Heaven and hell are not just "illusory"

[godelian]

Is our own universe the only one? Or is it part of a larger multiverse?

If we look at the standard universe ("model") of the natural numbers, we can see that it is not the only one. There are other non-standard universes ("models") with non-standard numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stand ... arithmetic

In mathematical logic, a non-standard model of arithmetic is a model of first-order Peano arithmetic that contains non-standard numbers. The term standard model of arithmetic refers to the standard natural numbers 0, 1, 2, …. The elements of any model of Peano arithmetic are linearly ordered and possess an initial segment isomorphic to the standard natural numbers. A non-standard model is one that has additional elements outside this initial segment. The construction of such models is due to Thoralf Skolem (1934).

These non-standard universes ("models") have a subtle influence on the standard one. They effectively leave their Platonic shadows on it. That is how we can detect their existence:

Existence. There are several methods that can be used to prove the existence of non-standard models of arithmetic.

From the compactness theorem
From the incompleteness theorems
From an ultraproduct

The incompleteness theorems prove that there are true facts ("G") in the universe ("model") of the natural numbers that cannot be predicted. According to the completeness theorem, this is only possible because these otherwise true facts are false in alternative non-standard universes. Hence, there must exist such alternative non-standard universes:

The incompleteness theorems show that a particular sentence G, the Gödel sentence of Peano arithmetic, is neither provable nor disprovable in Peano arithmetic. By the completeness theorem, this means that G is false in some model of Peano arithmetic. However, G is true in the standard model of arithmetic, and therefore any model in which G is false must be a non-standard model.

If some facts are not predictable in our physical universe, e.g. because of free will, then the structural similarity with the natural numbers implies that there exist non-standard physical universes. In religion terms, the existence of free will is equiconsistent with the existence of heaven and hell.

Given sufficient structural similarity between the universe of the natural numbers and our physical universe, and if free will exists, then heaven and hell also exist. Therefore, heaven and hell are not just "illusory". The structural impact of the multiverse on the standard universe of natural numbers may very well also exist in the context of the physical universe.

[Age]

Is our own universe the only one? Or is it part of a larger multiverse?

1. There is no 'our own' Universe.

2. By definition there can only ever be one Universe, only.

you can change the definition for the word 'Universe' if you like, but why? Also, why introduce the new word 'multiverse' and give it the exact same definition as the 'Universe' word has, or had?

If we look at the standard universe ("model") of the natural numbers, we can see that it is not the only one. There are other non-standard universes ("models") with non-standard numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stand ... arithmetic

In mathematical logic, a non-standard model of arithmetic is a model of first-order Peano arithmetic that contains non-standard numbers. The term standard model of arithmetic refers to the standard natural numbers 0, 1, 2, …. The elements of any model of Peano arithmetic are linearly ordered and possess an initial segment isomorphic to the standard natural numbers. A non-standard model is one that has additional elements outside this initial segment. The construction of such models is due to Thoralf Skolem (1934).

These non-standard universes ("models") have a subtle influence on the standard one. They effectively leave their Platonic shadows on it. That is how we can detect their existence:

Existence. There are several methods that can be used to prove the existence of non-standard models of arithmetic.

From the compactness theorem
From the incompleteness theorems
From an ultraproduct

The incompleteness theorems prove that there are true facts ("G") in the universe ("model") of the natural numbers that cannot be predicted. According to the completeness theorem, this is only possible because these otherwise true facts are false in alternative non-standard universes. Hence, there must exist such alternative non-standard universes:

The incompleteness theorems show that a particular sentence G, the Gödel sentence of Peano arithmetic, is neither provable nor disprovable in Peano arithmetic. By the completeness theorem, this means that G is false in some model of Peano arithmetic. However, G is true in the standard model of arithmetic, and therefore any model in which G is false must be a non-standard model.

If some facts are not predictable in our physical universe, e.g. because of free will, then the structural similarity with the natural numbers implies that there exist non-standard physical universes. In religion terms, the existence of free will is equiconsistent with the existence of heaven and hell.

