Thread: Universe - Everything - New Word Required

I have always understood the word 'universe' to mean 'everything'. Therefore it constantly puzzles me to hear the term used in the plural and multiples. How can you have more than one everything?

It seems to me we are using the word wrongly. When we find something that is so odd that we cannot fit it into our universe, why do we have to explain it away by concluding it is part of another universe? And what does that mean anyway if the word 'universe' means 'everything'? Why can't that thing we can't explain actually be part of THE universe?

It's like explaining ghosts as something of another world. Why can't they be of this world?

I have also never understood the reasoning behind the Big Bang theory being the beginning of THE universe. I can see that the Big Bang could be the beginning of the VISIBLE universe, but why THE universe?

I suggest we have a language problem here; the precise use of language can be vital in understanding a problem. I think we have the need for a new word, a word to describe the Big Bang system. I will explain:-

We have the planet on which we live and which we call the Earth.
The Earth resides in a system we call the Solar system.
The Solar system resides in a system we call a galaxy, which we have called the Milky Way galaxy.
The question is, in what system does our galaxy reside?

At present it is being called the universe, and I think that is wrong. This is where I think a new word is required. We need a new word to describe the system in which our galaxy and all the other galaxies we can see resides. In other words the visible part of the universe which comprises the matter from the Big Bang.

To call it the universe is to state that everything we can see is actually everything there is, and do we know that to be the case?

Perhaps we could call it the Big Bang system?

Richard

Originally Posted by RickArcher

I have always understood the word 'universe' to mean 'everything'. Therefore it constantly puzzles me to hear the term used in the plural and multiples. How can you have more than one everything?

Because the "other universes" aren't part of our everything.

It's like explaining ghosts as something of another world. Why can't they be of this world?

Or, more accurately, a fantasy world.

I have also never understood the reasoning behind the Big Bang theory being the beginning of THE universe. I can see that the Big Bang could be the beginning of the VISIBLE universe, but why THE universe?

Because, regardless of how many others there are (if indeed there are any others), it's the only one we have "access" to. Hence as far as we're concerned it IS everything.

I suggest we have a language problem here

Or, possibly, a misunderstanding of what is meant by "universe" and "multiverse" etc.

I think we have the need for a new word

We don't.
What's needed is for people to understand the terms currently used in the sense they are used.

a word to describe the Big Bang system

Universe.

At present it is being called the universe, and I think that is wrong.

Why?

This is where I think a new word is required. We need a new word to describe the system in which our galaxy and all the other galaxies we can see resides. In other words the visible part of the universe which comprises the matter from the Big Bang.

Some confusion here.
There's what we can see (= visible universe) and the rest of it. (The totality = universe).

To call it the universe is to state that everything we can see is actually everything there is

No, that's "visible universe".

~ RickArcher talks of some confusion, and I see by his contribution the confusion is his..
The issue being understanding the words used. That I do agree with much of his point..True.
Earth and it's place, This Solar system of Sol.. and this Galaxy, The Milky Way as part of the Vergo Cluster of Galaxies..
I trust that's what you wanted.. but I stop there as explaining more just gets into a conflict as I do not see as 'well a defined'.
Those whom like to bandy about the Visible aspect of the Greater Universe being that which we see.. and know of.
!3.7 billion years of ... what ? What is not visible is not invisible, but is unseen.. I imagine it's there.. and to your other point..
Multi verse Universe, is only a concept of understanding.. We know that we do NOT know the extent of the ( this ) Universe,
It or all of them.. I am of the view... The Universe IS all of it = everything, known or not.. It's bigger than we think.
The possible outcome is that it still could be Infinite, and Unbound.

I can't use the quote facility on this forum. It does crazy things. I also find that I have to separate words that have been joined together, consequently it takes me ages to reply.

Dywyddyr quote #2:-
"Because the"other universes" aren't part of our everything."

Exactly, our everything, our universe, not the everything, the universe.

Dywyddyr quote #2:-
"Or, more accurately, a fantasy world."

Well, don't get mixed up with unexplained phenomena and a word used to describe a certain type, such as ghosts. It's like the acronym UFO. People often think that UFO actually means 'alien craft from another world', but it does not. It means Unidentified Flying Object, and that is all it means. Same with the word 'ghost', it just means an unexplained phenomena of a certain type.

Dywyddyr quote #2:-
"Because, regardless of how many others there are (if indeed there are any others), it's the only one we have "access" to. Hence as far as we're concerned it IS everything."

That's as may be, but we do not know that it actually IS everything do we?

The word 'universe' can be used to describe many little sub sections of 'everything', such as my universe, their universe, the universe of biology, the universe of science, but because they are sub sections they have to be qualified. As soon as you place 'the' in front of the word and do not qualify it, then I take it to mean absolutley everything. I do not see how you can call the material from the Big Bang 'absolutely everything' just because we do not know of anything else.

Dywyddyr quote #2:-
"Or, possibly, a misunderstanding of what is meant by "universe" and"multiverse" etc."

Well yes, I possibly am missunderstanding the word, and have done so all my life. Please enlighten me.

Dywyddyr quote #2 in answer to my statement "At present it is being called the universe, and I think that is wrong.":-
"Why?"

Because to call the material we can see (the material from the Big Bang) 'the universe' is to presume that that is everything. Do we know that? (Discounting black material which I don't think is relevant to this subject and may only cause unnecessary confusion)

Dywyddyr quote #2:-
"Some confusion here.
There's what we can see (= visible universe) and the rest of it. (The totality= universe)."

Yes but "what we can see (=visible universe)" is not being called the visible universe, it is being called THE universe. Actually I have heard some scientists calling it the visible universe, I don't know whether that is a recent thing.

Dywyddyr quote #2 in answer to my statement "To call it the universe is to state that everything we can see is actually everything there is"
"No, that's "visible universe"."

Exactly.

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Exactly, our everything, our universe, not the everything, the universe.

As noted later in my post: "Because, regardless of how many others there are (if indeed there are any others), it's the only one we have "access" to. Hence as far as we're concerned it IS everything".

Well, don't get mixed up with unexplained phenomena and a word used to describe a certain type, such as ghosts. It's like the acronym UFO. People often think that UFO actually means 'alien craft from another world', but it does not. It means Unidentified Flying Object, and that is all it means. Same with the word 'ghost', it just means an unexplained phenomena of a certain type.

Actually, pedantically, the current, and preferred, term UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). Because we don't know if they're actually flying, nor if they're objects.
Regardless: once a "ghost" is explained then it's no longer a "ghost". Ergo "ghosts" are fantasies.

That's as may be, but we do not know that it actually IS everything do we?

