are those within their community. This is because while there really ARE good people who define it without insult, most still treat this as its derogatory meaning from outsiders. As such, we opt to use new words for terms to expand our meaning by simultaneously granting those who used the old term in its OLD state need to update terms.
But all of this is totally unnecessary when we look at the Truth. Euphemisms of groups of people is a total waste of time. Human beings are human beings. Full stop. You are just explaining how some human beings change the non-derogatory definition of a completely non-derogatory word into a derogatory definition, and then express that word in a derogatory way, and then other human beings look for another word and give it a non-derogatory definition to have and mean the same original non-derogatorily meaning in the beginning. A complete and utter waste of time. If some human beings did not think they were better than others, then none of this would happen. The Truth is a human being is a human being, and NO one is better than another. Full stop.

As for black people, to Me, there is no such thing. The same goes with people, there is no such thing as "good" and/or "bad" people. Every human being who has reached adulthood has done good and has done bad. Any word can attain a derogatory meaning. But why do that, and why express any word in a derogatory way trying to insult? The Truth is a truly healthy adult person can not be insulted anyway, so for others there is no use in even trying to insult.

There is no true way to distinguish between any, so called, group of human beings, unless we try to maybe divide them from what part of earth they were born, and/or what time period in they were born in. But even then no clear cut division could be made. All human beings are decedents of the exact same one evolving creation, and thus they really can not be grouped separately successfully. There is no one separate group of human beings. Only human beings as one whole species can be grouped together, but even then human beings will have a hard time finding the actual separation point between them and all other animals.

If, of course, any person would like to try to provide a definition for 'black people', and/or 'human being', then go ahead. Just expect to be challenged.


Scott Mayers wrote:"Universe" used to mean by some a the strict unknown absolute all. But even Saint Anselm defined this as "God". So you can't win.
I am not sure what you mean here by "you can't win". Is saint anselm some kind of person who could not be challenged and what was said still can not be challenged? Truthfully there is no win or lose in Life. There can be, however, agreement and acceptance. Any and all words can be defined by anything, but only what is agreed upon and accepted is what really matters and gives words their true meaning.
Scott Mayers wrote:When we use different terms today, the expansion of meaning helps us treat these definitions more distinctly without updating the meaning of the old so that when I say, 'universe', you don't try to argue how or why God fits into this.
But I would have to ask what is YOUR expanded meaning of 'Universe' now? And, then be prepared for Me to ask how AND why does God fit into this? I continually ask these types of questions to try to gain a view of where they are coming from and the picture that they are seeing. The definitions I have and use for ALL words today are very clear cut and distinct and they seem to fit perfectly together to form a true and full picture of Life. So, I try all different types of inquisitive questioning on people looking for those people who really are open and inquisitive themselves, that is those ones who are looking to change and expand their view of things. I do this by inquisitive questioning, instead of teaching or preaching, so that other's views can and may expand my view too. Also to see if there are any others who are confident enough to say that they have a full and true picture of Life themselves as well. If there is, then they will know how to approach all things also.

If, and when, a person tries to tell me there are multiverses, then I would like to know what do they mean by the term 'Universe' now, and how do they separate this uni-verse from other-verses? I will then explain that it helps Me if we have a word for all universal things, so I will then also ask them what is their new word for 'all there is', which would obviously include all these lots of so called "other" verses.
Scott Mayers wrote:Otherwise you're just being politically exclusionary by forcing ME to require dislodging your interpretation that 'God' does not exist. To separate the issues, we thus treat these in distinct domains.
To be able to treat things in distinct domains we need to know each thing's, or each word's, distinct definition. For every word in existence there is not much use using it until its distinct definition is agreed upon and accepted by all the people who are going to use that word throughout a discussion. Without a clear cut distinct, agreed upon and accepted definition a word is really worthless, and to use it without that type of definition is obviously rather meaningless.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Scott Mayers »

"Totality" is the word traditionally used by philosophers and logicians to refer to the complete encompassing reality and can include even all that is non-existing too, as I prefer. This prevents those who might feel this does not include other domains when discussing something most 'universal'.

A "universe" in logic is also multiple. It is merely the set or whole of a place that included parts. As such, "animals" is the logical universal class of all animals. But you have a greater class universal called, "living things" for instance.

