Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on November 25, 2009 at 4:24pm

Dude: for the universe not to exist means there is absolutely nothing (all nothings are the same), anything at all (such as protons as big as beach balls), would be some variant of infinitely many universes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on November 25, 2009 at 5:18pm

In either case, there is a universe that exists, it may have a limited time span (whatever that would mean, since universe is space and time and stuff) but in some form it existed. Now I can't separate a universe that ceases to exist from the fact that it did exist, and in other time lines continues to exist. But I can only conceive of one way to have no universe, and that is no space, no time, and no stuff. If the universe doesn't exist, you can't even talk about how long it hasn't existed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on November 25, 2009 at 5:32pm

There's a big difference between an empty universe, and no universe!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on November 26, 2009 at 2:16pm

Doone: How can a non existing universe have a past? I think I understand what you and Dave are saying, but those universes you posit are not "No universe" there was something sometime somewhere. In "No Universe" there never was anything anytime anywhere. You are supposing that the universe is contained in a bag. The bag is either filled with stuff or it's empty. In "No universe" there isn't even a bag.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on November 26, 2009 at 2:29pm

When you imagine this non universe that "contains nothing at this time", you are still giving it space and time (I imagine you have an image of blackness and floating freely in space). In a non existing universe, space and time don't exist either, no blackness, no floating, just NOTHING not even the absence of something, since something has never existed in the first place.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on November 26, 2009 at 2:47pm

I will grant that, but that is not "no universe" that is an empty universe (the bag with nothing in it!) In No Universe there isn't even a bag with nothing in it, the bag cannot even exist. Nothing is a very difficult concept to grasp, we naturally substitute the absence of something but nothing is not even an absence.
I find myself frustrated because I know you and Dave to be very intelligent people, and I seem incapable of defining NOTHING in the way I understand it, that you can understand. Not your fault dude, the fault is within me, but I assure you that the Nothing universe I understand is the only one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on November 26, 2009 at 3:36pm

Ever read up on M-theory, Doug? Or brane theory? When postulating a multiverse (particularly multiversal theory that includes multiple universes possibly existing at the same time), you cannot assume that a single universe is all that there is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on November 26, 2009 at 4:41pm

I agree with that Dave, but our disagreement is over "No Universe" If there is no universe then you can't talk about other universes. I grant freely that infinitely many universes may exist, but there is only one way there can be "No Universe". You and Doone keep allowing time, you can't do that if there is no universe. You are talking about empty universes, which are very different from "no universes". You are looking into a bag and either seeing stuff or not seeing stuff, but in "No Universe" there is no bag to look into. The bag is full of space and time, but in "No Universe" there is no space nor time, and no bag to put it in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on November 26, 2009 at 5:39pm

Since we exist, we can assume that "No Universe" is an impossibility since it's very (non-)existence has been negated. There can never have been, be, or will be, No Universe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on November 27, 2009 at 10:51am

You're still defining 'Universe' as 'absolutely everything that there is', which is not necessarily accurate when discussing multi-universal theory. In M-theory, for example, our universe is just one 'bubble' among many in the M dimension (which I think is the 13th, I'd have to check). The M dimension is your 'bag'. A similar concept exists in brane theory.

In either case, it's perfectly possible for one universe to not exist, while other universes do exist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on November 27, 2009 at 12:10pm

I didn't know universe had any other meaning Dave. Even if it is a multiverse each is a part of the whole. There may be parts that can never communicate with other parts and are therefore a universe unto themselves, but ultimately the Universe is composed of all of it, a meta verse if you want.

"it is perfectly possible for one universe to not exist"
meditate on the bag simile, the bag can contain everything that exists including a multiverse, the bag can contain nothing; an empty universe (how many empty universes could you have? The bag is empty, there are not pockets of emptiness just one big empty bag). But if there is no universe, there is no bag.

Now, you may be defining Universe in some way that I don't. Like Einstein's definition of God, even I can believe in that god, but that's not what I mean by god. My definition is the totality of all that is.

Once again I find myself arguing semantics! Sheesh!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on November 27, 2009 at 12:28pm

Yep, it's semantics. And universe has come to have multiple meanings, simply because it has traditionally meant our own, personal universe (which was all we knew about and all we thought there was), and also 'absolutely everything'. And now that we suspect that our own, personal universe may not be all there there is, the word has split.

Multiverse is often used as the new 'all there is' term, as is cosmos or reality. I've heard metaverse, but less often. (And mostly in RPGs)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• Next ›
• Page