Define a universe in your own words

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 106
Topic's author
#1
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
I thought this was a philosophical question that needed some attention. I want to see what you define what a universe is. 

I know this may seem unimportant but think about it. There are many questions inside this one question - such as:

* Are the worlds inside thoughts and dreams part of our universe or outside of it?
* Are fictional worlds part of our universe?
* Are numbers and abstract objects part of our universe?
* Do other universes exist?
* I can go on and on

here are some common definitions:

* All of time, space, and matter
* all of totality
* all of space

#2
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@ebuc
@ebuc
#3
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,993
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Conservallectual
I would say ‘all totality’ Is probably the most accurate.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Conservallectual
The duration of matter bounded by it's own potential, within a singular occurrance.

There may or may not be more than one universe of course, especially  if one regards the potential of time and space to be limitless.
#5
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Conservallectual
Our Universe is the home of 70 quintillion planets.

Erik Zackrisson, an astrophysicist at Uppsala University in Sweden, crunched the numbers on a computer model that simulated the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang. He found that — given our current understanding of the universe and the laws of physics — there should be 7to the 20th power, planets in the universe. That’s 7 followed by 20 zeroes or 70 quintillion.
Topic's author
#6
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
-->
@FLRW
My good sir this is not a definition and is more like a fact about the universe.
Topic's author
#7
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
-->
@Reece101
What about fictional universes and fictional multiverses - are they part of this definition of the universe?
#8
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,198
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I would not even attempt to define what I know nothing about let alone its purpose.
Topic's author
#9
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
please note that I may start to give you doubts and questions. Do not worry, I am trying to use the Socratic method when doing this.
#10
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,993
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Conservallectual
What about fictional universes and fictional multiverses - are they part of this definition of the universe?
Yeah.
#11
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,993
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Our Universe is the home of 70 quintillion planets.

Erik Zackrisson, an astrophysicist at Uppsala University in Sweden, crunched the numbers on a computer model that simulated the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang. He found that — given our current understanding of the universe and the laws of physics — there should be 7to the 20th power, planets in the universe. That’s 7 followed by 20 zeroes or 70 quintillion.
That’s just the observable universe. It’s been calculated that the whole universe is hundreds of times the radius of what we can observe. Though it’s probably far larger than that.
#12
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
Universe, n. 
1. A self-contained system of galaxies that is larger than Biden's gaffes but smaller than Trump's ego.
Topic's author
#13
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
-->
@SirAnonymous
please don't bring politics here. I know I am a conservative but this is a philosophical thread not a political one.
#14
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Conservallectual
Sorry, it was meant to be a joke.
Topic's author
#15
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
-->
@SirAnonymous
a joke is fine(:
#16
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
The totality of everything, not to be confused with the totality of all local things. 
#17
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,432
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
Uni Verse,
That which is,
Existence,
Everything that is.

I 'suppose concepts are part of the universe,
Though I more often think of the universe as matter and physics.

I don't think other universes exist,
If they 'did, then there'd be 'part of everything, thus part of the universe, to my thinking.

. . .

Though people can speak of fictions having their own universe, it's more an 'imagining a separate existence, than there 'being a separate existence.
#18
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
You mean like McDonald's.
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
I used to go there regularly on a Friday and Saturday evening, when I was in my late teens.
#21
Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
I would say that the universe is a set which encompasses everything in space and time. In this sense, our thoughts could be considered part of the universe. Our brain fires neurons which are most definitely in the universe, but then we ascribe meaning to that which may or may not be outside of the universe. 

I would argue that meaning arises from consciousness which is not part of the universe, but instead a behavior or understanding that arises from perception that is itself enabled by the universe. 

In the same way that our brains ascribe meaning to signals in the brain we as conscious beings have ascribed meanings to numbers. If there are 3 rocks, they all exist with or without us. That being said the number itself has no meaning, and the rocks simply exist. With consciousness we ascribe a meaning to numbers, and can observe that there are three rocks.

So I think that everything exists in the universe physically, but we derive meanings from the universe that are themselves outside of the universe. The words on the page exist, but they do not mean anything unless given a meaning.  

I don't see how another universe could exist. What would seperate it from the universe?


#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conservallectual
there is the "known universe" (phaneron)

there is the "unknown (but knowable) universe" (Mysterium Invisus)

there is the "unknown (and unknowable) universe" (Magnum Mysterium aka NOUMENON)

there is a not-impossible "multiverse"

and an "omniverse" which would include all conceivable "multiverses" (including known, knowable, and unknowable)
#23
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
there is a not-impossible "multiverse"

3Ru please define and describes scenario for its existence.  The most common is our is just a local universe.

So lets say multiverses exist.  Were kind of back at the same place,  finite = integrity, and infinite = lack of integrity.

In your scenario of multiverses, is there sum-total finite set, that we could still label as the one Universe, if there are connected by gravity, or,

is multiverse scenario an infinite set?


#24
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
is multiverse scenario an infinite set?
an incomprehensible, yet NOT "infinite" set
#25
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
an incomprehensible, yet NOT "infinite" set

Ok so NOT infinite = a finite set of local universes, that, if all connected by Gravity, ---at a minimum----, then they sum-total as the one Universe.

The union of local universes as Universe ergo has a wholistic integrity.
#26
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
The union of local universes as Universe ergo has a wholistic integrity.
they may be discrete 
#27
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
they may be discrete 

" Discrete " wholistic Universe? Clarify please
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
they may be discrete 
" Discrete " wholistic Universe? Clarify please
each "pocket universe" may be wholly isolated
#29
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
each "pocket universe" may be wholly isolated

How can is that these local universe can occur without Gravitational relationship between them?   I mentioned this previously. There is no limit to gravity's mass-attractive effects. Clarity please on how this scenario involving Gravitaitonal union of them all in sum-total as the one Universe?
#30
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
There is no limit to gravity's mass-attractive effects.
perhaps you are unfamiliar with the cosmological constant (dark energy)