fando

The universe amounts to diddly-squat!

Secular Pinoy

The physical universe is just the material manifestation of the Creator's perfect will.

Oxymoron

Some problems with that definition:

- "the" implies only one, or at best one of several
- "smallest" implies some kind of size metric, which is...?
- "perfectly" means what, exactly?
- "me" the universe existed long long long before observers so there are much better definitions available.

The universe has a reasonably defined age and therefore radius, though its geometry is still in question; otherwise, it is the volume of that radial parameter which contains the sum of all mass and energy.

braces_for_impact

The universe is simply my illusion, and all of you are caught up in it...muwahahahah!

Mr. Sammi

The universe is only the extent of our knowledge.

When our knowledge expands the universe is seen to have expanded.

This definition allows a subjective-objective tension to be played out universally amoung humans.

Some say Universe is everything which exists, but in reality this means everything which is known to exist, because what is not known cannot be qualified as existing. In this light my first statement defines the word universe AS the extent of human knowledge.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Ted Hoffman

Incorrect.
"the smallest perfectly closed system that includes me" is a world.
From the MWI [Many Worlds Interpretation] A world is a branch of the universal wavefunction. When the wavefunction collapses, the world in which the observer occupies splits from the other possibilities and decoheres hence your "perfectly closed" world.

The Universe will contain all [other] outcomes and they exist simultaneously though they are unobservable from the observers' world. In essense, they are mutually unobservable but equally real worlds.

Mr Sammi
Incorrect. This is referred to as reality.

Knowledge adds understanding and in effect we acquire a better grasp of reality (observable world). I beleive you meant "when our power of observation expands, our universe expands?"
But even that is incorrect. Our universe's expansion is based on the redshift among other factors.

Note that there is a huge difference between expansion (increase in size) and expansion (in terms of our sphere of observation - being able to see more, further etc). I beleive you have conflated the two.

If I am incorrect, please correct me.

It is unclear what you are referring to by "this definition".


Your last statement refers to reality (extent of human knowledge or experience).

wade-w

How does existence depend upon knowledge?

You seem to be saying that something exists only if we know about it. That implies that a newly discovered astronomical object, for example, doesn't exist prior to its detection. And what about knowledge that is lost? Does that mean that the object of that knowledge ceases to exist?

Your definiton borders on some form of "multiple-solipsism", if you will.

Answerer

Well, you never know. In the past, atom(and later protons and neutons) is also being thought of as the smallest 'thing' in the world but guess what. They are wrong.

cfgauss

No! The universe is *defined* as everything. There is nothing outside it--by definition!

Answerer

Well, suit yourself if you enjoy believing that the word definition is true for the past, present and future. For me, I will rather be a skeptic.