First cause of the universe.

[mikkel_the_dane]

A word is an element of speech.

Yes, and it has meaning, it is a sign and it has a referent. You conflate meaning and referent. Further a word requires humans as such.
Ever heard of linear A and B? That is an interesting story with a relevance to this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then answer my question; what is your definition of Universe?

No, you use all, real, is, exist, thing, right, wrong and so on and explain how we know all that. You have made the claims. You do the proofs.

 

[Kfox]

Do you mean that I should be able to give the new term? I can . It is Cosmos.

And how is Cosmos different than Universe?

 

[Polymath257]

And when we want to use a term to describe all real things that exist, we use the word “Universe”

Maybe you do, but that is NOT the standard terminology in cosmology these days.

The words side, round, and circle can be found in the dictionary. Those words are agreed upon

Dictionary definitions are for common usage and are generally only first approximations. Technical definitions (in this case, in mathematics) take priority in technical discussions.

This gets back to right definitions vs wrong definitions. This taxicab definition sounds like a wrong definition.

No, it is a *different* definition of the concept of distance. That leads to a different notion of the concept of a circle.

A definition isn't 'right' or 'wrong'. it is either 'useful' or 'useless'. There are contexts where the taxicab definition of distance is *useful*. Not all geometry is Euclidean geometry.

Then you should have no problem providing a definition of the term “all that exist”! Because you never get rid of such a word unless it is replaced by something else.

Currently, that notion is closest to the notion of a 'multiverse', but that isn't quite correct either.

Even in classical thought, though, there was a distinction between 'all that exists' and 'everything physical that exists', which the universe typically being the latter. Usually, God was not considered to be part of the universe, but still to exist. Even the more general term 'creation' still excluded God from consideration.

Part of the difficulty is that the term 'universe' was used for all matter (energy wasn't discussed much in earlier philosophy), so the question of whether that is 'everything that exists' is a question of whether physicalism is true.

 

[Polymath257]

Humans have to agree on language, if we don't communication becomes impossible.

I agree. But definitions change as we learn. So, Pluto is no longer considered to be a planet. That is because the definition of 'planet' changed.

In a similar way, the word 'universe' is now typically used to denote 'the current expansion phase we are in' as opposed to a more inclusive definition of 'all matter and energy, space and time', which is closer to the notion of a multiverse. But, for those that think there is more than just physical things that exist, this notion doesn't capture 'all that exists'.

In fact, I don't know a word in classical philosophy for 'all that exists' if it is supposed to also include God.

 

[Polymath257]

No, because then they imagine something outside the multiverse.

Not usually, no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, because then they imagine something outside the multiverse.

No, it is not just imagined. There is more to it than that.

EDIT Oops, misread that. The multiverse is as far as they go right I thought that you were still banging around about the universe. But if evidence of something beyond the multiverse arises the definition will change again. There is no such evidence that I know of currently.

Then answer my question; what is your definition of Universe?

It is really the same as the old one with the understanding that that does not include "everything". You were the one that insisted on that definition.

 

[Polymath257]

Then answer my question; what is your definition of Universe?

A standard one in cosmology is everything within the current expansion which we are in.

 

[Polymath257]

Another common notion of 'universe' in cosmology:

All things causally related to what we observe, potentially excluding the action of gravity.

So, it is *possible* in a multiverse scenario to have two 'universes' that interact via gravity and no other force.

 

[stvdv]

Scriptures can lead to Wisdom

Disagree, and from experience.

Disagree however much you like

Specially for you I did use the word "can"

Wisdom is not about evidence.

Disagree again.

Fine with me again

BUT

I rather follow the Masters of Wisdom on this

 

[Wildswanderer]

Your vehicle is not like most of nature, which does assemble and run itself according to the laws of physics, as shown by the scientists of the last several centuries. What's true about a car is not true about a snowflake or a river or a forest or a solar system, all of which form spontaneously without help from any intelligence.

Lol, only if you believe the impossible causes itself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

In fact, it is probably correct.

We can't even replicate it in a lab. Get real.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Before you call this idle speculation, you might want to look at the supporting evidence, which is reviewed in the book as well.

That's not something from nothing either... and it's a ton of speculation, guaranteed. Not science, but guessing.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ehmmm.

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

"An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, "

Not science. An idea.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Unlike you i am not afraid to shout ro the world "I DON'T KNOW"

What happened prior to 10e-43 of a second following the bb is unknown, unknown by you, unknown by you, unknown by everyone including the worlds most prominent cosmologist.

Of course some will guess to massage their ego but its nothing more than guess

How about everything we don't see in the universe?

Then why not allow the supernatural as a possible explanation, if you don't know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I rather follow the Masters of Wisdom on this

Then why didn't you ask me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why not allow the supernatural as a possible explanation, if you don't know?

As soon as you get some reliable evidence for the supernatural then you can start to propose it as an explanation. Right now we do not have any good reason to believe that the supernatural exists.

 

[stvdv]

Then why didn't you ask me?

Thank you for the offer

I already got my answer on this one, before coming to RF, hence I did not need to ask you this. But in case another urgent question pops up...I keep your offer in mind

 

[ChristineM]

"An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, "

Not science. An idea.

So the scientific paper is not a scientific paper. Great,

It is an explanation of how the universe could have come from nothing that blows your claim that there is no explanation of anything coming from nothing out of the water.

I wonder why you reject it

 

[ChristineM]

Then why not allow the supernatural as a possible explanation, if you don't know?

Why not magic? why not pink fairy dust or leprechauns?

Why? Because though it is unknown what the precise cause was, it is considered by those who actually study the universe and BB and extrapolate using known phenomena and mathematics what is the likely cause of the bb that there was no magic involved.

BTW. That paper that you reject out of hand without reading or understanding uses known quantum phenomena and mathematics to produce the hypothesis that the universe could have come from nothing.