Given sufficient structural similarity between the universe of the natural numbers and our physical universe, and if free will exists, then heaven and hell also exist. Therefore, heaven and hell are not just "illusory". The structural impact of the multiverse on the standard universe of natural numbers may very well also exist in the context of the physical universe.

Why waste one's life looking at models, especially when the Real Thing is here to observe, bear witness to, and to look at?

[godelian]

1. There is no 'our own' Universe.
2. By definition there can only ever be one Universe, only.

Our own universe expanded out of the Big Bang.
Why can there only be just one Big Bang?

you can change the definition for the word 'Universe' if you like, but why? Also, why introduce the new word 'multiverse' and give it the exact same definition as the 'Universe' word has, or had?

At first glance, it looks like there is just one universe of natural numbers, the standard one: 0,1,2,3, ...
This view is incorrect, because there are non-standard universes of non-standard numbers.

Why waste one's life looking at models, especially when the Real Thing is here to observe, bear witness to, and to look at?

In this context, "model" just means "universe" or "world" (or also "interpretation"). In model theory, "model" has a different meaning than in everyday language.

Concerning the physical universe, we can observe only a very, very small part of the physical universe. The remainder definitely influences our part of the physical physical universe but is simply invisible. Furthermore, you can see from observation the possibility that our physical universe could be fundamentally unpredictable. This has important consequences, because it suggests the existence of universes other than our own.

[Age]

1. There is no 'our own' Universe.
2. By definition there can only ever be one Universe, only.

Our own universe expanded out of the Big Bang.

This here is a prime example of a human being who believes that the species 'human being' is somehow more 'special' than anything else.

Once again "godelian";

1. 'The Universe' is not 'y/our own universe'. One would have to be an absolute fool, or absolutely closed, to believe otherwise.

2. 'The Universe', by definition, cannot expand.

Why can there only be just one Big Bang?

Why did you ask this question?

There can be countless bangs. But, what has this got to do with absolutely anything I have said and written here?

you can change the definition for the word 'Universe' if you like, but why? Also, why introduce the new word 'multiverse' and give it the exact same definition as the 'Universe' word has, or had?

At first glance, it looks like there is just one universe of natural numbers, the standard one: 0,1,2,3, ...
This view is incorrect, because there are non-standard universes of non-standard numbers.

Okay, but again this has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I said and wrote.

Why waste one's life looking at models, especially when the Real Thing is here to observe, bear witness to, and to look at?

In this context, "model" just means "universe" or "world" (or also "interpretation"). In model theory, "model" has a different meaning than in everyday language.

Concerning the physical universe, we can observe only a very, very small part of the physical universe. The remainder definitely influences our part of the physical physical universe but is simply invisible. Furthermore, you can see from observation the possibility that our physical universe could be fundamentally unpredictable. This has important consequences, because it suggests the existence of universes other than our own.

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'.

[godelian]

2. 'The Universe', by definition, cannot expand.

What definition are you using?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansi ... e_universe

The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time.

It is an intrinsic expansion, so it does not mean that the universe expands "into" anything or that space exists "outside" it.

Cosmic expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology.

The expansion of the universe can be understood as a consequence of an initial impulse (possibly due to inflation), which sent the contents of the universe flying apart.

Mathematically, the expansion of the universe is quantified by the scale factor, a which is proportional to the average separation between objects, such as galaxies.

An expanding universe typically has a finite age.

The most direct way to measure the expansion rate is to independently measure the recession velocities and the distances of distant objects, such as galaxies.

Where did you get the idea from that the universe does not expand? Any reliable source?

[promethean75]

"Concerning the physical universe, we can observe only a very, very small part of the physical universe."

I guess I'll aks the obvious question. If there is a part of the universe that i can't observe, how do i know 'how much' of it there is? I would need to observe it to establish its relative quantity (to the part i can observe) and say there is a very, very large unobserved quantity instead of only there is a meh unobserved quantity. U know what I'm sayin haus?

[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. 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. 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.