Is this a semantic quibble?
"Universe" is the term we we use for "everything" that exists. (I.e. IF there are other universes we can't access them therefore they may as well not exist).

The word 'universe' can be used to describe many little sub sections of 'everything', such as my universe, their universe, the universe of biology, the universe of science, but because they are sub sections they have to be qualified.

In other words the word universe isn't used to describe those things, since, without that qualifier, it means something else entirely.

As soon as you place 'the' in front of the word and do not qualify it, then I take it to mean absolutley everything. I do not see how you can call the material from the Big Bang 'absolutely everything' just because we do not know of anything else.

See previous comments.

Well yes, I possibly am missunderstanding the word, and have done so all my life. Please enlighten me.

See previous comments.

Because to call the material we can see (the material from the Big Bang) 'the universe' is to presume that that is everything.

Uh what?
We don't use it for everything that we can see (there's a distinction - which I pointed out earlier - between "universe" and "visible/ observable universe"), we use it for "everything that exists".

Yes but "what we can see (=observable universe)" is not being called the visible universe, it is being called THE universe

No, the visible universe is not the universe, nor is it, in science, called that.
This is why we have a value for the diameter of the visible universe and are still wondering if the universe is infinite in extent. Likewise, we're still trying to find out what shape the universe is, whereas, by definition, the visible universe is spherical.

Exactly.

In other words you're aware of the distinction but... what?

Dywyddyr #5

Crumbs, sorry Dywyddyr but I'm even more confused now. Perhaps there is something fundamental I am not understanding here. I think to summarise my confusion I could best refer to your statement:-
""Universe" is the term we we use for "everything" that exists. (I.e. IF there are other universes we can't access them therefore they may as well not exist)".

It's the term 'other universes' that confuses me. I don't see how it's possible to have multiverses. In other words part of your statement in brackets could be written"If there are other everythings we can't access them …."

If the word'universe' is not qualified then it means "everything that exists". How can you have more than one 'everything that exists'?

That's interestingabout the new term to replace UFO. I didn't know that.

Dywyddyr quote #5:-
"No, the visible universe is not the universe, nor is it, in science, called that."

Well, whenever there is any mention of the Big Bang theory it is invariably referred to as the beginning of the universe, and the material from it referred to as the universe. I have occasionally heard some scientists refer to it as the visible universe, but that has only been fairly recently.

Originally Posted by RickArcher

It's the term 'other universes' that confuses me. I don't see how it's possible to have multiverses. In other words part of your statement in brackets could be written"If there are other everythings we can't access them …."

That would be correct.
If there are "other everythings" they don't exist anyway so far we can tell (or make use of), regardless of their "actuality".

If the word'universe' is not qualified then it means "everything that exists". How can you have more than one 'everything that exists'?

Like I said: what exists is what has some influence/ effect on us (whether now or in the past). "Other universes" don't, so their "existence" is moot (but not impossible).

Well, whenever there is any mention of the Big Bang theory it is invariably referred to as the beginning of the universe, and the material from it referred to as the universe. I have occasionally heard some scientists refer to it as the visible universe, but that has only been fairly recently.

The BB started the entire universe. We can't see all of it. (Hence we only make definitive statements about what we can see. But, since it's expanding parts of it that we once could see [or could have had we been around at the time] are no longer visible: do you suppose they simply stopped existing? Or do you think they're merely out of detection range?)

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Dywyddyr quote #2:-
"Because the"other universes" aren't part of our everything."

Exactly, our everything, our universe, not the everything, the universe.

Meta-universe and multiverse are accepted terms for a theoretical system of multiple universes. I think you're wanting "universe" to be defined solely as you perceive it and sometimes we must alter our perceptions in the face of new ideas.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Dywyddyr quote #2:-
"Because the"other universes" aren't part of our everything."

Exactly, our everything, our universe, not the everything, the universe.

Meta-universe and multiverse are accepted terms for a theoretical system of multiple universes. I think you're wanting "universe" to be defined solely as you perceive it and sometimes we must alter our perceptions in the face of new ideas.

I, for one, do not intend to alter my perception based on somebody else's fantasy. If "multiple universes" are ever shown to be real, then they'll become part of the universe. Until then, it's just fantasy.

Dywyddyr quote #7:-
"If there are "other everythings" they don't exist anyway so far we can tell (or make use of), regardless of their "actuality"."

It's the concept I don't understand. I don't see how it is possible to have more than one 'everything'.


Dywyddyr quote #7:-
"The BB started the entire universe. We can't see all of it. (Hence we only make definitive statements about what we can see. But, since it's expanding parts of it that we once could see [or could have had we been around at the time] are no longer visible: do you suppose they simply stopped existing? Or do you think they're merely out of detection range?)"

I cannot answer that question. The crux of my puzzlement is this statement "The BB started the entire universe". This is the part that whenever it has been explained it goes right over my head. There's also mention of expanding space i.e. not only the material is moving away from each other but the space between the material is also expanding. How can space i.e. nothing, expand?

There's also something else now popped up about initial expansion milliseconds after the BB that caused an even consistancy in the material coming out from the BB, but the thing that puzzles me even more is that no one ever explains what that means. As it stands it means absolutely nothing. The same with the BB being the start of the entire universe. I stated above that any explanations go "right over my head" but actually I'm not quite sure anyone does ever explain it. They normally just state that it is the case without explaining how they have come to that conclusion. Does the answer lie in the world of mathematics?


Flick Montana quote #8:-
"I think you're wanting "universe" to be defined solely as you perceive it and sometimes we must alter our perceptions in the face of new ideas."

Well, I see no new ideas that requires the meaning to be changed. It seems to me that at present we are changing the meaning to fit our theories and I cannot see why. If our theories are correct then fair enough, it might be the right path to take, but if our theories are not correct, changing the meaning of the word 'universe' might only make matters worse.

Originally Posted by RickArcher

It's the concept I don't understand. I don't see how it is possible to have more than one 'everything'.

One more time: "everything" refers to what is in this universe.
If ever it happens that we get confirmation that "other universes" exist then we either redefine "everything" OR "universe".
(By [current] definition that exists is in the universe").

I cannot answer that question. The crux of my puzzlement is this statement "The BB started the entire universe". This is the part that whenever it has been explained it goes right over my head. There's also mention of expanding space i.e. not only the material is moving away from each other but the space between the material is also expanding. How can space i.e. nothing, expand?

You can either go with "space isn't nothing" or "space is distance".

There's also something else now popped up about initial expansion milliseconds after the BB that caused an even consistancy in the material coming out from the BB, but the thing that puzzles me even more is that no one ever explains what that means. As it stands it means absolutely nothing.

Yep, it means absolutely nothing.
Unless you can provide a source/ context.

