You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[Sherlock Holmes]

At my age? Breathe

Very well, don't share your profession if you prefer not to.

But let me share this:

Changing the accepted definition of a word as means of "proving" a claim, is well known trickery, the same thing atheists have been doing since the 70s.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dante]

"The universe is all of space, time, and everything that exists in them."

"It's possible that there are multiple universes, a concept known as the multiverse. The multiverse is a collection of universes that may include our own. "

Very well, don't share your profession if you prefer not to.

But let me share this:

View attachment 1078220

I can like you, cut & paste with the best of them.

The primary scientific theories proposing multiple universes include the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics, "Eternal Inflation" cosmology, and "String Theory," which all suggest the existence of parallel universes with potentially different physical laws, arising from various interpretations of how our universe formed and operates at the quantum level; however, it's important to note that the multiverse remains a highly theoretical concept with no definitive proof yet available.

The multiverse is the hypothetical set of all universes.[1][a] Together, these universes are presumed to comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "flat universes", "other universes", "alternate universes", "multiple universes", "plane universes", "parent and child universes", "many universes", or "many worlds". One common assumption is that the multiverse is a "patchwork quilt of separate universes all bound by the same laws of physics."[2]

and unlike you, I can post links to what I am cutting and pasting from:

search engine hint: AI Overview

Multiverse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[westwall]

"The universe is all of space, time, and everything that exists in them."

"It's possible that there are multiple universes, a concept known as the multiverse. The multiverse is a collection of universes that may include our own. "

I can like you, cut & paste with the best of them.




and unlike you, I can post links to what I am cutting and pasting from:

search engine hint: AI Overview

Multiverse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh goody! A cut and paste war!

One point for Dante for actually posting a link to his source material!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

"The universe is all of space, time, and everything that exists in them."

"It's possible that there are multiple universes, a concept known as the multiverse. The multiverse is a collection of universes that may include our own. "

I can like you, cut & paste with the best of them.




and unlike you, I can post links to what I am cutting and pasting from:

search engine hint: AI Overview

Multiverse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know what the hypothetical "multiverse" means, it's been around since the 70s and is from a particular interpretation of QM.

The word "universe" has always meant "everything that exists", go and look in any older dictionary or encyclopedia or the Wikipedia quote I posted.

Do you disagree with this assertion?

The term "multiverse" is an abuse of English, as I said, one cannot logically have multiple everythings or do you think it makes sense? is rational to say "there's more than one everything that exists"? It's nonsensical.

You're a fool, refusing to listen to a person who has more knowledge of this domain than almost anyone else in this forum, but you want to play pop-science go right ahead.

If there are multiple "universes" then they cannot be universes in the first place, only the totality of all of them can be called the universe, for that reason I suggested the use of "cosmos" rather than universe.

This is clearly beyond your educational level, so let's leave it at that.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Oh goody! A cut and paste war!

One point for Dante for actually posting a link to his source material!

It was Wikipedia, I simply forgot.

 

[Dante]

Oh goody! A cut and paste war!

One point for Dante for actually posting a link to his source material!

With a Super Duper Private "I"

 

[Dante]

I know what the hypothetical "multiverse" means, it's been around since the 70s and is from a particular interpretation of QM.

The word "universe" has always meant "everything that exists", go and look in any older dictionary or encyclopedia or the Wikipedia quote I posted.

Do you disagree with this assertion?

The term "multiverse" is an abuse of English, as I said, one cannot logically have multiple everythings or do you think it makes sense? is rational to say "there's more than one everything that exists"? It's nonsensical.

You're a fool, refusing to listen to a person who has more knowledge of this domain than almost anyone else in this forum, but you want to play pop-science go right ahead.

If there are multiple "universes" then they cannot be universes in the first place, only the totality of all of them can be called the universe, for that reason I suggested the use of "cosmos" rather than universe.

This is clearly beyond your educational level, so let's leave it at that.

"We shall return!" - Dante

 

[westwall]

I know what the hypothetical "multiverse" means, it's been around since the 70s and is from a particular interpretation of QM.

The word "universe" has always meant "everything that exists", go and look in any older dictionary or encyclopedia or the Wikipedia quote I posted.

