Question about what is in the Universe

[Amazed]

When the word 'Universe' is being defined as everything; all there is; totality; all existing matter and space considered as a whole, then how could there be anything else like a God or a multiverse for example?

 

[.Scott]

Let's not discuss "a God".

I think that the definition of universe should be more specific. Certainly for Physics, it's everything that can be observed or which could have a observable effect. So a completely separate universe would just be a speculation - its very existence would be unverifiable - and therefore, not part of our universe.

In Physics, "multiverse" usually refers to an interpretations of QM superposition. But that term is used in a variety of ways. In the "interpretations" sense, it refers to how our universe works.

 

[DaveC426913]

When the word 'Universe' is being defined as everything; all there is; totality; all existing matter and space considered as a whole, then how could there be anything else like a God or a multiverse for example?

The term is descriptive, not prescriptive.

i.e. just because we define something one way at some time doesn't mean nature is obliged to conform to our definition. If such a time comes that we think there amy be multiverses, and current definition of 'universe' will become inadequate, and we will have to change it.

 

[Amazed]

Let's not discuss "a God".

I think that the definition of universe should be more specific. Certainly for Physics, it's everything that can be observed or which could have a observable effect. So a completely separate universe would just be a speculation - its very existence would be unverifiable - and therefore, not part of our universe.

In Physics, "multiverse" usually refers to an interpretations of QM superposition. But that term is used in a variety of ways. In the "interpretations" sense, it refers to how our universe works.

If you want to separate universes, or claim there are separate universes, then you will have the issue of working out what 'it' is exactly that is separating one imagined thing from what the observable one.

So, are you saying in physics that the word 'multiverse' usually does not actually refer to separate universes?

when you say 'our universe' are you referring to the observable universe only, the part of the Universe outside of the observable universe as well, or are you referring to just a smaller part of the observable universe?

When you said that you think the definition of universe should be more specific, certainly for physics, and then said that it's everything that can be observed, are you saying that that definition of universe is how the Universe word is used and/or only used in physics, or how you would like the Universe word to be used in physics?

 

[DaveC426913]

This is just an issue of semantics.
If the context of a given discussion provides ambiguity in what, exactly one means by 'universe', then one is obliged to provide further context, to abolish the ambiguity.

Most serious cosmologists likely don't put much stock in generic words, preferring instead to define their ideas with specific technical terms and the associated formulae.

 

[Amazed]

The term is descriptive, not prescriptive.

i.e. just because we define something one way at some time doesn't mean nature is obliged to conform to our definition. If such a time comes that we think there amy be multiverses, and current definition of 'universe' will become inadequate, and we will have to change it.

But the definition, 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.

There could not come a time that for example multiverses just come to exist, as they would be contained within a definition that already exists. But if people want to change the 'current' definition for the Universe word, then will just have to introduce a new word that covers the definition, which already contains and entails Totality; Everything: All existing matter and space considered as a whole.

See, it is not 'the definition' that will have to change. It will be the word used that has 'that definition', which will have to be found or created, and changed.

Describing the Universe, Itself, is smaller or narrower terms means a new word will have to be used for the definition, all there is.

 

[Hill]

the definition, all there is; Everything; Totality,

This is NOT the definition of universe.

 

[Amazed]

This is just an issue of semantics.
If the context of a given discussion provides ambiguity in what, exactly one means by 'universe', then one is obliged to provide further context, to abolish the ambiguity.

Most serious cosmologists likely don't put much stock in generic words, preferring instead to define their ideas with specific technical terms and the associated formulae.

Of course it is an issue of semantics.

If people want to change a word to mean something different, then a new word just has to be found for that still existing definition. The current definition for the Universe cannot be changed and removed from human society.

Is there any ambiguity in regards to the current definition for the Universe word?

How do most serious cosmologists define their ideas about 'All existing matter and space considered as a whole' and what specific technical terms and/or associated formulae would they use for 'that'?

 

[Amazed]

This is NOT the definition of universe.

Thank you for providing this.

So, what is THE definition of universe, exactly?

What is the word or technical term used for when talking about 'All existing matter and space considered as a whole'?

 

[Hill]

Thank you for providing this.

So, what is THE definition of universe, exactly?

What is the word or technical term used for when talking about 'All existing matter and space considered as a whole'?

Universe is not a mathematical concept. It is a word whose meaning depends on the context.

 

[Amazed]

Universe is not a mathematical concept. It is a word whose meaning depends on the context.

Would you care to provide some examples of different contexts, and their different meanings?

 

[Hill]

Would you care to provide some examples of different contexts, and their different meanings?

https://sentence-examples.com/universe

 

[.Scott]

But the definition, 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.

