Physics Forums

The definition I was commenting on, the one you provided at that point, was "all there is; Everything; Totality, et cetera is not something nature could show otherwise. Whatever exists, exists naturally and whatever is naturally existing, forever, fits in naturally with that definition." And what was also important was how you were using that definition of "universe" in your OP.

Although the question you asked in your OP was in the form of a physical science question, I see it as the epitome of a philosophy statement. You were suggesting that anything that was not part of "everything" must be nothing. And then you provided two examples of things that are excluded from membership in "everything" and must therefore be nothing.

You do have a point. I understand your point. I agree with your point. But the physical sciences are a discussion of measurements, experimental results, models, theories, and interpretations. So it's more important to understand the point someone was trying to make when they talked about something they coined as a "multiverse" than to immediately designate it as "anything" or "nothing". There are several uses of the term "multiverse". In each case the questions are:

1) Can it be considered a theory? Is there an experiment that would differentiate this from other theories?
2) If, in principle, no experiment could differentiate it from existing models, then it's probably an "interpretation". So, is it a useful alternative description?

I will use one of the examples you provided. You excluded "God" from the universe. But that term can be used in different ways. When Einstein said "God does not play dice", physicists, atheists or not, understood his point. And now the discussion is not so much whether God exists but whether and how he loads the dice.