Do you disagree with this assertion?

The term "multiverse" is an abuse of English, as I said, one cannot logically have multiple everythings or do you think it makes sense? is rational to say "there's more than one everything that exists"? It's nonsensical.

You're a fool, refusing to listen to a person who has more knowledge of this domain than almost anyone else in this forum, but you want to play pop-science go right ahead.

If there are multiple "universes" then they cannot be universes in the first place, only the totality of all of them can be called the universe, for that reason I suggested the use of "cosmos" rather than universe.

This is clearly beyond your educational level, so let's leave it at that.

No, there are plenty of people here who are FAR more knowledgeable about the subject than you. They can write their own material, they don't need to resort to cut and paste nonsense.

 

[playtime]

i already know....

that one.

 

[dblack]

#quantummechanics



Probabilities. Sean Carroll's '"Many World's Theory" We have "The Quantum Measurement Problem"
We also have "The GRW Theory" touched on.
GRW Theory and Quantum Entanglement touched on.

Moderated by Brian Greene

I wonder what thee great minds think of Climate Change and human contributions?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, there are plenty of people here who are FAR more knowledgeable about the subject than you.

Show me one.

They can write their own material, they don't need to resort to cut and paste nonsense.

How does one quote an external source without copy/paste? oh - of course - by not having any supporting sources

 

[westwall]

Show me one.

How does one quote an external source without copy/paste? oh - of course - by not having any supporting sources

Me for one. Oddball for another, Si Modo if she ever decides to post again.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Me for one. Oddball for another, Si Modo if she ever decides to post again.

What basis do you or anyone else here have for believing they are "far more knowledgeable" about metaphysics, cosmology, physics and philosophy than me? It might very well be true but how did you reach that conclusion?

Yesterday you fatuously claimed I had no guns, then I emphatically proved you wrong using a photograph and now you make further silly claims, why should anyone believe you after that gun debacle?

 

[San Souci]

"While it is surely hard for me and I suspect most people to really Embrace a world that is one of many worlds, containing many versions of each of us experiencing many versions of reality, this approach does provide the mathematically leanest and most economical interpretation of the foundational equation of quantum mechanics. Again look, it's important to remind ourselves over and over again if necessary that our intuitions, our predilections for how we assess reality, they have been shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary history, in which the focus was on successfully navigating the everyday world. And that formative goal is oblique to the far more recent goal of understanding the true nature of reality. So, perhaps we should expect that when confronted with the true nature of reality, our intuition will not be prepared to easily accept it. Now look, this doesn't by any means establish that the many worlds approach to Quantum Mechanics is right, but it does make clear that our inclination to resist such a strange idea is by no means evidence that it is wrong. Okay in the third part of this Quantum reality series of conversations, we will push these ideas farther still with physicist and author Carlo Rovelli. Join me there."

The Sci-Fi Author Andre Norton speculated this in her Classic Novel "The Crossroads of Time". A good read.

 

[Dante]

The Sci-Fi Author Andre Norton speculated this in her Classic Novel "The Crossroads of Time". A good read.

thank you

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There is only one universe.

By definition there can only be on UNI-verse

 

[San Souci]

By definition there can only be on UNI-verse

Named before Einsteins works.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Named before Einsteins works.

Still applies. UNI includes ALL.
MULTIVERSE is a sci-fi concoction

 

[San Souci]

Still applies. UNI includes ALL.
MULTIVERSE is a sci-fi concoction

Could be. Consider this. Heinlein wrote "The Door Into Summer" in 1951. Yet in that novel he predicted the Micro-Chip ,Spandex , the Automatic Vacuum ,the ATM Machine ,talking Robots , Printed circuits , and Video-Phones. Not bad for speculation.

 

[westwall]

What basis do you or anyone else here have for believing they are "far more knowledgeable" about metaphysics, cosmology, physics and philosophy than me? It might very well be true but how did you reach that conclusion?

Yesterday you fatuously claimed I had no guns, then I emphatically proved you wrong using a photograph and now you make further silly claims, why should anyone believe you after that gun debacle?

Because you are limited to cut and paste presentations. People who actually KNOW what they are talking about use their own words.

You are forced to use others.