I think you must actually understand but are just thinking we all adopt your default assumption. I don't and never have. The Universe is our physical one that is CONTINGENT to our reality. "Multiverse" encompasses all such physical ones, usually of a scientific form. Philosophy usually uses, "worlds" instead, especially if they want universals that can be flexibly defined beyond simply physical ones or parts of specific universes.

"All reality" might be better suited for your thinking as their is more clarity to what you may mean.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Greta »

There's an assumption that the big bang was the beginning of space itself. However, we cannot know if there are many "big bangs" (thankfully) occurring too far away from us to be perceived in any way. I believe there's some testing of gravitational waves yest for interaction with other "universes".

As many have noted, the current "universe" was perhaps made prematurely. It's possible that what we call a "universe" is the product of just one white hole amongst many, with each evolving into their own kind of cosmic web (or whatever), with each entity separated by vast expanses of emptiness (as with everything else we know of).

If that's the case it would be interesting to know what all of those "universes" are orbiting :))
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

Noax wrote:
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.

Noax wrote:
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.
Noax wrote:
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.
Noax wrote:
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.
Noax wrote:
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.
Noax wrote:
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.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

Scott Mayers wrote:"Totality" is the word traditionally used by philosophers and logicians to refer to the complete encompassing reality and can include even all that is non-existing too, as I prefer. This prevents those who might feel this does not include other domains when discussing something most 'universal'.
Okay that is fine, we can use totality. However, we come to an agreement or a discovery and an understanding that there are now parallel universes or different universes, which make up the one and only Totality. But then are these thousands of years of coming to this understanding are people then going to start questioning if who/what created Totality or did Totality start with something similar to a big bang? And then, possibly after a few more thousands of years, are people going to come to an agreement or a discovery and an understanding that there are now parallel totalities or different totalities, which make up the one and only (new word added)? And so on? When does it ever end?

If, and when, human beings start to look at what is instead of looking at what could be, then they can discover the Truth. Also, if, and when, human beings start to look at what they, themselves, are actually doing and creating, then they can discover what they, themselves, could be and could actually be creating.
Scott Mayers wrote:A "universe" in logic is also multiple. It is merely the set or whole of a place that included parts. As such, "animals" is the logical universal class of all animals. But you have a greater class universal called, "living things" for instance.
And there used to be the greatest logical universal class for absolutely all things, which was called by and had the name 'The Universe'. 'Universe' once merely meant the set or whole of a place that included ALL parts. For example, 'Universe' once meant 'all there is', for absolutely every single part of 'the absolute ALL'. But sadly though, and now just coming to realize, that word has now been changed to 'Totality'. I do recall that you wrote this before but only now is it being better understood. Call Me slow but that is how I work sometimes. This change sounds like it happened within an industry that is called and labelled 'philosophy', which by the way is another word who's definition has completely changed from how it was once defined and meant to mean.
Scott Mayers wrote:I think you must actually understand but are just thinking we all adopt your default assumption. I don't and never have.
I am understanding more clearly now, but I am just saddened by the fact that just when I start to grasp the definitions used in one generation and try to speak and be understood by them, with and from the generally accepted language used in that time period, words and their definitions get changed around again, and I also have to start all over again. When will human beings STOP and start looking at what is instead of looking at what they want it to be?

This is has NEVER been about people adopting "my" default assumption. This is about Me trying to keep up with the ever-changing definitions. Generally speaking I found by just following the original, or closer to original, meanings of most words brings about and shows a much more thorough and clearer Truer and bigger picture of Life.

Adopting any default "assumption" I found is a also totally wrong thing to do. Using and following a book of Life, instead of assuming one knows it all, allows the Truth to be seen, and thus then also be known. (Let us see how many people keep making assumptions now. Even after I just wrote this).
Scott Mayers wrote: The Universe is our physical one that is CONTINGENT to our reality. "Multiverse" encompasses all such physical ones, usually of a scientific form. Philosophy usually uses, "worlds" instead, especially if they want universals that can be flexibly defined beyond simply physical ones or parts of specific universes.

"All reality" might be better suited for your thinking as their is more clarity to what you may mean.
What is it exactly that you think my thinking is and what I may mean?

I do not recall actually providing any information about what I actually may mean, except that I find it funny that the definition of words get changed so often and so regularly, to suit people's own personal views. Is it any wonder that human beings are still so confused and bewildered about what Life actually is? Most human beings still readily admit that they have no clue about what the meaning of 'Life' is.