[Age]

2. 'The Universe', by definition, cannot expand.

What definition are you using?

The one/s that talk about all existing matter and space considered as a whole; everything; totality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansi ... e_universe

The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time.

It is an intrinsic expansion, so it does not mean that the universe expands "into" anything or that space exists "outside" it.

Cosmic expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology.

The expansion of the universe can be understood as a consequence of an initial impulse (possibly due to inflation), which sent the contents of the universe flying apart.

Mathematically, the expansion of the universe is quantified by the scale factor, a which is proportional to the average separation between objects, such as galaxies.

An expanding universe typically has a finite age.

The most direct way to measure the expansion rate is to independently measure the recession velocities and the distances of distant objects, such as galaxies.

Where did you get the idea from that the universe does not expand?

From the definitions of the 'Universe' word.

Any reliable source?

That would depend upon you here. Are dictionaries reliable sources, to you?

[godelian]

"Concerning the physical universe, we can observe only a very, very small part of the physical universe."

I guess I'll aks the obvious question. If there is a part of the universe that i can't observe, how do i know 'how much' of it there is? I would need to observe it to establish its relative quantity (to the part i can observe) and say there is a very, very large unobserved quantity instead of only there is a meh unobserved quantity. U know what I'm sayin haus?

Anomalies. Things that do not add up, coupled to speculative guesses as to why this may be so.

We cannot observe the invisible part of the universe but we can still discover its subtle Platonic shadows.

This situation is the same as with Eratosthenes, who was not in a position to circumnavigate the earth but who still successfully managed to calculate its circumference by investigating the subtle Platonic shadows that the shape and size of the earth leaves everywhere on its surface.

In fact people in the Stone Age could have discovered that the earth was round and could have calculated its size, just from subtle Platonic shadows.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration ... k_Universe

By studying many different galaxies, scientists discovered that stars in galaxies move faster around their galaxy centres than what the matter we see could account for. On its own, normal matter would not be able to create enough gravity to hold these galaxies together. It’s no small difference: a typical galaxy’s missing mass is ten times larger than the mass of its visible stars!

https://ssec.si.edu/explore-smithsonian ... s-universe

Explore Smithsonian: How Do Astronomers See the Invisible Parts of the Universe?

https://m.economictimes.com/news/scienc ... 011123.cms

The Universe's Greatest Mystery: A substance that occupies 85% space yet remains invisible

It is something intangible, invisible, and yet its impact on the world around us is undeniable.

The rotation curves of galaxies, the gravitational lensing of light by massive objects, the structure of the universe, and cosmic microwave background radiation all point towards the presence of dark matter. Yet, we have not been able to directly detect or identify it.

The notion of "dark matter" is merely a working hypothesis.to sum up the inexplicable anomalies, i .e. the Platonic shadows, observed.

It's like with Eratotshenes who understood that if the earth were flat, we should be able to observe the following but we don't. It simply doesn't add up. These anomalies are the Platonic shadows of the earth's true shape and size.

[godelian]

Where did you get the idea from that the universe does not expand?

From the definitions of the 'Universe' word.

If you really had a good explanation for the idea that the universe does not expand, it would certainly be super interesting. You would need a really good story, though. It would have to explain why we misinterpret the observations that suggest the expansion.

It would be a breakthrough of the same nature as why gravity is not a (Newtonian) force even though we routinely misinterpret it for one.

It requires the genius of someone like Einstein to correctly argue that "You misinterpret what you observe. Your interpretation is certainly the simplest one and your results are usually even correct but fundamentally your interpretation is not correct."

[Age]

"Concerning the physical universe, we can observe only a very, very small part of the physical universe."

I guess I'll aks the obvious question. If there is a part of the universe that i can't observe, how do i know 'how much' of it there is?

By the fact that it is absolutely impossible for there to be an actual physical limiting boundary anywhere.

I would need to observe it to establish its relative quantity (to the part i can observe) and say there is a very, very large unobserved quantity instead of only there is a meh unobserved quantity. U know what I'm sayin haus?

