There's a (probably apocryphal) story of an elderly Michael Faraday demonstrating his theories and electrical experiments to a relatively young Queen Victoria. HRH listened politely and then asked, 'It's all very interesting, but of what practical use is it?'

Nonplussed for a moment, the eminent scientist replied, 'Madam, of what practical use is a new-born baby?'

Boru

If I were asked for my definition of the universe I would use this one.
"Everything that exists anywhere".

Now if you have an alternate description it had better be:

1) As pithy as the above.
2) Be very brief.
5) Make sense.
3) Not involve hideously complex mathematics.
4) Or, be highly entertaining, as in some new age woo interpretations.

Regarding no 3. Yes I do understand the various multiverse theories are at base, mathematical constructs.
But fuck off anyway!

(December 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm)Succubus Wrote: If I were asked for my definition of the universe I would use this one.
"Everything that exists anywhere".

Now if you have an alternate description it had better be:

1) As pithy as the above.
2) Be very brief.
5) Make sense.
3) Not involve hideously complex mathematics.
4) Or, be highly entertaining, as in some new age woo interpretations.

Regarding no 3. Yes I do understand the various multiverse theories are at base, mathematical constructs.
But fuck off anyway!

How about, 'Everything that exists'? ( 'anywhere' is redundant)

Boru

(December 16, 2017 at 2:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm)Succubus Wrote: If I were asked for my definition of the universe I would use this one.
"Everything that exists anywhere".

Now if you have an alternate description it had better be:

1) As pithy as the above.
2) Be very brief.
5) Make sense.
3) Not involve hideously complex mathematics.
4) Or, be highly entertaining, as in some new age woo interpretations.

Regarding no 3. Yes I do understand the various multiverse theories are at base, mathematical constructs.
But fuck off anyway!

How about, 'Everything that exists'? ( 'anywhere' is redundant)

Boru

Ah no. That would open the door for the mystics to insert mystic shit; ie, what about things that exist in our thoughts and things that science cannot yet detect? That sort of pesh. 'Anywhere' covers everything.

(December 16, 2017 at 12:37 pm)purplepurpose Wrote:

(December 16, 2017 at 12:34 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I find that the idea of a "multiverse" too often gets mixed up with the idea of "every possible universe".  The image of a heap of soap bubbles is much better, with some expanding and some popping out of existence as such.  Of course the stuff of which the bubble was made does not go out of existence though it may change form.  I've always thought that we are within just one such bubble of such immense proportions that there would be no hope of peering beyond it.

You often hear that the laws of science might be different elsewhere, and perhaps in some small way they could be.  But my intuition is that by and large the basic stuff of which a universe is composed is probably fairly uniform.  The stuff of our own universe has not always been the same nor has it behaved in ways which conform to the descriptions of science which hold today.  The early universe was very different.  But in other pockets of expansion it seems likely to me that the same cycles of stuff and states would be found.  Except that no one will ever "find them" since there are no beings available to stroll between the bubbles.

Just my two cents worth.  What I lack in learnedness I make up for with opinionatedness.

Scientists get payed for thinking about such grand stuff. For me it seems pointless.

And yet, here you are banging away at the keyboard of a machine that would not exist had scientists not been paid to think about the grand stuff that underlies the process.

(December 16, 2017 at 2:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm)Succubus Wrote: If I were asked for my definition of the universe I would use this one.
"Everything that exists anywhere".

Now if you have an alternate description it had better be:

1) As pithy as the above.
2) Be very brief.
5) Make sense.
3) Not involve hideously complex mathematics.
4) Or, be highly entertaining, as in some new age woo interpretations.

Regarding no 3. Yes I do understand the various multiverse theories are at base, mathematical constructs.
But fuck off anyway!

How about, 'Everything that exists'? ( 'anywhere' is redundant)

Boru

I think that is a good definition of the "cosmos".  "Universe" seems to have shifted to mean everything associated with 'the' big bang that is responsible for all we can detect.

The multiverse theory came about as a mathematical theory to try to explain why weird things happen at the quantum level like superposition, etc.

When Krauss says that the universe comes from nothing, he means universes come from nothing by borrowing energy from nothing, then returning the energy. Universes are and have been popping into existence (whatever that means) forever (whatever that means). We only exist in one of them, like a bubble in the froth of my cider which I think I may have drank too much of! Makes perfect sense to me...

I followed that discussion the other week and to be honest I think the cosmos-universe thing is a needless distinction, from my layman point of view anyway.

Edit: this was in reply to Whateverist post # 16

(December 16, 2017 at 6:47 pm)Succubus Wrote: I followed that discussion the other week and to be honest I think the cosmos-universe thing is a needless distinction, from my layman point of view anyway.

Edit: this was in reply to Whateverist post # 16

Just curious: is that because you think everything associated with the big bang is everything there is (and if so, why) - or - for some other reason?

(December 16, 2017 at 9:39 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(December 16, 2017 at 6:47 pm)Succubus Wrote: I followed that discussion the other week and to be honest I think the cosmos-universe thing is a needless distinction, from my layman point of view anyway.

Edit: this was in reply to Whateverist post # 16

Just curious: is that because you think everything associated with the big bang is everything there is (and if so, why) - or - for some other reason?

Some other reason? What other possible reason? At the risk of repeating myself, I can only repeat myself. You are splitting Planck lengths with this distinction between cosmos and universe, that's the stuff of philosophy not science. Why introduce a confounding factor?
How many theoretical physicists can dance on the lens of a telescope?

The Large Hadron Collider and other wigetry takes us back to 10-43 seconds after the universe began to inflate. We have no knowledge of the universe @ T=0

All else is chalk marks on a blackboard.