For every absolutely meaningful question there is a really simple answer. There is nothing hard at all about understanding Life, Itself.

"All reality" excludes some things, so that does not suit my thinking.

"Worlds" is a word that could be used. But the more unnecessary words and the more unnecessary definitions that get used, then the more confusion can arise. And, trying to learn and understand what definition each person uses for each word, within each industry, culture, language, and time period could go on forever.

What my thinking is and what I want to express exactly I will do, when I am ready, but until then when a post is written on here I just try to gain a grasp of where exactly that person is coming from and what exactly it is that they are wanting to express and share. I do this by asking inquisitive and clarifying questions. As noahx has pointed out sometimes your definitions are conflicting with your topic heading. Not that that was a great deal to worry about for Me. My biggest concern is when are people going to stop trying to guess what is and just look at WHAT actually IS.

That is ALL that is needed to understand anything meaningful about the one and only Life that we are living in.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
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 cannot 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 on to 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
My last post was a tad misleading because although local cosmic expansion does mean just this universe it is still usually referred to
as the universe. Rather than just local cosmic expansion. So then confusion with the multiverse which is also the universe may still
persist. However context should eliminate this. The word universe is therefore interchangeable and it will continue to be so for as
long as physicists and cosmologists want to carry on using it as such
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Noax »

ken wrote: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.
Very good then. You're consistent in your usage of the word. Several subsequent comments are deleted then since they just state that again.
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.
No asking if imagined things exist. Do real non-imaginary unicorns exist. I don't think you answered that. I say they do since the probability of them not existing in any parallel world is pretty much nil.

Hey! "World" is probably that word we've been looking for to distinguish this subset of accessible parts from other subsets of parts accessible to others but not this subjective viewpoint. "World" does not mean universe, and it does not in this case, mean 'planet'.
Why not exactly? If the Universe is a place where all existing things are, then why could the Universe never be considered a place?
Universe as a place? Sort of implies a location to it, and location is not a property of all things. Where was the big bang? You think there might be a place where a historic marker might correctly be erected indicating it being the exact location of the big bang? Did it bang in 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.
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?
Agree with all. And I see you also used the word 'world' there. We seem to have converged on that. One universe, many-world interpretation, not multiverse interpretation.
I apologize I must of not noticed it before.
's ok. I think we found the word.
Noax wrote:
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.
Good. Then the really distant star exists too, so we seem to agree on quite a bit. It doesn't exist now, at least not without literally bending the definition of 'now', but if when it exists is not an issue, the problem goes away. Some do not include 'all that was/will-be' in the set of 'all that is'.
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.
Like yourself, I prefer to avoid the word 'multiverse'. There are multiple worlds. The distant star is in another world. No amount of time would let us communicate with said star 30BLY away. Ditto for the world with the dead cat, or some other inflation bubble.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
I could quite clearly communicate how there could very easily be multiverse LIKE places but still belonging within the realm of the one and only Universe. Just maybe why people can not communicate clearly the idea of how different and separate multiverses could actually be possible is because then they would have to explain how they are separate or other places. How would any person expect to explain that? Where and how could a separation or divide actually exist between things?
In the brane world hypothesis other universes cannot be seen. For light cannot travel between them. So the only way they can be detected
is through gravity since it affects all matter and objects of mass even more so. Also in this universe it is impossible to see all the way back
to the Big Bang. Light can only travel to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation although this is just 380 000 years after the Big Bang
But gravity permeates everywhere and so was bound up with the other three fundamental forces at the very beginning 13.72 billion years
ago. It is therefore the most natural cosmic detector there is
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

It seems we are pretty much agreeing on most things. Just a couple to clear up.

Noax wrote:
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.
No asking if imagined things exist. Do real non-imaginary unicorns exist. I don't think you answered that.
At the moment I have absolutely no idea if unicorns exist or not. But if I had to have a guess, then I would probably say, "No", but they possibly could exist somewhere, at some time. However, i have been known to be wrong plenty of times before.

But to answer your other question if imagined things exist, then I would say, "That all depends". All human made creations were all once imagined things, and also seen as being an impossibility, but obviously they ALL came into existence. So, even imagined, and assumed impossible, things now may also come to exist some day, including unicorns. Look at how many varying different breeds of animals, such as dogs and fowls, that only actually exist now because of human beings interactions, so depending on the actual definition of a unicorn, they also may come to exist. Human beings are not that far away from designing and creating human babies to be born with certain features and to look a certain way, so designing and creating other animals to be born looking a certain way, like a unicorn for example, may not be that too far away also.