The same with the BB being the start of the entire universe. I stated above that any explanations go "right over my head" but actually I'm not quite sure anyone does ever explain it. They normally just state that it is the case without explaining how they have come to that conclusion. Does the answer lie in the world of mathematics?

I fail to see your problem.
There was (probably) nothing. Then the "BB". Then the universe.

Well, I see no new ideas that requires the meaning to be changed.

And yet you appear to be arguing for exactly that...

It seems to me that at present we are changing the meaning to fit our theories and I cannot see why.

Nope.
You're missing context.

If our theories are correct then fair enough, it might be the right path to take, but if our theories are not correct, changing the meaning of the word 'universe' might only make matters worse.

Exactly.
Those theories have not been "proven" to be correct.
Hence we aren't going to change the meaning of the word.

Dywyddyr quote#7:-
"I fail to see your problem.
There was (probably) nothing. Then the "BB". Then the universe."

The problem is that even 'nothing' has to have an edge to it. It has to have a size, a boundary. Unless you can explain infinity (got to have something to do with a circle).

We're back to the same problem the theory of a God has. God's biggest problem is the question 'Who made God?'.
The Big Bang theory's biggest problem, as far as being the begining of the universe is concerned, is the question 'What was there before the Big Bang?' or 'What made/caused the singularity?'.

If you can't answer that then I don't see how it can be explained as the beginning of the universe. It is then just the beginning of the visible part of the universe.

The people who believe in God ignore that fundamental question 'Who made God?' and say it has no relevance to us mere mortals, but it is crucial. The theory of God was brought about to try and answer the basic question 'How did all this come about?', but it does not answer that question. It just replaces it with the question 'How did God come about?'. In other words, back to square one.

The Big Bang theory does the same as far as trying to explain the universe. I can see that it explains how the visible part of the universe came about, but as to answering the big question 'How did ALL of this come about?' well no I do not see how it answers that question. It replaces it with the question 'How did the singularity come about?'. Back to square one again.

Originally Posted by RickArcher

The problem is that even 'nothing' has to have an edge to it. It has to have a size, a boundary.

Does it?
Why?

Unless you can explain infinity (got to have something to do with a circle).

What makes you think a circle has anything to do with it?

We're back to the same problem the theory of a God has. God's biggest problem is the question 'Who made God?'.
The Big Bang theory's biggest problem, as far as being the begining of the universe is concerned, is the question 'What was there before the Big Bang?' or 'What made/caused the singularity?'.

No.
One reason I wrote "Then the "BB"" with quote marks around BB is that Big Bang is a theory about what happened AFTER everything got started.
Science, almost by definition, cannot say anything about the "before". Therefore it doesn't address that question.

If you can't answer that then I don't see how it can be explained as the beginning of the universe.

Really?
By that argument if you don't know how someone got to a party you can't say anything about that person.

It is then just the beginning of the visible part of the universe.

And we're back to quibbles again.

The people who believe in God ignore that fundamental question 'Who made God?' and say it has no relevance to us mere mortals, but it is crucial.

Yeah, maybe you're ignoring the part where they claim "God is eternal and always existed".

The theory of God was brought about to try and answer the basic question 'How did all this come about?'

Apart from the FACT that there is, and cannot be, any theory of god, that's [in all likelihood] not how it started.

but it does not answer that question. It just replaces it with the question 'How did God come about?'. In other words, back to square one.

Nope.
Domains of applicability.

The Big Bang theory does the same as far as trying to explain the universe. I can see that it explains how the visible part of the universe came about

Replace "visible universe" with universe" and you're on the right track.

but as to answering the big question 'How did ALL of this come about?' well no I do not see how it answers that question. It replaces it with the question 'How did the singularity come about?'. Back to square one again.

Nope.
Two different questions.
"What caused this?" and "What caused that?".

Dywyddyr quote #13 in answer to my statement:- The problem is that even 'nothing' has to have an edge to it. It has to have a size, a boundary.
"Does it?
Why?"

Well, if you can explain how it cannot have such qualities, how anything cannot, then please explain. You may have the answer to the universe right there.

Dywyddyr quote #13 in answer to my statement:- If you can't answer that (what caused the singularity) then I don't see how it can be explained as the beginning of the universe.
"Really?
By that argument if you don't know how someone got to a party you can't say anything about that person."

Mmmm, now that's a strange analogy. A good one, and you really got me thinking hard there. Let's see if I can do anything with it.

I think the analogy transfers as 'If you can't explain how the singularity came into existence you can't say anything about the universe'.

Well, if that is a correct transfer of the analogy then of course that is an incorrect statement. But it's not about saying anything about the universe or party person, it's about saying everything. The BB theory is being connected with the universe, not just part of it. Therefore that analogy should read 'By that argument if you don't know how someone got to a party you can't say everything about that person'.

Crumbs, you got me really thinking hard there. I'm still not sure if I've got it right with relation to your analogy. If not then I think my brain might just create a BB all of it's own, no universe involved at all

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Dywyddyr quote #2:-
"Because the"other universes" aren't part of our everything."

Exactly, our everything, our universe, not the everything, the universe.

Meta-universe and multiverse are accepted terms for a theoretical system of multiple universes. I think you're wanting "universe" to be defined solely as you perceive it and sometimes we must alter our perceptions in the face of new ideas.

I, for one, do not intend to alter my perception based on somebody else's fantasy. If "multiple universes" are ever shown to be real, then they'll become part of the universe. Until then, it's just fantasy.

So you want a word which defines things which exist outside of reality, but you won't accept a new word because it implies something which exists outside reality...an idea which you don't accept. The only logical conclusion is to then redefine a current word to mean something it doesn't...

I is confused.

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Well, if you can explain how it cannot have such qualities, how anything cannot, then please explain.

This is getting close to being a version of the "If you can't give me an alternative then my answer must be correct" type argument.
If it's nothing how can it have edges?
Even in the universe as it is now, where "nothing" doesn't really exist the only "edges" it has are where "something" stops. I.e. the edges are actually those of the something.

Well, if that is a correct transfer of the analogy then of course that is an incorrect statement. But it's not about saying anything about the universe or party person, it's about saying everything. The BB theory is being connected with the universe, not just part of it. Therefore that analogy should read 'By that argument if you don't know how someone got to a party you can't say everything about that person'.

But the BB isn't about everything about the universe.
Plus, of course, your statement was "If you can't answer that then I don't see how it can be explained as the beginning of the universe." e.g. something/ anything, not everything.

The migration from "Universe" to "Multiverse" would be not much different from the migration between "World" and "Universe", where "The Whole World" used to mean "everything", before people came to realize that the Sun is bigger than the Earth, and the stars are other Suns.


