|
Post by Admin on Apr 14, 2021 22:25:15 GMT
...Everything? Shouldn't that be "everything else" if "universe" doesn't already cover it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2021 23:38:54 GMT
I'd argue universe is redundant should parallel or other ones exist
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2021 0:50:23 GMT
I'd argue universe is redundant should parallel or other ones exist Doesn't "universe" refer to literally everything that exists? Because if so, "multiple universes" is self-contradictory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 0:56:37 GMT
I'd argue universe is redundant should parallel or other ones exist Doesn't "universe" refer to literally everything that exists? Because if so, "multiple universes" is self-contradictory. Depends on what you mean by universe. Although if it is everything, pointless to have both universe and everything right?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2021 1:01:52 GMT
Doesn't "universe" refer to literally everything that exists? Because if so, "multiple universes" is self-contradictory. Depends on what you mean by universe. Although if it is everything, pointless to have both universe and everything right? I'm having some difficulty finding a dictionary that defines "universe" as anything less than everything. Maybe he means that life is in the universe as opposed to actually being a part of it. Or maybe they just forgot to put "observable" before the word "universe" as well as "else" after "everything." Then again, isn't this someone who thinks the earth is flat?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 1:05:56 GMT
Depends on what you mean by universe. Although if it is everything, pointless to have both universe and everything right? I'm having some difficulty finding a dictionary that defines "universe" as anything less than everything. Maybe he means that life is in the universe as opposed to actually being a part of it. Or maybe they just forgot to put "observable" before the word "universe" as well as "else" after "everything." Then again, isn't this someone who thinks the earth is flat? Ill take observable sure
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 16, 2021 19:54:39 GMT
Universe in the modern sense is the same as our reality, it is a physical place. Outside the universe there is nothing, into which our universe is expanding. The shirt is a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a computer calculates the answer to, "Life, the Universe and Everything." After millions of years the computer finds the answer is 42.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2021 20:14:23 GMT
Universe in the modern sense is the same as our reality, it is a physical place. Outside the universe there is nothing, into which our universe is expanding. The shirt is a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a computer calculates the answer to, "Life, the Universe and Everything." After millions of years the computer finds the answer is 42. I can’t get my head wrapped around something going nowhere. I mean, if there is nothing outside the universe, then there is nothing for it to expand into. If nothing is something, then it, too, is part of everything and therefore the universe is expanding into itself?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 16, 2021 20:36:22 GMT
Universe in the modern sense is the same as our reality, it is a physical place. Outside the universe there is nothing, into which our universe is expanding. The shirt is a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a computer calculates the answer to, "Life, the Universe and Everything." After millions of years the computer finds the answer is 42. I can’t get my head wrapped around something going nowhere. I mean, if there is nothing outside the universe, then there is nothing for it to expand into. If nothing is something, then it, too, is part of everything and therefore the universe is expanding into itself? It's outside my education so I have to put some trust in the people who study this for a living. I've come to accept that in physics, words are only approximations for mathematical concepts and that I will never understand it all unless I understand the math, which I won't. For example, if 2 cars are travelling at 20mph toward one another our intuition tells us the added velocities total 40mph but that isn't true, it's actually something less, like 39.9999999999999999999999999_ mph. The faster you go the greater the difference. Our minds approximate the world in a way that is useful but not necessarily true. When it comes to outside the universe, what we call nothing is the absence of our universe, there could be something there but we will never know first hand because our universe expands faster than the speed of light. It helps me to think of our universe as our reality which includes space, physical laws, and all the things in it like stars and planets. The nothingness outside our universe presumably is a place where nothing exists, not even physical laws. Crazy stuff, fun to think about.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2021 20:54:23 GMT
I can’t get my head wrapped around something going nowhere. I mean, if there is nothing outside the universe, then there is nothing for it to expand into. If nothing is something, then it, too, is part of everything and therefore the universe is expanding into itself? It's outside my education so I have to put some trust in the people who study this for a living. No you don’t. If anyone is an expert in this regard, then we all are. You just need a functioning brain, and it appears you indeed have one. If the universe is everything that exists, you can’t put a bubble somewhere and say the universe is now limited to everything inside that bubble.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 16, 2021 21:57:56 GMT
It's outside my education so I have to put some trust in the people who study this for a living. No you don’t. If anyone is an expert in this regard, then we all are. You just need a functioning brain, and it appears you indeed have one. If the universe is everything that exists, you can’t put a bubble somewhere and say the universe is now limited to everything inside that bubble. You can if you use universe to mean something specific rather than something general. Anytime you enter a specialized field you'll find the words have specificity, it makes communication more efficient. We don't know what "everything" means, it's undefinable. My example on velocities may seem trivial but the point is that you can't trust intuition or senses when it comes to reality and that's why math and experimentation are so important. We know the universe is expanding, we can measure it, so it has to be expanding into something that is not the universe. Thousands of the most intelligent people who have ever lived have collectively spent centuries working this stuff out, challenging and testing one another. I've spent maybe a few hours of my life and have barely studied what has been done by others so it would be foolish in the extreme for me dismiss their effort in favor of my own piddling thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2021 22:06:51 GMT
