[This thread is from last February?]RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:10 pmUniverse means, "all there is." There is only one universe. There cannot be more than one, "all there is."
This, "multiple-universe." nonsense is just science fiction. It's not philosophy.
So, you assure that no OTHER 'universe' exists? You'd be hypocritical to believe that what you BELIEVE is our 'universe' is indifferently identical to your own perspective! "Universe", as a proper name of THIS reality was labeled from the GENERIC term, "universe", that was used to describe any whole unit classes in general. "Multiuniverses" don't exist to you because you beg the proper named "Universe" represents what is TOTALLY inclusive.
If I recall, you were religious, correct? If so, what word would you think includes you God's domain, heavens, hells, etc. I and many philosophers of the past would use "Totality", to define the absolute whole conceptually including ANY distinctive parts we call, "universes", as subsets of this whole. Logic uses the term, "universal", for instance, to refer to the present assumed universe of discourse. The use of the word preceded your belief in this term as a proper label. You might be thinking this as meaning, "Cosmos", which defines our present physically shared space. To presume multiple universes as meaningless to you cannot imply this is a fact of Totality (here I used it 'proper').
I've also just argued (this year) that we cannot experience DISTRIBUTED odds that we refer to by probabilities if EACH possibility does not have an even 'weight' of occurring. That is, we cannot have meaning to "free choices" if literally ONLY ONE particular choice is certain to occur with exclusion to all others. Therefore, each choice has to be literally real in EACH weighted classes that are equivalent or no actual alternatives exist [ie, not possible == not able to be posed or posited]. Therefore, more than our experiential universe exists!