First cause of the universe.

[Polymath257]

None of those are logical except a conscious deity. You need to toss out the multi verse because it's not an explanation at all, just the opposite. Show me an uncaused cause. Show me something that has no beginning. You are still invoking the miraculous, apparently you just can't see that.

1. An uncaused cause: almost any quantum event

2. Something with no beginning: time

Exactly why is a multiverse *not* an explanation? Especially when it is based on known physical laws?

And how is a conscious deity an explanation? Especially when no mechanism is given for the actions of that deity, no explanation is given for its consciousness, no way of testing its existence is given, no way to determine which deity story is true or false, and no actual link between the assumption of a deity and any actually observable phenomenon?

In my view, the deity 'explanation' is the least logical of those given, by far.

 

[Kfox]

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

No; it’s gotta be something real; not something dreamed up in some very wild imaginations. Care to try again?

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.

What does your concept of God have to do with any of this?

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.

Energy is in the current definition.
What is the Universe? | What is an Exoplanet? – Exoplanet Exploration: Planets Beyond our Solar System

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

And how is that different than all that exists?

 

[Kfox]

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.

I'm talking about something real. Multiverse is not real; it's just a hypothetical someone dreamed up.

It is really the same as the old one with the understanding that that does not include "everything".

If it doesn't include everything, it's not the same as the old one. Care to try again?

 

[Kfox]

I hsve provided the modern definition, you claimed it was old despite not being the same as your old definition. Sounds to me like you have come unstuck and you are desperately trying your cover your ***

What post number did you provide said definition?

 

[Polymath257]

No; it’s gotta be something real; not something dreamed up in some very wild imaginations. Care to try again?

You mean, like a deity? Sounds pretty dreamed up by wild imaginations to me.

What does your concept of God have to do with any of this?

Who said it was my concept of God?

Energy is in the current definition.
What is the Universe? | What is an Exoplanet? – Exoplanet Exploration: Planets Beyond our Solar System

This is a deliberately simplified page for those who don't know much cosmology.

And how is that different than all that exists?

There may be things not in the current expansion. For example, if there was a time before the expansion. or if there are other regions of expansion that are different than ours.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm talking about something real. Multiverse is not real; it's just a hypothetical someone dreamed up.

So are deities.

But the multiverse scenario is actually predicted by the best descriptions we have of the universe.

Pretty much every version of quantum gravity we have come up with includes some sort of multiverse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm talking about something real. Multiverse is not real; it's just a hypothetical someone dreamed up.

Really!? So now your an expert on astrophysics. Amazing!

You should try to learn why that it is thought to be real. It is rather amazing that a person can claim to believe in a God and then make that sort of statement.

If it doesn't include everything, it's not the same as the old one. Care to try again?

Now it looks as if you are trying not to learn.

 

[Kfox]

You mean, like a deity? Sounds pretty dreamed up by wild imaginations to me.

Who said it was my concept of God?

You are the one who keeps bringing up the concept of God into this conversation; if not your God, whose God are you referring to?

This is a deliberately simplified page for those who don't know much cosmology.

That does not matter. My point is; energy is included as a part of the Universe.

There may be things not in the current expansion. For example, if there was a time before the expansion. or if there are other regions of expansion that are different than ours.

If that were the case, the Big Bang Theory would be wrong. If that’s where you’re going, you might as well say “God did it” (assuming your version of God that you keep trying to insert into this conversation)

 

[Kfox]

Really!? So now your an expert on astrophysics. Amazing!

You don't have to be an astrophysics to realize the idea of Multiverse is not supported by scientific theory.

You should try to learn why that it is thought to be real.

Yeah; Santa Clause is thought to be real also.

It is rather amazing that a person can claim to believe in a God and then make that sort of statement.

You obviously have me confused with somebody else (LOL)

Now it looks as if you are trying not to learn.

Sounds like you aren't trying to learn either.[/QUOTE]

 

[ppp]

You don't have to be an astrophysics to realize the idea of Multiverse is not supported by scientific theory.

You didn't say it was not a scientific theory. You said that it is "it's just a hypothetical someone dreamed up." It is neither. It is an unconfirmed mathematical model that is derived from confirmed mathematical models. For comparison, that was the state of the Higgs Boson prior to its confirmation a few years ago.

Yeah; Santa Clause is thought to be real also.

Unless you are claiming that everything that is thought to be real is as imaginary as Santa Claus, that response says nothing.
=

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't have to be an astrophysics to realize the idea of Multiverse is not supported by scientific theory.