The fact that it is physically impossible to bound the Universe, Itself, plus the fact that no one has yet been able to logically conceptualize a physical boundary, let alone explain how one could even exist, means that the unobserved part of the Universe goes on infinitely.

Simple, really.

[Age]

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?

[promethean75]

"the presence of dark matter. Yet, we have not been able to directly detect or identify it."

Without brushing up on what I've long forgotten (for who needs to remember dark matter any given day), i wonder if the nature of this stuff is quantifiable such that the amount of it depends on, and is relative to, the amount of observable matter and therefore goes up or down in quantity or amount depending on the universe it exists in.... or.... if it's a homogenous force throughout that doesn't change in magnitude or quantity. Being not more or less becuz our universe has x amount of matter in it.

Why are the mysterious gravitational forces in the universe we know of interpreted as something generated by a matter like structure. Becuz we know gravity as something only generated by bodies in space, we infer that there are invisible bodies out there that exert gravitational force.

I 'spose that's the only way to make sense of it, huh? U gotta imagine objects in different dimensions or sumthin that effect objects in other dimensions through gravitational force only. Super strings attaching through holes in space/time and pulling on each other. But'chu don't see this pulling or the point that's generating it, only it's gravitational effect. That's fuckin far out, smoke.

[Age]

Where did you get the idea from that the universe does not expand?

From the definitions of the 'Universe' word.

If you really had a good explanation for the idea that the universe does not expand, it would certainly be super interesting.

I have such a 'good' explanation for the Fact that the Universe does not expand that it is an irrefutable explanation.

That 'that' would certainly be so-called 'super interesting' is your choice. But, to me and maybe some others it is not really that interesting nor exciting, at all.

You would need a really good story, though.

Not necessarily so. I just need facts, which, as always, are irrefutable and so no one could refute them.

It would have to explain why we misinterpret the observations that suggest the expansion.

This can only be done when, and if, anyone spends the 'time' her writing down 'the observations that, supposedly, suggest an, interpreted, expansion of the Universe'.

But, some of misinterpretations of 'the observations', which are claimed to be 'suggestions of an expanding Universe', I have already explained in this forum.

It would be a breakthrough of the same nature as why gravity is not a (Newtonian) force even though we routinely misinterpret it for one.

It may well be much bigger than you have yet to even imagine.

It requires the genius of someone like Einstein to correctly argue that "You misinterpret what you observe. Your interpretation is certainly the simplest one and your results are usually even correct but fundamentally your interpretation is not correct."

"einstein" did not have the capacity of being a so-called 'genius' more than anyone else. The one known as "einstein" just 'looked at' things differently from how others were.

Also, of course you human beings, in the days when this is being written, are misinterpreting some of what you observe. And, your interpretation is certainly not always the simplest one at all. your results are sometimes correct, and sometimes not, but fundamentally your interpretation here that the Universe, Itself, is expanding is just plain old False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. As can be very easily shown and very easily understood.

[Age]

"the presence of dark matter. Yet, we have not been able to directly detect or identify it."

Without brushing up on what I've long forgotten (for who needs to remember dark matter any given day), i wonder if the nature of this stuff is quantifiable such that the amount of it depends on, and is relative to, the amount of observable matter and therefore goes up or down in quantity or amount depending on the universe it exists in.... or.... if it's a homogenous force throughout that doesn't change in magnitude or quantity. Being not more or less becuz our universe has x amount of matter in it.

Why are the mysterious gravitational forces in the universe we know of interpreted as something generated by a matter like structure. Becuz we know gravity as something only generated by bodies in space, we infer that there are invisible bodies out there that exert gravitational force.

I 'spose that's the only way to make sense of it, huh?

No.

But, you are certainly free to suppose that.

U gotta imagine objects in different dimensions or sumthin that effect objects in other dimensions through gravitational force only. Super strings attaching through holes in space/time and pulling on each other. But'chu don't see this pulling or the point that's generating it, only it's gravitational effect. That's fuckin far out, smoke.

Okay, if you say so.