Quote:
Originally Posted by damian1727
dcl i may be wrong but i dont think jseats was saying that there was no multiverse per say he/she was saying that if we stick with the original definition of universe to mean EVERYTHING EVER .. including different space time bubbles and dimensions then your original deffinition ... all matter and energy... was oversimplistic
i think thats what he/she said
the multiverse is the simplest explanation for fine tuning |
jseats said, "If the universe by definition is 'everything', then what is the rationale for the term coined 'multiverse'. I never quite understood how that came about. Perhaps it is just semantics, but if we want to define 'universe' to mean all that is, then we should not refer to supersets of that." This seems to me to be an argument against use of the term "multiverse" as being more inclusive than the term "universe".
He went on to say, "Granted it gets tedious to always say things like 'our observable universe' or 'all space-time that is causally connected'. I think if you allow existence of the concept of potentially disconnected spacetimes, then 'universe' as stated cannot be given the definition of 'all matter and energy' without a little refinement." This seems to me to be no more than an argument against saying "our universe" when one means "our observable universe".