First cause of the universe.

[gnostic]

Brian Cox mentioned one type of multiverse: one that is so far away from ours that its light hasn't reached us yet. It isn't necessarily in some alternate reality.

What people called “alternate reality” and “parallel universe” are science fiction.

Science fiction because the plots commonly referred to other dimensions where there are multiple you and me living in different worlds, with different lives if we made different choices in life.

Multiverse is a different to alternate reality and parallel universe; it is a proposed theoretical solutions that there are multiple universes, but not another you and me.

But of course you have sci-fi novels, movies or TV series (some episodes in Stargate SG1, and Fringe) that mixed their alternate reality with Multiverse, but they are not the same.

 

[Wandering Monk]

What people called “alternate reality” and “parallel universe” are science fiction.

Science fiction because the plots commonly referred to other dimensions where there are multiple you and me living in different worlds, with different lives if we made different choices in life.

Multiverse is a different to alternate reality and parallel universe; it is a proposed theoretical solutions that there are multiple universes, but not another you and me.

But of course you have sci-fi novels, movies or TV series (some episodes in Stargate SG1, and Fringe) that mixed their alternate reality with Multiverse, but they are not the same.

I understand that. Brian Greene's 'Elegant Universe' is really only a mathematical model of a solution to the Singularity problem. ONE of the implications of the 11 dimensional model (that solves the Singularity problem) is the POSSIBILITY of multiple universes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whether or not the universe has always existed, depends simply on whether or not it is infinite into the past

I disagree.

Wheter or not the universe has "always" existed, depends simply on wheter or not there was ever a point in time when the universe didn't exist.

If no such point exists, then it is absolutely correct to say that the universe has "always" existed.

Since "always" = "for all of time".
Whenever there was "time", there was a universe. Isn't the case?
If you think that isn't the case, then please point out a moment in time where time existed while the universe did not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I disagree.

Wheter or not the universe has "always" existed, depends simply on wheter or not there was ever a point in time when the universe didn't exist.

That depends on how you define "time".
If you define "time" as part of the universe, then it follows that "time" cannot exist without it.

However, that would only be a man-made definition which could not be proved.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree.

Wheter or not the universe has "always" existed, depends simply on wheter or not there was ever a point in time when the universe didn't exist.

If no such point exists, then it is absolutely correct to say that the universe has "always" existed.

Since "always" = "for all of time".
Whenever there was "time", there was a universe. Isn't the case?
If you think that isn't the case, then please point out a moment in time where time existed while the universe did not.

That requires that we can know that the universe is everything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That depends on how you define "time".

If you define "time" as part of the universe, then it follows that "time" cannot exist without it.
However, that would only be a man-made definition which could not be proved.

You make no sense.
Time, just like space, is a physics thing.

It is only within that frame of reference that the concept makes any sense.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No. Unless other laws of physics are being broken, that is NOT one of the possibilities.

Or the laws of physics simply aren't what we think they are.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And religions leave out any explanation of why God exists. The difference is that science is supported by evidence and religions are not.

Not this part of " science."

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why would that be necessary? The universe as a whole need not have the same properties as things inside the universe.

Then the supernatural is back on the menu, boys!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You make no sense.
Time, just like space, is a physics thing.

It is only within that frame of reference that the concept makes any sense.

Yeah, but physics is also a concept like a thing. In fact you can't see a thing. A thing is a rule in your mind for certain experiences. You could live in the world without the belief in physical things. That is an old school belief system just like some of accepts of religion.

So you are right, it requires a frame of reference to make sense, but that is also in the mind. And your frame of reference is not the only one that makes sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then the supernatural is back on the menu, boys!

No, just for you.
The world is not just either natural or supernatural. Both are too simple.
You are so easy, Science doesn't work in absolute terms, therefore the supernatural works.

 

[Polymath257]

Or the laws of physics simply aren't what we think they are.

True. For example, if we allow for faster than light travel, we might be able to regain some variants of hidden variable theories. But that produces a host of other issues, including time travel and reverse causality.

Based on what we know and have observed, local hidden variable theories have been excluded. To insist on causality in this context when there are perfectly good scientific models is a bit unusual, it seems.

This is doubled by the lack of a precise notion of causality: what does it mean for one event to cause another in general?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or the laws of physics simply aren't what we think they are.

Well, even if that is the case, it doesn't mean that the supernatural is the correct answer.
There are at least 3 versions:
The world is natural.
The world is supernatural.
We don't know.

If you can be skeptical of the first one, you can also be skeptical of the second and understand the 3rd one.

These debates are never just about the first 2 ones. Learn to a skeptic, if you want to doubt.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

This is doubled by the lack of a precise notion of causality: what does it mean for one event to cause another in general?

Well, that is David Hume all over again.

 

[Polymath257]

That depends on how you define "time".
If you define "time" as part of the universe, then it follows that "time" cannot exist without it.

However, that would only be a man-made definition which could not be proved.

It isn't just *defining* time as being part of the universe. We *know* that time is affected by gravity, for example. It is a dynamical thing that interacts and is interacted upon by things in the universe. So, it becomes part of physics and thereby part of the universe.

If you have a model of time that fits the data we have and is NOT part of the universe, let someone know.

Man-made definitions are conventions we use to talk about what we experience. They are not things to be 'proved'. Definitions are either useful or useless in helping our understanding; they are not true or false.

 

[Polymath257]

Not this part of " science."

Have you looked at Aspect's experiment? I can give you some good references at a popular level if you want.

 

[Polymath257]

Then the supernatural is back on the menu, boys!

Not at all. it is still physics, but with the realization that a whole can have different properties than its parts.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, that is David Hume all over again.

yes, indeed. Hume had some good comments on this issue. he didn't take it quite far enough, but his objections don't seem to have been answered, especially in the modern context.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Have you looked at Aspect's experiment? I can give you some good references at a popular level if you want.

Hit me. You can properly find a better example of explain it, that I can, so if you don't mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

yes, indeed. Hume had some good comments on this issue. he didn't take it quite far enough, but his objections don't seem to have been answered, especially in the modern context.

It has been some time since I last did it at that level, but you seem to have some insights I mind not have heard about. Sounds interesting.