We can use that definition within the scope of this discussion. But it is a "philosophical" definition. The physical sciences are based on observation - not on the kind of perfect information that you are presuming. Sticking to that definition means that you are failing to see the difference between a philosophical discussion and a scientific one.

There could not come a time that for example multiverses just come to exist, as they would be contained within a definition that already exists. But if people want to change the 'current' definition for the Universe word, then will just have to introduce a new word that covers the definition, which already contains and entails Totality; Everything: All existing matter and space considered as a whole.

See, it is not 'the definition' that will have to change. It will be the word used that has 'that definition', which will have to be found or created, and changed.

Describing the Universe, Itself, is smaller or narrower terms means a new word will have to be used for the definition, all there is.

This is about as far from how human language is used as you can get.
I asked Google about the word "set" and got this:

The word "set" has over 430 different senses listed in the Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989), making it one of the most complex words in the English language.

So, by your rules, we need to hunt down which one of those definitions came first and coin 429 new words to cover the remaining definitions.

In the context of science, and more specifically the science of Physics, any notion of existence that is unmeasurable, completely unable to ever affect any conceivable experiment, and which does not serve to explain anything observable is off the table. It isn't Physics. So, within the context of the physical sciences, "our universe" will include everything that is potentially observable. If activities that occur within the bounds of a black hole will eventually be revealed (in theory) as the black hole evaporates, then those activities are within our universe. If they are, in principle, completely and forever isolated, then they are not in our universe. Regardless of whether the interior of a black hole is still part of our universe (in the context of physical sciences), it is still a proper subject of Physics, since it has the potential to explain things that are observable - including whether that content could ever be observed and whether our presumptions about black hole Physics are self-consistent.

 

[Amazed]

https://sentence-examples.com/universe

Thank you for providing this,

Universe​

Main meanings of the word 'Universe':

1. All existing matter, space, and energy as a whole.
2. A specific realm, sphere, or domain (e.g., a fictional universe).

 

[Amazed]

We can use that definition within the scope of this discussion. But it is a "philosophical" definition. The physical sciences are based on observation - not on the kind of perfect information that you are presuming. Sticking to that definition means that you are failing to see the difference between a philosophical discussion and a scientific one.

If that is a philosophical definition, as you claim, then what is the physics or physical sciences definition?
I am not presuming any so-called perfect information at all. I am also not sticking to that definition at all. Why did you presume that I am not seeing the difference between a philosophical discussion and a scientific one?

It is this simple, if the word 'Universe' is not being used in relation to 'All existing matter, space, and energy considered as a whole', as a physical science's technical term, then what term/word is used with that definition?

I am just looking for the one agreed upon and accept word here, which is used to denote 'All existing matter, space, and energy considered as whole', which no other word could be 'outside of'. I just do this so that I can present something further. So, if the word/term 'Universe' does not suffice for 'that definition' here, then what word or term does?

This is about as far from how human language is used as you can get.
I asked Google about the word "set" and got this:

The word "set" has over 430 different senses listed in the Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989), making it one of the most complex words in the English language.

So, by your rules, we need to hunt down which one of those definitions came first and coin 429 new words to cover the remaining definitions.

In the context of science, and more specifically the science of Physics, any notion of existence that is unmeasurable, completely unable to ever affect any conceivable experiment, and which does not serve to explain anything observable is off the table. It isn't Physics. So, within the context of the physical sciences, "our universe" will include everything that is potentially observable. If activities that occur within the bounds of a black hole will eventually be revealed (in theory) as the black hole evaporates, then those activities are within our universe. If they are, in principle, completely and forever isolated, then they are not in our universe. Regardless of whether the interior of a black hole is still part of our universe (in the context of physical sciences), it is still a proper subject of Physics, since it has the potential to explain things that are observable - including whether that content could ever be observed and whether our presumptions about black hole Physics are self-consistent.

I know in science that any notion of anything that is unmeasurable is so-called 'completely off the table' and not physics, which is why I am asking my questions here.

Why do some people use the term 'our universe'? To me this seems very unscientific.

How do you differentiate between 'potentially observable' from 'completely and forever isolated'? Obviously you would not know what is 'potentially observable' in say 100 years let alone a few thousand years from now.

you appear to be taking my open questions, always asked from an open perspective, completely off track and off topic. Physics and deals with what is measurable and what is observable. So, what is the agreed upon and accepted word or term here for 'that', which all matter, space, and energy considered to be as a whole can or could be observed and measured? If the word and term 'Universe' does not suffice, then what word or term does?