I guess if we ever do discover other universes to be real, we'll be wanting a word to describe the totality of all universes, but only if that concept becomes meaningful somehow. We'd first have to determine whether all of these universes are joined somehow.

The Ultimiverse?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Dywyddyr quote #2:-
"Because the"other universes" aren't part of our everything."

Exactly, our everything, our universe, not the everything, the universe.

Meta-universe and multiverse are accepted terms for a theoretical system of multiple universes. I think you're wanting "universe" to be defined solely as you perceive it and sometimes we must alter our perceptions in the face of new ideas.

I, for one, do not intend to alter my perception based on somebody else's fantasy. If "multiple universes" are ever shown to be real, then they'll become part of the universe. Until then, it's just fantasy.

So you want a word which defines things which exist outside of reality, but you won't accept a new word because it implies something which exists outside reality...an idea which you don't accept. The only logical conclusion is to then redefine a current word to mean something it doesn't...

I is confused.

I don't need a word for it yet. Check back with me when there is some evidence for it.

Dywyddyr quote #13 in answer to my statement:- Unless you can explain infinity (got to have something to do with a circle).
"What makes you think a circle has anything to do with it?"

Well, the circle or sphere is the only shape that can create infinity. Okey, so a box could aswell, but the universe doesn't really do boxes i.e. sharp corners. So, just like with the Earth, I reckon that the way the problem of 'Where does it all end?' is dealt with in the universe is that if you keep going in one direction you'll eventually end up back where you started, which means a circle of some kind, but don't ask me what kind.

Dywyddyr quote #16 in answer to my statement:- Well, if you can explain how it cannot have such qualities, how anything cannot, then please explain
"This is getting close to being a version of the "If you can't give me an alternative then my answer must be correct" type argument.

Naa, you can't get away with that one. Most people who are not scientists cannot conceive how a no-boundary concept works at all, therefore we have no discoveries to relate. We just don't know. If you can conceive and understand such a concept then I think it is up to you to explain it.

Dywyddyr quote #16:-
"But the BB isn't about everything about the universe"

Mmmmm, got me thinking hard again. Good one. I think you've got me there. Perhaps my analysis was wrong. Also perhaps your analogy does not fit, I don't know. Is it possible to relate such a concept as referring to the whole universe in terms of the part of it i.e. the party person? After all we are discussing infinity here. What analogy can be made to that?

So why is the BB explained as the beginning of the universe, rather than part of it? And don't say because that's all we know. That's not thinking 'outside the box'. As far as most people are concerned the Big Bang is just a gigantic explosion. We cannot see how that qualifies it to be the start of the universe. What's outside the explosion? What's the explosion expanding into? And you can only say 'nothing' if you explain the no-boundaries concept. Any explanations I've heard so far for the BB being the start of the universe just haven't made any sense at all.

Kojax quote #17:-
"The migration from "Universe" to "Multiverse" would be not much different from the migration between "World" and "Universe", where "The Whole World" used to mean "everything", before people came to realize that the Sun is bigger than the Earth, and the stars are other Suns."

Intertesting point Kojax. The 'world' was everything they new, and perhaps they had good reason to invent a new word, but I cannot see that we have such good a reason. Untill I understand the reasoning behind why the BB relates to the universe I think it would make more sense to create a new word for the BB system. At the moment I'm calling it the Bing Bang system, not the universe.

The notion of "everything" is the root of confusion. The conventional meaning "everything" is not sufficient to be meaningful in context of multiverse.
I would prefer to use term "observer's reality" since it sets a specific reference to what observer perceives as universe:
- " Any cause affecting the observer's state is defined to be part of (to belong to) observer's reality. "

Now, observer(s) have(s) accumulated tons of empirical observations and build(s) numerose models selecting some of them with the best predictive properties. Apparently the models observer develops reflect the observer's state and this state is caused by empirical data; so, once observer developed chromodynamics and it has demonstrated a spectacular efficiency to predict the outcome of experiment it effectively makes "quark" to be part of observer's reality even "quark" can not be observed "directly". Similar logic can be applied for multiverse to make "multiverse" to become a part of "our" reality... Many experiments are going on right now to do that...

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Well, the circle or sphere is the only shape that can create infinity.

Nonsense.
1) Shapes don't "create" infinity.
2) What about an infinitely long line (straight or curved)?
3) Don't confuse geometry with infinity.

Naa, you can't get away with that one. Most people who are not scientists cannot conceive how a no-boundary concept works at all, therefore we have no discoveries to relate. We just don't know. If you can conceive and understand such a concept then I think it is up to you to explain it.

And yet you completely fail to address my actual point: "If it's nothing how can it have edges?
Even in the universe as it is now, where "nothing" doesn't really exist the only "edges" it has are where "something" stops. I.e. the edges are actually those of the something."

After all we are discussing infinity here.

Not quite.
The BB and infinity are two different things.

So why is the BB explained as the beginning of the universe, rather than part of it?

Huh?
Isn't the start of anything "part of" that thing?

thinking 'outside the box'.

Please avoid this phrase if you want to be taken seriously.

As far as most people are concerned the Big Bang is just a gigantic explosion.

Then most people are wrong.

We cannot see how that qualifies it to be the start of the universe.

Yeah. Isn't it funny how people who haven't grasped or understood the basics want to pontificate on them?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I don't need a word for it yet. Check back with me when there is some evidence for it.

Until then, are you just going to refer to the idea as "it"? Perhaps, "The Hypothesis Which Shall Not Be Named"?

Stefanbenav quote #21:-
"The notion of "everything" is the root of confusion. The conventional meaning "everything" is not sufficient to be meaningful in context of multiverse.
"I would prefer to use term "observer's reality" since it sets a specific reference to what observer perceives as universe:
- "Any cause affecting the observer's state is defined to be part of (to belong to) observer's reality. ""

I am having trouble understanding your last paragraph but I reckon I understand your first. I think what you are stating is that you prefer to think of the word 'universe' as meaning 'observer's reality'. Well, I don't see the need to change the meaning of the word. If we do such a thing, and it turns out that the BB actually does only involve part of the universe, then we will need a new word to describe 'everything' and I can't really see the point in such a policy?

This is such a confusing subject as it is that changing the meaning of words as we go a long I think will only prolong the time it takes for our understanding.


Dywyddyr, I don't understand why you are discussing with anger, using such words as 'nonsense'. Your whole attitude is most unlike the scientific mind that should always harbour doubts about their own beliefs and scientific theories and should understand and be patient of other people's confusion in such matters.

Dywyddyr quote #22:-
"Even in the universe as it is now, where"nothing" doesn't really exist the only "edges" it has are where "something" stops. I.e. the edges are actually those of the something."

