Re: The Universe-is that all there is? sung by Miss Peggy Lee.
Prof. Gomes (profgomes@geocities.com)
Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:46:12
At 14:27 12/01/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Hal Finney <hal@rain.org> wrote:
>
>> > Since the Universe, by definition, includes everything there is, there
>> > cannot logically be any "thing" else to explain it. The Universe is the
>> > result of a quantum fluctuation from nothing.
>> >
>> > Mark Fulwiler
>
>> There is a terminology problem here. Sometimes we use the term
>> "universe" to refer not to everything there is, but rather to the full
>> four-dimensional space-time structure we see around us. Using this
>> terminology there could be other universes, and in fact we read about
>> "baby universes", "basement universes", etc. Sometimes people then use
>> terms like "multiverse" or "omniverse" or other coinages to refer to
>> the collection of all the universes.
>>
>> If you want to reserve "universe" to mean all that there is, then you
>> need to suggest a word for the four-dimensional space-time where we live.
>>
>> Hal
>
>
>The problem with these multiple universe theories is that I know of no way
they
>could be proven. And something that cannot be proven is totally irrelevant.
>Therefore, I assume that the "universe" and the four dimensional
space-time we live
>in are one and the same. However, whether everything there is includes other
>universes or just the one we can observe, the fact remains that the
universe or
>universes are/is the result of (a) quantum fluctuation(s).
>
>Mark Fulwiler
>
>
>
I did not understand why so many doubts !!! Just remember the *simple
math* definition of universe :
"the complete set of all".
So:
1. Doesn't matter if an object, even if abstract, is "something(t)" (time
variant) ... ( do not tell me there is anyone here who only conceive sets
of static concrete objects... )
2. If you can imagine anything *out of* such universe, defined in the
above way, you have not understood the definition...>> it is impossible "by
definition" !!! ( or so remember: which is the complementary set of the
universe? >> { } , the empty set...)
3. Any set is always a part of the universe (including { } and the
universe itself)...
Gomes.
PS1: sorry for the boring repetition of basic school notions... but...
PS2: the mathematical language is not just for mathematics... (sorry again
to those who already know the obviousness and importance of this...)
PS3: there are some concepts that instead of trying to adapt them to your
knowledge, first do adapt your knowledge to them... obs: it's not valid for
religious definitions... ;-|D !!