No you don’t. If anyone is an expert in this regard, then we all are. You just need a functioning brain, and it appears you indeed have one. If the universe is everything that exists, you can’t put a bubble somewhere and say the universe is now limited to everything inside that bubble. You can if you use universe to mean something specific rather than something general. Anytime you enter a specialized field you'll find the words have specificity, it makes communication more efficient. We don't know what "everything" means, it's undefinable. My example on velocities may seem trivial but the point is that you can't trust intuition or senses when it comes to reality and that's why math and experimentation are so important. We know the universe is expanding, we can measure it, so it has to be expanding into something that is not the universe. Thousands of the most intelligent people who have ever lived have collectively spent centuries working this stuff out, challenging and testing one another. I've spent maybe a few hours of my life and have barely studied what has been done by others so it would be foolish in the extreme for me dismiss their effort in favor of my own piddling thoughts. Sarge, if something exists outside of the universe, then the universe is not everything that exists. Semantics need not apply because the statement remains true with any variable.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 17, 2021 1:57:04 GMT
You can if you use universe to mean something specific rather than something general. Anytime you enter a specialized field you'll find the words have specificity, it makes communication more efficient. We don't know what "everything" means, it's undefinable. My example on velocities may seem trivial but the point is that you can't trust intuition or senses when it comes to reality and that's why math and experimentation are so important. We know the universe is expanding, we can measure it, so it has to be expanding into something that is not the universe. Thousands of the most intelligent people who have ever lived have collectively spent centuries working this stuff out, challenging and testing one another. I've spent maybe a few hours of my life and have barely studied what has been done by others so it would be foolish in the extreme for me dismiss their effort in favor of my own piddling thoughts. Sarge, if something exists outside of the universe, then the universe is not everything that exists. Semantics need not apply because the statement remains true with any variable. I didn't mean to imply there was anything outside the universe, the opposite actually. I don't know the right word, nothing, emptiness, void...? Outer space, space-time, isn't empty nothingness, it's part of the fabric of our reality
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 17, 2021 2:08:45 GMT
Sarge, if something exists outside of the universe, then the universe is not everything that exists. Semantics need not apply because the statement remains true with any variable. I didn't mean to imply there was anything outside the universe, the opposite actually. I don't know the right word, nothing, emptiness, void...? Outer space, space-time, isn't empty nothingness, it's part of the fabric of our reality If there's a wall, there's something on the other side of it. The only way to dispute this is to claim nothing is something.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 17, 2021 7:17:16 GMT
I didn't mean to imply there was anything outside the universe, the opposite actually. I don't know the right word, nothing, emptiness, void...? Outer space, space-time, isn't empty nothingness, it's part of the fabric of our reality If there's a wall, there's something on the other side of it. The only way to dispute this is to claim nothing is something. You seem certain that the universe always relatable, that's not true. I struggled with college chemistry (which is practical physics) because it seems abstract compared to biology. In biology we begin with the smallest part of a living thing, the cell, and once we understand it down to the molecular level, moved on to animals, plants, and evolution. These are things we can see and they act in ways that are familiar. In chemistry we learned about the building blocks of matter that in elementary school were described as little solar systems, in reality they are unimaginable and don't move in ways that are familiar to us, and can only be described accurately with math.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 17, 2021 7:59:38 GMT
If there's a wall, there's something on the other side of it. The only way to dispute this is to claim nothing is something. You seem certain that the universe always relatable, that's not true. I struggled with college chemistry (which is practical physics) because it seems abstract compared to biology. In biology we begin with the smallest part of a living thing, the cell, and once we understand it down to the molecular level, moved on to animals, plants, and evolution. These are things we can see and they act in ways that are familiar. In chemistry we learned about the building blocks of matter that in elementary school were described as little solar systems, in reality they are unimaginable and don't move in ways that are familiar to us, and can only be described accurately with math. When you find a wall with only one side, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 18, 2021 2:30:03 GMT
You seem certain that the universe always relatable, that's not true. I struggled with college chemistry (which is practical physics) because it seems abstract compared to biology. In biology we begin with the smallest part of a living thing, the cell, and once we understand it down to the molecular level, moved on to animals, plants, and evolution. These are things we can see and they act in ways that are familiar. In chemistry we learned about the building blocks of matter that in elementary school were described as little solar systems, in reality they are unimaginable and don't move in ways that are familiar to us, and can only be described accurately with math. When you find a wall with only one side, let me know. So what is outside the universe if nothing? OT: If you haven't seen them already, you might enjoy Richard Feynman videos. This is one of my favorites:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 2:35:20 GMT
When you find a wall with only one side, let me know. So what is outside the universe if nothing? I'm not sure I understand the question. Nothing can be outside of itself. You may as well ask for more than everything.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 18, 2021 2:47:11 GMT
So what is outside the universe if nothing? I'm not sure I understand the question. Nothing can be outside of itself. You may as well ask for more than everything. Space isn't nothingness, it isn't empty. It's a common misconception. When our universe begin expanding it wasn't just matter-energy but also space-time and all the physical laws, the universe is a thing, a place.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 3:32:18 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the question. Nothing can be outside of itself. You may as well ask for more than everything. Space isn't nothingness, it isn't empty. It's a common misconception. When our universe begin expanding it wasn't just matter-energy but also space-time and all the physical laws, the universe is a thing, a place. If space is something that exists, then I am including it when I say the universe is everything that exists. If there is nothing for something to expand into, then it must be expanding into something other than itself if it is indeed expanding.
|
|