I just cannot picture how 'nothing' cannot have an edge.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I don't need a word for it yet. Check back with me when there is some evidence for it.

Until then, are you just going to refer to the idea as "it"? Perhaps, "The Hypothesis Which Shall Not Be Named"?

It's not even a hypothesis until somebody figures out how to test it. If they can test it, then it's within the universe.

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Dywyddyr, I don't understand why you are discussing with anger

Oh dear.
Try to read the words rather than assuming emotions on my part.

using such words as 'nonsense'.

When something is nonsense I call it nonsense.

Your whole attitude is most unlike the scientific mind

This from someone who posits outright nonsense.
(And, apparently, has never participated in, nor read of, exchanges between "scientific minds").

I just cannot picture how 'nothing' cannot have an edge.

If there is nothing but "nothing" how can it have an edge?

Dywyddyr quote #26:-
"This from someone who posits outright nonsense"

Are you sure I post nonsense? Such confidence in your position is admirable, and you may well be right, but I would be wary.

Dywyddyr quote #26:-
"If there is nothing but "nothing" how can it have an edge?"

Can edges, boundaries, dimensions, only belong to the rhelm of 'somethings'? Look around you. If you extracted all the air, in fact everything from the atmosphere so that there is actually nothing between the things you can see, would not every 'nothing' have an edge, and would not that edge be 'something'? Is it not the same when you leave the Earth? If not, how can it be otherwise?

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Are you sure I post nonsense?

If I weren't sure I wouldn't have written it.

Can edges, boundaries, dimensions, only belong to the rhelm of 'somethings'? Look around you. If you extracted all the air, in fact everything from the atmosphere so that there is actually nothing between the things you can see, would not every 'nothing' have an edge, and would not that edge be 'something'? Is it not the same when you leave the Earth? If not, how can it be otherwise?

What?
Maybe you have a different definition of "edge" to everyone else.
It's a "boundary", a "change from one "thing" to "another thing"".
If all there is is "nothing" it cannot have edges or boundaries.

Not really astronomy--not sure what the heck it is--scifi (Riddicks multiverse)?

Moving it to general.

Why isn't it cosmology?

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Why isn't it cosmology?

Cosmology is the study of the Universe as it changes, also limited to the current one we know about.

The question is, in what system does our galaxy reside?

Galaxy Clusters which are parts of Superclusters. In our case the Milky Way resides in the Local Group which resides in the Virgil supercluster. (I think)

Crumbs Lynx, I'm even more lost now than I was when I started this thread.

About what?

If it's about the vocabulary, yes perhaps it's a bit confusing. Outside of some scifi and highly speculative physics and astronomy all we know about is the Universe we live in--with the unsaid assumption that the parts we can't observe because they are too far are much like the observable parts we can, and perhaps under the assumption that we'll eventually understand things such as dark matter which we can't as yet observe directly.

If it's about hierarchy, this might help.

Gosh, thanks Lynx, that's a great graphic, but my main question was about the word 'universe' and if it means 'everything' then how can you have more than one?

I've just discovered that it seems now the word 'multiverse' has taken over the meaning of 'universe'. 'Multiverse' now means 'everything there is - all the universes in totality', but now I'm lost as to what 'universe' means, as opposed to the visible universe (discounting dark matter which I fear could be a bit of a 'red herring' in this conversation).

To be clear, multiverse is a term used to describe a theoretical system of more than one universe. In the realm of reality as we know it, universe works just fine to describe everything in existence with one term.

Flick, #35 - But if we do find another system outside the Big Bang system, whether it's in another dimension or whatever, how could we call it another universe?

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Flick, #35 - But if we do find another system outside the Big Bang system, whether it's in another dimension or whatever, how could we call it another universe?

Well, we could use a qualifier like "our" universe, or universe #342. To refer to all of them, we could use the term multiverse. Still, that is a thus far fictional scenario.

I don't care what they're called, so long as they're America's.

The Science Forum IS a global community.. I have no idea what 'Shlunka' is on about... and of this subject, a mater of defining the words we have rides above inventing 'new' words.. We have Visible Universe as that which is visible.. then we have 'The Universe' which for most of us includes all of that which is everything.. and then I see we start talking of multi or dimensional others.. things we have nothing but speculations of.. The subject at hand is of Astronomical aspect. Words like cosmology or astrophysics.. venture into the conversation..
The word used.. Universe does include it all. Some of it remains as unknown.. No new name is required, just a bigger understanding.

~ and yes, I suspect Shlunka is jesting...

Flick Montana quote #37:-
"Well, we could use a qualifier like "our" universe, or universe #342. To refer to all of them, we could use the term multiverse. Still, that is a thus far fictional scenario."

Yes, I can go for calling the Big Bang system 'our universe', just as you could call anything a universe, such as the universe of plant life, but the scientific name for that subject is actually 'botony'. If we are contemplating the possibility of other systems like our Big Bang system (others might be a Big Shrink system) then I think we are heading for confusion if we stick to calling them universes. Just as the universe of plant life has a name, I reckon so should the Big Bang, Big Shrink etc systems have a collective scientific name. They would all then reside in THE universe.

There would then be no need for the word 'mulitverse' (multiples of everything) which I think only adds confusion to a subject which is already confusing enough as it is.

I think referring to the BB system as 'the' universe only makes sense if you are not contemplating the possibility of other such systems.

Execellent Astromark and Harold. At least there are two others who agree. Only the rest of the scientific community to go

Stefanbenav quote #21: " observer(s) have(s) accumulated tons of empirical observations and build(s) numerous models selecting some of them with the best predictive properties. Apparently the models observer develops reflect the observer's state and this state is caused by empirical data; so, once observer developed chromodynamics and it has demonstrated a spectacular efficiency to predict the outcome of experiment; it effectively makes "quark" to be part of observer's reality even "quark" can not be observed "directly". Similar logic can be applied for multiverse to make "multiverse" to become a part of "our" reality... Many experiments are going on right now to do that..."

Originally Posted by RickArcher

Stefanbenav quote #21:-

I am having trouble understanding your last paragraph...

No rash take your time...

Appologies Stefan. I've read it over and over and I just can't get anywhere with it. The phrasing I can't understand. Sorry.

Hi RickArcher.

I think Stefanbanev is making a very valid point relating to the notion that perceived reality equates to empirical observations that are frame dependent. In this notion a universe is defined for each observer. Shared perceptions of reality are achieved through the overlapping of causal scopes defined by each observers hubble volume surrounding their vantage point in spacetime. In this way we have a multiverse of different universal perspectives of a singular underlying state as opposed to a multiverse of discreet seperate universes each describing a different potential reality. This throws a spanner in the works in trying to define a universe that is common to all observers.