Yeah; Santa Clause is thought to be real also.

You obviously have me confused with somebody else (LOL)

Sounds like you aren't trying to learn either.

[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but @Polymath257 knows more physics than you do by a long shot. He has already tried to give you a simplified explanation of the subject, would you like some links to papers that you will never understand?

 

[ChristineM]

What post number did you provide said definition?

The one you answered and claimed it was the old definition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I provided the definition of the word.

I already provided the proof; an outside source called a dictionary.

For the word "proof" it is not same for proof of biological evolution versus proof of what the definition of the universe is.
I will leave now. You win, if it makes you feel better. But if you want to continue, then okay.

So explain how proof works and what is the difference between objective, intersubjective and subjective and how that relates to words and their referents.
I mean what is proof in regards to I see a dog, I accept human rights as a part of justice and I do my meaning as an existentialist.
Now what you do is that you take these 3 categories and then you apparently assume only one kind of proof for "all that exists and is real as it is".
I don't do that and for the universe as "all that exists" I do in effect 7 versions of different experiences for which they work for me as they enable me to describe what it means to me to use word for humans and the rest and how that apparently combines.

So here it is for which you do a variant of the first one and I do a variant of the second one:
"philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience."
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

You are in effect a product of the first tradition and I am a product of the second. And right/wrong and all those doesn't apply, because of cognitive relativism. Your definition is neither right nor wrong and nor so for mine. They are different and that is all.

 

[Polymath257]

You are the one who keeps bringing up the concept of God into this conversation; if not your God, whose God are you referring to?

I brought it up because God was usually thought to exist but to NOT be part of the 'universe', thereby showing that even classically, the term 'universe' was NOT 'all that exists'. It was much closer to 'all that exists physically'.

That does not matter. My point is; energy is included as a part of the Universe.

And my point is that definitions change over time and are not universal even now. Some people identify the universe with the current expansion phase (NASA does, for example). In fact, this is common. If there is more than that, the term 'multiverse' is now common.

If that were the case, the Big Bang Theory would be wrong. If that’s where you’re going, you might as well say “God did it” (assuming your version of God that you keep trying to insert into this conversation)

The standard Big Bang model is based on General Relativity. In that model, the universe is all there is.

But we *know* that General Relativity is not the whole story. At some point, the quantum aspects of gravity enter into the picture and GR doesn't deal with those.

The problem is that we have several different quantum theories of gravity and they give different results when applied to the early universe. None of them have been tested, so we simply don't know what happened.

But almost all quantum theories of gravity naturally lead to some sort of multiverse.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't have to be an astrophysics to realize the idea of Multiverse is not supported by scientific theory.

It *arose* because of scientific theories. In attempts to unify quantum theory with relativity, metaverse constructs naturally arise.

When you want to start discussing an Anti-deSitter multiverse and how universes like our arise in that, we can do so. We can also look into why such a model is appropriate.

Yeah; Santa Clause is thought to be real also.

You obviously have me confused with somebody else (LOL)

Sounds like you aren't trying to learn either.

[/QUOTE]

You like your particular definition of the term 'universe'. That definition is no longer standard, however (if it ever was).

 

[Polymath257]

You don't have to be an astrophysics to realize the idea of Multiverse is not supported by scientific theory.

Maybe a quick search of arxiv.org will change your mind (key word search for 'multiverse'):

Search | arXiv e-print repository

Pick a paper, I'll look it over and we can discuss it.

Might I suggest 100 years of mathematical cosmology: Models, theories, and problems as relevant?

 

[Kfox]

You didn't say it was not a scientific theory. You said that it is "it's just a hypothetical someone dreamed up." It is neither. It is an unconfirmed mathematical model that is derived from confirmed mathematical models.

Perhaps I exaggerated a bit, my point is I was looking for an answer that is based on what we know about reality. The multiverse is not real.

 

[Kfox]

For the word "proof" it is not same for proof of biological evolution versus proof of what the definition of the universe is.
I will leave now. You win, if it makes you feel better. But if you want to continue, then okay.

Naaa It's obvious you aren't going to answer my question; I think we're done here. Good day sir!

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps I exaggerated a bit, my point is I was looking for an answer that is based on what we know about reality. The multiverse is not real.

Actually, we don't know that. And, based on our best physics, it is one of the favored models.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Naaa It's obvious you aren't going to answer my question; I think we're done here. Good day sir!

I don't believe that the universe is the world. So I only give a negative explanation of the universe, because I don't believe that the word is useful.