Mr. Sammi

wade-w : It just seems obvious to me that the term "universe" means the set of all things that exist.

Now list them.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi

Multiple solipsism, is the understanding which weakens extreme solipsism.

This is the realisation of the individual that they are co-subjects within the infrastructure of the universe. The infrastructure of the universe consists of those elements which support life. These are the weak solipsists who only know themselves but realise similarities exist and try to reconcile similar selves to themselves.

The intrastructure of the universe consists of life forms which feed off the infrastructure of the universe. Once I suggested to Oxford University Publishing (1998) to support labelling the infrastructure of the universe 'existance' and to retain the use of 'existence' to mean humans and other life forms. They refused when they refused to publish my book - The Sixth Sense.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi

wade-w,

Things unknown & things forgotten amount to the same thing as the human who has no knowledge of them. We must remember, the intellectual human will understand the universe consists of things-we-know, things-we-do-not-know & things-we-may-be-able-to-know.

In regard to the things to which we are blind, which are the things-we-do-not-know, they do not exist in our universe, they are unknown. Any kind of speculation may be made about these things, so it is unwise to include in a definition of our universe those things to which we are blind.

Things we-may-be-able-to-know are those things expected to exist in the universe, possibly predicted by a deeper understanding of things we know, but we have not been able to locate them in our universe, due to all sorts of reasons. Thus these things MAY EXIST in our universe.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi

To educate the un-educated with statements like 'the universe is everything that exists', only helps to confuse the un-educated.

Because physicists may adhere to this definition, does not mean that it is a tenable position to hold. Historically Physicists are not noted as educators, they mumble.

If we were to assume for a moment the universe consists of two or more dimensions. There is one in which light travels at c, and some other where illumination varies from c-squared, to c-seventh. The inhabitants in the c-Dimension have no access to the inhabitants in the other Dimensions, the c(x)Dimensions.

What can we then say about the universe. We can only speak of the c-dimension and not of the others. It is then clear that our c-dimension is the extent of our universe.

Thus the conclusion to properly state a definition of our universe in scientific terms is : Universe is where the demonstratable laws of physics are universal.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

cfgauss

Mr. Sammi, your statements are ignorant and offensive. You need to get your education from somewhere other then "happy feel-good everything is like you think it should be Liberal U." Our lack of knowledge of something means nothing. My cat doesn't know that the street is dangerous, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a very high probability of him being killed by a car. It doesn't matter if starvin' Marvin in Ethiopia doesn't know about asteroids and meteors, if a 500 km one hits us at half the speed of light, he's dead. (Doubtlessly, these things are in the universe!)

If you've taken Linear Algebra, you know that a vector is not just a pointy arrow. It is defined, literally, as "something that acts like a vector." If it obeys some properties it is, *by definition*, a vector. It doesn't matter if you know a matrix is one or not, it is. The set V of all vectors never changes, what we know is in it may, but it itself will not.

In the same way, consider the set of all numbers--negative, positive, zero, imaginary, complex, hypercomplex, etc. A long time ago, this set, as far as we knew, consisted of: {1, 2, 3, a shit load}. This later progressed to {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... }, then to {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}, and then to { ..., -1, 0, 1, 2, ...} then to { ..., -1, 0, 1, ..., -i, i, ...}, etc. Does that have any bearing on the existence of imaginary numbers? No! Does it matter that we can't list everything in this set? No!

The universe *is* everything, by definition. It doesn't matter what you think. Get over yourself, you don't matter, I don't matter, perception doesn't matter, and psychotic ideologies *don't* matter! They don't matter--they mean *nothing*. Only fools and children argue with definitions.

And I won't even respond to your moronic suggestion that "Physicists are not noted as educators, they mumble," except to say that it is idiotic.

Buddrow_Wilson

"how many dimensions does it take before we accept the possibility of multiple universes. Where labeling 'everything' that is known to exist as 'the' universe becomes misleading?"

Ted Hoffman

Its true that we dont matter and we cannot limit the definition of the universe to "all what we know to exist".

But saying the universe is everything falls into the same trap.

Everything, by definition, is all that is known [to exist].

Ted Hoffman

Possibility of multiverses has got nothing to do with dimensions. Its simply a corollary of QM.
Unless you are talking about TOE which will combine supergravity with superstrings at 11 dimensions.

And its "multiple worlds", not "multiple universes".

Mr. Sammi

CFGAUSS : Only fools and children argue with definitions.

hmmm. and the purpose of this thread is...

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi

Intensity :

you seem to be getting around to saying things about the Universe, where the demonstratable laws of physics are universal.

* * *

Again nothing is said about the universe, when one labels all which exist to be the universe. This is a definition which gives no particular insight into the universe. The universe exists, that is for sure, all which we know to exist does exist in the universe, cause it cannot exist elsewhere, can it?


Sammi Na Boodie ()