Gosh Implicate Order, I think there is about to be a Big Bang in my house right now, brain matter expanding (evenly of course) towards the ceiling.


I think I've got something to bite into now but I'm still having enormous problems understanding it.

Quote #43:-
"In this way we have a multiverse of different universal perspectives of a singular underlying state as opposed to a multiverse of discreet seperate universes each describing a different potential reality. This throws a spanner in the works in trying to define a universe that is common to all observers."

Right, the first part "In this way we have a multiverse of different universal perspectives of a singular underlying state …".

The "singular underlying state" I take to be 'the universe'. The rest I take to mean that each individual person (or planet) has their own perspective of the universe via their senses and their brain's interpretation of their sensory information (and each planet also has their own different perspective of the universe by way of their position within it). The multiverse to which you refer I take to be all these different perspectives of the universe experienced by each individual (and each planet, or point in space). Would it be correct to state that the multiverse is a kind of averaged-out perspective of the universe taken from all these different perspectives?

If that is the case then I understand that the word 'multiverse' can stand for a collection of different perspectives of the universe but I don't see how the word can actually take over the meaning of 'the universe'. In the end you're still stuck with one actual universe. You can't have more than one everything.

The latter part of the quote above "…. as opposed to a multiverse of discreet seperate universes each describing a different potential reality" seems to me to be saying the same as the first part. I'm lost again.

Incidentally, I still don't see why this thread has been moved from the Astronomy & Cosmology board.

There seems to be a move on happening at the moment in the theoretical physics community (or you might say the theoretical philosophers community) that appears to be abandoning earlier anthropic reasoning associated with a string theory landscape of vacua namely attributed to a spanner that was thrown in the works by *you guessed it* Stephen Hawking in about 2003. This is described in the book 'Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn' by Amanda Gefter where the following info has been drawn. He with Thomas Hertog suggested that the problems we are facing in trying to resolve which universe we actually live in is compounded by a bottom up approach to cosmology which commences at a singularity which comprises an infinite variety of possible commencement states and thereby creates a multiverse of potential cosmologies in its derivation. The problem we therefore face is in knowing which commencement state represents that which is applicable to our distinct cosmology. Hawking and Hertog proposed that a different approach 'namely a top down approach' is the correct approach to take as we know the current state of the universe and in this manner we can reverse engineer the cosmology back to t=1. The proposal embraces two principles namely Feynman's sum over-histories approach to Quantum Mechanics and the Hawking-Hartle no-boundary proposal.

You may be familiar with Young's double slit experiment which examines how the notion of a particle such as electron get's from here to there. An observers common sense concludes that the straight line path is the correct path but from a QM perspective it takes all possible paths from here to there throughout the universe defined by a probability for each path that takes the form of a wavefunction. The most absurd paths are cancelled out through constructive interference of equally absurd paths leaving a single standing wave that gives the highest probability for the most reasonable path which is the 'straight line path'. Well Hartle and Hawking thinks this sum-of histories approach is the correct procedure to apply in a quantum gravity approach to allocating probabilities to entire causal histories of the universe encoded in spacetime geometries as a whole. To restrict the possible histories to completely self-contained causal histories and avoid disastrous results, the sum of histories could only be applied from the measurements obtained from a single reference frame. Only in these conditions is the causal history completely defined by a finite but unbounded state necessary to avoid a dreaded singularity condition, hence the name 'no-boundary theorem'. When these conditions are satisfied you can avoid the singularity by treating imaginary time as indistinguishable from space. As a result where time was presumed to have begun at a singularity, a new dimension of space appears instead and the singularity vanishes and spacetime no longer has an edge. It was an approach that recognised that to interpret the causal history of the universe we are taking a vantage from 'within' the system described as our universe as opposed to a gods eye view vantage which is described by the bottom up approach suggested by the String Theory landscape. Hawking and Hartle proposed that because the universe has no outside and must be causally closed, only histories that avoid a singularity should be included in the sum of histories.

They then start with today and assume some current day measurement of our universe such as its spatial curvature and small cosmological constant and then work backwards considering every possible history without a past boundary that could lead to the current day observations. Sum the probability waves together alowing interference to derive the actual causal history of preference. Now what this approach is doing is suggesting that the universe had no actual history. The moment we take a measurement 'now' an entire causal history unfolds...now this in a way is similar to Wheelers delayed choice experiment and suggests that there is no past, only that which is recorded in the present.

At the same time that this approach was gaining momentum, we also had the Causal Dynamic Triangulation camp who were using an approach that also embedded in its principle the notion of entire causal histories being defined from each point in spacetime.

I have a feeling that ther emphasis in theoretical physics is inevitably getting closer to a notion of cosmic solipism where each observer inhabits their own distinct universe. Anyway........while exceedingly speculative it lays open the notion that we better hold onto our hats in what we define as our universe, we might need to consider broadening the definition again.

More here.

Crumbs Implicate, thanks very much for the effort, there's a lot of information there but how ever many times I read it I just cannot understand it. I started to get lost at the word 'anthropic'. Eventually I found an explanation I understood of that, but then there are other words such as 'vacua' and 'string theory' of which I have to find explanations I can understand. The latter part of that sentence being the key. There are plenty of explanations of these concepts but to find one that the layperson can actually understand is the difficulty. As for that second paragraph, well, that is way over my head but have no fear your effort has not been wasted, I will copy and paste your post for easy reference and try to work my way through it's totally alien mind boggling, but fascinating concepts. It will no doubt take a long time.

Implicate Order quote #45:-
"….. which commences at a singularity which comprises an infinite variety of possible commencement states and thereby creates a multiverse of potential cosmologies in its derivation"

This thread is about why the word 'multiverse' is being used in such statements instead of 'multisystem'? I cannot see the Big Bang system as anything more than that, a system i.e. not a universe. There seems to be an idea that if there can be other dimensions, then that allows for more than one universe. I don't see why, if something exists in another dimension, it then exists in another universe. I cannot understand the concept of more than one everything.

Incidentally, I've been thinking about the extra dimensions concept. There are explanations of our BB system and infinity which involve thinking of a two dimensional system and a circle in which we head in one direction and end up back where we started. Our BB system is explained as the same concept but we are in a 3 dimensional universe, the 4th dimension then explains how it works, a concept which we cannot conceive (well I can't anyway) but it serves as an explanation of how infinity works or how there can be no boundary. I've been wondering if it would be easier to get a clearer picture of how a 4th dimension actually works in practice if we could truly understand how a 2 dimensional concept works in practice (not just in theory).