Going by the amazing intelligence, which is sometimes used by human beings, and their incredible ability to learn how to create and construct absolutely any thing, then just maybe human beings will actually bring real non-imaginary unicorns into existence one day. What human beings are actually capable of imagining, inventing, designing, constructing, and creating is unknowable at the moment, and a wait and see situation.
Noax wrote:
Why not exactly? If the Universe is a place where all existing things are, then why could the Universe never be considered a place?
Universe as a place? Sort of implies a location to it, and location is not a property of all things. Where was the big bang? You think there might be a place where a historic marker might correctly be erected indicating it being the exact location of the big bang? Did it bang in a 'place'?
To Me, the 'Universe' is a place, (which now some call "Totality"), where every thing, including every bang, and even the one known as the big bang, takes place. But that might be because I do not see how a big, or any, bang could be the beginning of, what I call, the Universe, everything, or all there is. The assumed start of absolutely everything some call the big bang, (others call God), but to Me the Universe is the place of existence. Always has been and always will be. The Universe's location is everywhere, at all times. Until evidence is provided I will keep asking how could there be a beginning?

If we agree and accept 'Universe' to mean 'all there is', then where 'all there is' is, then that is where the location or the place of the Universe is. If at the moment of the big bang that is 'all there is', then that is the Universe and the place where 'all there is' is happening. If, however, what created the big bang was 'all there is', then that is the Universe and the place where 'all there is' is happening. What created the big bang was quantum fluctuations, so at that moment if that is 'all there is', then that is the Universe and the place that every thing is happening. Where 'all there is' is, then that is the place some of us call the Universe.

Now, before quantum fluctuations created a rapid expansion in the big bang 'all there is' is singularity. If singularity is 'all there is', then that is the Universe and the place that every thing is. Or, was (depending on how you want to look at it. In slight reference to your point about what is subjectively experienced).

So, let us now say that before quantum fluctuations caused singularity to rapidly expand in the Big Bang then singularity was 'all there is', therefore at that instance or moment that was the Universe. The place of alleged all existence, where 'all there is' exists.

I say "alleged" because if the gravitational singularity of infinite density was 'all there is', then there could not have been a rapid expansion. If there was nothing but an infinite density of physical things, then there would not be any space, and then there could not have been an expansion of matter.

So, as far as we know, at the moment before the quantum fluctuation took place that caused singularity to expand in the big bang 'all there is' is physical matter AND space. Till this day the same two fundamental elements of the Universe still exist. Surrounding each and every physical piece of matter is space, at the smallest of sub-atomic levels up to the largest cosmic levels. This space is also the distance between every one of those pieces of physical matter. Could the Universe have existed, the way it does NOW, without both of those two fundamental elements of physical matter and space having always existed? (A good question to think about).

As far as I can tell the Universe has always existed with both, and It always will.

If any human being could explain how both space and matter could not have been in existence, then I would love to hear it. (But be prepared to be challenged.)
Last edited by ken on Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
I could quite clearly communicate how there could very easily be multiverse LIKE places but still belonging within the realm of the one and only Universe. Just maybe why people can not communicate clearly the idea of how different and separate multiverses could actually be possible is because then they would have to explain how they are separate or other places. How would any person expect to explain that? Where and how could a separation or divide actually exist between things?
In the brane world hypothesis other universes cannot be seen. For light cannot travel between them. So the only way they can be detected
is through gravity since it affects all matter and objects of mass even more so. Also in this universe it is impossible to see all the way back
to the Big Bang. Light can only travel to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation although this is just 380 000 years after the Big Bang
But gravity permeates everywhere and so was bound up with the other three fundamental forces at the very beginning 13.72 billion years
ago. It is therefore the most natural cosmic detector there is
I did not ask how do human beings detect, what you call, "other universes". I asked how would any person be expected to be able to explain what separates, what you call, "other or different universes". The word 'other' and 'different' infers that there is at least two or more, so naturally they would have to be actually separated? In other words what could possibly divide one so called "universe" from another one? Where is the division, what is it made up of, and how is it made up?

Also, assuming that there was "the very beginning" is a absolutely huge assumption.
Post Reply