Ophiolite Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 uni=one. If there is more than one then they are not Universes.......
MulderMan Posted December 30, 2004 Author Posted December 30, 2004 i thought so, just got a bit confused reading a book and a freind of mine said that on horizon they said there was many...
JaKiri Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 uni=one. If there is more than one then they are not Universes....... Don't use the root of words to try to derive their physical meanings. In answer to the thread: We only know of one universe, the one we inhabit. There may be more, we just don't know. Some people have thought of ways in which multiple universes could exist, but since its untestable, it isn't science.
Ophiolite Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 I need to expand what I said.. From a language point of view we could not properly call other universes, Universes. Perhaps, multiverses. From a scientific POV there may be others.. They are a theoretical possibillity, but presently there is absolutely no evidence for them. Edit: JaKiri I wasn't trying to derive a physical meaning: I'm dismayed you think me that disconnected.
JaKiri Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Sorry about that. However, your post was operating on a purely semantic level; there's no reason not to call other universes 'universes', although it would be technically incorrect.
Ophiolite Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 I was just in a pedantic frame of mind. I certainly use the word in the plural. So many disagreements arise from differences in terminology I occasionally like to inject a small reminder, to myself at least.
bloodhound Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 many universes as in multiple universes? or parallel universes? i have read in some book that there may be quite a lot of universes connected by black holes ( and white holes on the other side)
Ophiolite Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 My recollection is that string theory would permit multiple universes, not necessarily having any interconnection. One interpretation of quantum theory requires branching universes from every decision point.
ydoaPs Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 My recollection is that string theory would permit multiple universes, not necessarily having any interconnection. One interpretation of quantum theory requires branching universes from every decision point. are you talking about branes? it is the closest thing i can come to the definition of a universe which permits there to be more than one. i find it interesting that string theory will be testable in 2007. i can't wait for the results.
5614 Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 is there only one universe? the simple answer is we dont know! apparently there is mathematical proof for it, however have you ever seen another universe? NO, so can you prove it physically exists? no! one of the biggest problems with the multiverse problem is that it is unlikely ever to see another universe (one universe is one of many in a multiverse) using current technology, i mean, how could you possibly even think of trying to see another universe? this is one of the problems with trying to physically proove that others exist. your question cannot be answered with physical proof, because you cant physically proove that others exist, but you cant use the lack of evidence to say it doesnt exist either!
Jordan14 Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 I think that a multiverse in the terms of branes in string thery do exist, or at least I hope there do all that maths can't be wasted surely. And how are they going to test strings do you mean CERN
us.2u Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 apparently there is mathematical proof for it, however have you ever seen another universe? NO, so can you prove it physically exists? no! However have any of us seen air no but we can prove it exist!...Yes
5614 Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 it seems me and us.2u agree, either that or (s)he is copying me word for word
JaKiri Posted December 31, 2004 Posted December 31, 2004 apparently there is mathematical proof for it' date=' however have you ever seen another universe? NO, so can you prove it physically exists? no![/quote'] This is extremely badly written. The 'so' implies that, since you can't see it, you can't proove that it exists, which I hope we all know is not the case. You also preclude scientific advance; 'under current technology' you say. 'Current technology' is a short lived beast, nowadays. apparently there is mathematical proof for it' date=' however have you ever seen another universe? NO, so can you prove it physically exists? no!However have any of us seen air no but we can prove it exist!...Yes[/quote'] The problem is suprisingly similar. Until we developed the science to test the existance of air, we couldn't prove that it existed.
Ophiolite Posted January 1, 2005 Posted January 1, 2005 However have any of us seen air no but we can prove it exist!...Yes Standing outside in a storm was always convincing for me..
Guest Stonecold Posted January 1, 2005 Posted January 1, 2005 What possible reason do we have to speculate on other universes?
5614 Posted January 1, 2005 Posted January 1, 2005 This is extremely badly written. The 'so' implies that' date=' since you can't see it, you can't proove that it exists, which I hope we all know is not the case. You also preclude scientific advance; 'under current technology' you say. 'Current technology' is a short lived beast, nowadays.[/quote'] come on man... i think that post was a bit out of order, i mean i dont get offended by posts, but if i did i think i would have been by that. "This is extremely badly written. The 'so' implies that, since you can't see it, you can't proove that it exists, which I hope we all know is not the case." which is exactly why later on in the SAME post i said: "your question cannot be answered with physical proof, because you cant physically proove that others exist, but you cant use the lack of evidence to say it doesnt exist either!" and "You also preclude scientific advance; 'under current technology' you say. 'Current technology' is a short lived beast, nowadays" the whole point of saying 'current tech' was to point out that at the moment, which obviously means not forever, or not in the past... current means NOW, at the moment, people dont normally vary in their deffinition of 'current' (when referring to times). by 'current' i mean exactly what i said, maybe the stone age people could see other universes, maybe in 1 years time we will be able to see other universes, but using 'current' as in stuff we have NOW we cant... i know exactly what my own sentence means thanks, and when using simple phrases such as 'current technology' i think everyone else does too. (reading back this post it does sound a bit rude and i hope you arent offended by it... i just think that your post was a bit uncalled for and this was a 'come-back' as it were)
Ophiolite Posted January 2, 2005 Posted January 2, 2005 What possible reason do we have to speculate on other universes?What a bizarre question. Humans are innately curious. Science and religion are natural outgrowths of that curiosity. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but it provided the impetus to bring us out of the trees, out of Africa and off the planet in the space of only a few million years. I woud rephrase your question - What possible reason do we have not to speculate on other universes? And I would supply the answer - none.
Artorius Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 you dont put bingo balls in with the lottery balls!!
Ophiolite Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 It is better to be rich and happy than poor and miserable. Or balls? balls! Or Huh?
xom Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 What a bizarre question. Humans are innately curious. Science and religion are natural outgrowths of that curiosity. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but it provided the impetus to bring us out of the trees, out of Africa and off the planet in the space of only a few million years. Aren't you curious as to why humans are curious ?
Ophiolite Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 Aren't you curious as to why humans are curious ? No.. I already worked that out. (Are you curious as to the answer I discovered?)
Martin Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 I think that a multiverse in the terms of branes in string thery do exist' date=' or at least I hope there do [b']all that maths can't be wasted surely.[/b] ... why not?
Martin Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 What a bizarre question. Humans are innately curious. Science and religion are natural outgrowths of that curiosity. Curiosity may have killed the cat' date=' but it provided the impetus to bring us out of the trees, out of Africa and off the planet in the space of only a few million years.[/quote'] Aren't you curious as to why humans are curious ? No.. I already worked that out.(Are you curious as to the answer I discovered?) I agree there are clear evolutionary advantages to a species having curiosity. also to be successful you'd think that any life-form would evolve a variety of mechanisms for extending its habitat, and in effect colonizing, whether relying on its own gumption, or the wind and tide, or some other species (like the burr that sticks to your socks) but as for humans, it has been bred into them by evolution that no sooner do they encounter a river than they begin to wonder what it's like on the other side no sooner do they spot an island than they start scheming of ways to get to it just re-iterating Ophi's point
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now