What I mean by that is, it's fine to say "Think of a world that has only 2 dimensions" but when you think about it can we actually do that? Can anyone actually see how a 2 dimensional world can exist? I can on paper but I cannot in practice. However much I think of a 2 dimensional world I cannot exstinguish from my mind the 3rd dimension. Are there any creatures on this planet that you can actually truly say only visualise and live in two dimensions?

You would think that being as we can describe each of the 3 dimensions we know, we would be able to imagine each one on its own, or even two. I'm wondering if perhaps the key to actually seeing the 4th dimension (if there is one), rather than it just being a concept, is in being able to actually see only 2 of the dimensions we do know about, rather than it just being a concept.

Hi RickArcher

The idea of additional dimensions or a multiverse of alternate universes is exceedingly hard to get the head around as we, being biological organisms, are constrained by a 3D geometry. In fact our atomistic classical description of the world is build on 3D geometrical principles. We can describe a 2D universe but the reality is that all material 'things' in our classical rendition of his universe are 3D in nature. Even the piece of paper when faithfully described has 3D extent.

The question however is whether a universe can be described by alternate geometries. While we might be structurally constrained to 'exist' in a 3D context, there is no reason to conclude that 'existence' cannot be defined in some other geometrical context. I think it is safe to say we just don't know at this stage. For example, in quantum mechanics the state of what is thought of as a '3d particle in our classical reality' is described in QM as a superposition of possible 'classical' states described by a wavefunction in an infinite-dimensional functional space referred to as Hilbert Space. This quantum description represents all the theoretically possible classical states (or configuration of properties) that can be described by that quantum system. What this is suggesting is that the 'wavefunction' occupying a multi-dimensional abstract space is the actual reality whereas the classical outcome is simply the way we map this quantum state to our 3D and 1T context.

We always need to be careful that the natural bias associated with our 3D nature does not influence our understanding of the universe. Fortunately we have a tool at our disposal referred to as mathematics which is a very useful device to probe the universe and ensure that any potential biases does not blind us with respect to unexpected or counter-intuitive outcomes.

"For a goldfish living in a bowl that describes it's universe, it would be useful for that goldfish to be a mathematician" :-))

Implicate Order quote #47:-
"The idea of additional dimensions or a multiverse of alternate universes is exceedingly hard to get the head around as we, being biological organisms, are constrained by a 3D geometry"

It's the idea that 'other dimensions mean other universes' that I would like to first understand. If I understand that bit first then I think I'll have a better chance of understanding the rest. Is it something that can only be described via mathematics? The word 'multiverse' seems to me to be a word that is a contradiction all on its own.

Hold that thought RickArcher. I am going to respond but it might be a few days away. :-))

Originally Posted by RickArcher

It's the idea that 'other dimensions mean other universes' that I would like to first understand. If I understand that bit first then I think I'll have a better chance of understanding the rest. Is it something that can only be described via mathematics? The word 'multiverse' seems to me to be a word that is a contradiction all on its own.

Hi Rick

Sorry about the delay. It's been a hectic few days.

Unfortunately as observers embedded in our classical universe, we have very limited vantages from which we can conduct experiments to analyse the system we refer to as our universe. We also need to recognise the important role that both observer and observed play in our assessment of what constitutes our universe. Is our universe simply structural in nature which emerges from measurements taken from a chosen frame of reference within this system, or is there an independent reality out there that resides seperate to the observer? Whatever path you take in answering these questions, mathematics is the tool to use. No matter what measurements are taken we only ever have access to a fragment of this universe. To be able to extend our fragmentary view to the universe at large we must use our mathematical models due to their predictive ability. When it comes to extra dimensions and alternate universes, mathematics (unfortunately for me) is the only tool at our disposal. We can infer things from our observations taken from our limited vantage but it is our mathematical models that are best equipped to explain them.

Extra dimensions do not necessarily mean other universes. For instance at each point in spacetime there may be microscopic dimensions at right angles to the 3 spatial dimensions that we are used to working with that we cannot observe directly as they are bounded in some microscopic way but serve to constrain the degrees of freedom to things we might classically call particles. For example, we can't see electrons but extra microscopic dimensions may be sufficently large to contribute features to the classical particles we refer to as electrons. Alternatively there may be extra dimensions that are so large they could only be detected at some global scale beyond our observable universe such as structures like branes. In a similar way, these massive structures may serve as geometric constraints to shape the features of our universe.

When referring to a multiverse of alternate universes however this terminology is applied to alternate systems that typically are causally disconnected from our universe either by virtue of spatial seperation (where the Laws of Physics may be the same) or by virtue of the fact the the Laws of Physics in these alternate possibilities are different to our own. In fact our universe might even be a nested structure where we reside in part of a greater universal structure like a Russian (Matryoshka) Doll. For instance these alternate universes may be multidemensional with any number of macroscopic or microscopic dimensions and possess invariant laws that significantly differ from our own. The fact is that given the assumption is that they are causally disconnected from our own, there is no way to determine the nature of these alternate universes and indeed if they exist at all. Brian Greene does a good job in his book "The Hidden reality" which describes an array of ways to look at different universes. However.......Parsimony says no, and I rail against these notions being a staunch relativist at heart but reality may conclude otherwise....... unfortunately the leading model for unification today that has the greatest predictive powers that can accommodate our universe (and an almost infinite 10^500 variety of others each with ots own laws) is M theory (a theory requiring 11 dimensions) which is an extension of string theory....but I still believe the relativists will have the last word on the subject :-))

Just to add a bit to chomp on.

What do we really mean when we descibe a universe. We as observers tend to describe a universe as "all there is" namely suggesting a notion of "all we can see", but in thinking about this a bit, the more appropriate term to use would be "a system context which is causally connected". That way we can use mathematical models to see further.

A universe comprises the sum total of observances that are required to explain how the system behaves from any frame of reference that an observer chooses to take within it. The notion of cause and effect recognises that what is observed may change dependent on viewpoint but order and structure is coherently maintained to ensure that any experiment we perform within our universe can be logically explained and follows the same sequence of causation albeit by an array of different paths. The principle of general covariance is embedded in this notion.

I am thinking there are maybe infinite probability multiverses. I blame it on those crazy (but oh so lovely - as a proton- I cannot help but be attracted to them) electrons doing that tunneling thing they do. Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference of course between uni and multi is like the difference that all is one and ones are all.

It reminds me of a Sufi fable (I'm not Sufi, but I think they got some cool stuf - multi, not uni - get it?) Uni suggests something like this fable entails.

Fable: (Paraphrased by my other side as a tunneling electron) This girl was playing a guitar on the street. She played the same note over and over. Somewhat annoyed at the uni-stringed guitar sounds, a passer by multiversal being said "Girl, the other musicians play many notes in harmony, why do you play only one note?" The girl said "Those fools. They are just looking for the right note, but I have found it!"

Was it not the famed Bard who said (again paraphrased by me) "There are many things in Heaven and Earth, dear Horatio, that have never been dreamt of in our philosophies"

Originally Posted by Mayflow

I am thinking there are maybe infinite probability multiverses. I blame it on those crazy (but oh so lovely - as a proton- I cannot help but be attracted to them) electrons doing that tunneling thing they do. Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quantum mechanics throws a dillema to causative pathways in that it provides a superposition of possible pathways as alternate ways to express cause and effect but this may be just because it takes the position of all pathways from the point of view of all possible observers. Unlike relativistic descriptions that take the point of view of cause and effect from a single frame of reference, quantum mechanics takes all possible points of view. This to me at least seems to suggest that the dillema between relativism and quantum mechanics is the way we describe an experimental setup.

From a relativist viewpoint, observations taken from a single vantage is boolean in nature. To preserve causation, the information used to describe an observation that is distally (spatially or temporally) located in a system to the observer relies on a sequence of yes/no results from the questions being asked through a sequential linear pathway that emanates from the observer that is embedded in the system of enquiry. On the other hand in QM we always take a vantage from outside the system that is being described. The result is a description that necessitates a solution using quantum logic as opposed to boolean logic which results in a yes, no and maybe. It is only when we interfere with the system directly to seek a resolution to this dilemma that the quantum logic dissipates into boolean form.

We need to ask our questions 1 at a time to describe a classical causal pathway and ensure that we understand who (which frame if reference) is asking those questions. Of course from the point of view of the double slit experiment a single point of view will describe a linear pathway between the source and the photographic plate as the observer cannot simultaneously be at two points at the same time to ask the question. While a superposition of possible pathways is a valid description of the questions asked by all possible observers, a single pathway is the only possible way to describe the pathway to preserve causality for the single observer. Unfortunately a single observer will never be able to ask questions that include themselves due to inherent self-referential paradoxes arising with causality, but we can utilise causal pathways from all possible frames of reference and then stitch them together to possible gain an appreciation of the system as viewed from a perspective outside all observers. This is what Hawking is suggesting in a Top Down Approach to cosmology by using a superposition of causal pathways restricted to that obtained from a single observer whereby this superposition can be collapsed when viewed from a position inside the system.

The suggestion is that a multiverse is a description of a shared universe that describes all possible points of view but the reality is that an equivalent description could be found as a framework described as a multi-verse of singular perspectives taken from each point in spacetime. I prefer the latter as it suggests that it is just structure (or more importantly the way information is arranged) that matters as opposed to the way objective things are arranged in our universe. The subtle difference here is that it is not the passive properties of things that are important but it is the way information can be structurally arranged to create an appearance of things and that there is a self containing loop between observer and observed. When you see things this way no further explanation is required as it is fully self-contained. We self generate this information in the questions we pose to our universe. The rationale behind this is that an observer has full access to all the information that is required to understand their universe from that which is available from their light cone. The information available to all observers may therefore be just alternate ways the same information can be re-arranged from their vantage. The relevant information is all self-contained within each of our visible universes. Like typical relativistic problems such as the barn and the pole paradox, we only get ourselves in knots when we confuse which reference frame is asking the questions. That gives apparrent complexity to our universe.

The former multi-verse description which uses the notion of a passive observer asking questions from outside the box requires that we inevitably have to ask the question...well what caused that thing...well what caused that thing...well what caused that thing...adinfinitum.

A bit hard for me to follow, but is it correct to say that when we ask a question we affect the answer? I like your post fine, but you put a lot of ideas into one post. I would prefer for now to deal with one idea at a time, and tie them together as time moves on. You seem to say a lot of good and interesting stuff, but I have to have time and clarification if I can relate to your thinking processes.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

A bit hard for me to follow, but is it correct to say that when we ask a question we affect the answer? .

Yes in my opinion we do.

An answer needs to be correlated with the question for us to make sense of it. The answer needs to be configured in a way that agrees with the context surrounding our frame of reference for us to accept it as a truth statement. The answer is causally correlated to the entire experimental setup.

For example we want an answer to whether something we call an electron is existing here or there. We do this by using a classical instrument called an electron detector to throw an array of possible descriptions of an electron (questions) according to the detectors reference frame at the system of enquiry to see whether any of those descriptions are validly applied to the system of enquiry. We ask a series of yes no questions sequentially at the system to see if we get a yes to any of them. If it does then we say from our frame of reference that it exists. That it has an independent existence forgetting of course our essential role in recovering the truth statement and the important role of the entire experimental setup. This is suggesting that the information contained in that description of the electron contains a description of the entire system of enquiry..... a two-sided coin. One side to provide a description of an independent existence and another side to provide a description of the entire system of causal enquiry.

One Universe, Two Universes... The Capcom Universes and the Marvel Universes.... How can we name the Unknown? The Unspeakbale? The "ALL" ? What about "Power"? That's a name I wouldn't see as plural..

A bit of Wojciech Zurerk's thoughts to throw into the debate who was the author of the quantum 'no cloning theorem' whereby an unmeasured bit of quantum information can never be perfectly copied. If it did, you would violate the Heisenbeg Uncertainty Principle (HUP).

We find out information from the questions we pose to the environment surrounding us. The reason I conclude that my computer screen is in front of me is that I intercept a tiny fraction of the photon environment that fully describes that screen. It is clear that there are many copies of that information all over the place for others to interrogate in their questions. Now in asking that question I interfere with that fraction of photons emanating from that computer screen. In asking the question whether it is in front of me I acquire a bit of quantum information and actually change it to become a description of what I observe. I become entangled with it. That is what makes quantum information different to classical information. We grab a small piece of the environment and interact with it to find out. It is not like you can extract some information from a system and then walk away from it leaving it undisturbed for the next person to look at it. This is the 'root' of the no-cloning law.

Once you ask the question once, and extract a bit of information it is never the same. Ask again, and the result will involve interrogation of another piece of the environment......hence uncertainty when questions are asked again.

So objective reality emanates from the result that there are enough copies of that information around us for each observer to interrogate that information and for all of us to agree on its objective properties. In a quantum universe, we do not measure anything directly. In any measurement I perform I disturb the state. I participate in the result hence the notion of a participatory universe.....but why do we all appear to see the same things.

Fortunately the environment around us does most of the questioning (disturbing) for me (via decoherence) and decides on the set of states that get found out and disseminated to me and I just use the environment as my witness. The observer then gets hold of information that is already advertised widely all over the place (classical information).

Haven't forgotten about this, I'm struggling. I maybe sometime but I'll persevere and get back eventually.