How do we know how many bubbles there are?
We don’t know if there are any more but if they do exist then they are part of existence as a whole and therefore part of the universe.
1 Like
Yes, AI gave you some text.
The concept “The Universe” refers to all that exists - that entails that The Universe is all that exists. Now, to refer to what you can interact with, you can use the word “observable universe”, which refers to a subset of the universe. Yes, it is named such to refer to all tat exists - that doesn’t make what it refers to (what we do when we talk about the Universe and not ‘the concept of the Universe’ for example) to be a concept.
What we perceive is ourselves. Yes, the abstraction doesn’t exist, what exists is what the abstraction refers to. The mental product is a mental product, what the mental product refers to exists.
Now, neither of those things are concepts. You were conflating the concept of something with what that concept refers to (ye olde “the map is not the territory” thing)
For the theory of the Big Bang itself, the Big Bang is caused by other stuff, so it’s not the beginning.
1 Like
I wasn’t conflating anything with anything else.
No, I was simply attempting to ascertain a proper definition of the word “universe” in order to see if it truly represented what I would call the “ALL-THAT-IS.”
And according to the AI…
(which is simply a modern-day tool that searches for [and instantaneously finds] reasonable answers that would normally take us meatheads perhaps hours to locate)
…again, according to the AI…
No. If a multiverse exists, the word “universe” no longer encompasses everything. Instead, it becomes just a single component of a much larger structure.
You can accuse me of nit-picking, or of mistaking the map for the actual territory, but to me, this simplistic image…
…is what the word “universe” (or “The Universe”) represents.
And the image not only fails to depict what one (or at least what I and the AI) imagines when one ponders the possible existence of a “multiverse”…
…but it also implies the existence of “boundaries” that delineate the individual structure and separation of these multiple universe(s).
Indeed, if it is possible that a “multiverse” exists, then that would be a direct contradiction of what you stated earlier…
…for clearly, in the case of there being a “multiverse,” other universes…
(with their own delineating boundaries)
…would exist on the “other side” of the boundary (the metaphorical “film”) that delineates the closed bubble of our particular universe.
1 Like
I think it might be a vortex boundary. Self similarity and all that. But dunno.
Yes, you are convinced of such, that’s why I corrected you.
You can, for sure, have a wrong idea of what The Universe entails, for sure.
Yeah, since The Universe is all that exists, there is nothing outside, so no boundary.
Maybe, though I’m not sure of what you mean by “vortex” boundary. Please clarify.
However, if my “Ultimate Seeds” hypothesis is anywhere near to being plausible, then the boundary that encompasses and delineates the totality of our particular universe would be similar to the boundary that encompasses and delineates the totality of our own individual mind.
And you can’t???
Be careful how you answer that question, for it will reveal a great deal about your character.
I mean the self-contained boundary that a whirlpool exhibits, for example.
Not going to argue with the “Ultimate Seeds” hypothesis, don’t see much reason to.
For sure I can. I’m certainly wrong, but my ideas have nothing to do here. The point is not if I have a wrong idea, but if The Universe is all that exists. It is, just by set theory alone, or just rather by what you wrote before of the etymology of the word.
To clear it up, you can talk about ‘a multiverse’ for a particular subset of all that exists, and we can refer to ‘all that exists’ instead of universe. It’s enough: all that exists has no boundary.
Don’t worry : It won’t reveal anything since I lie all the time
Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, except for the fact that the “all that exists” is bounded and subsumed by the absolute and infinite “nothingness” that is forever making room for the ever-expanding “somethingness” of what we generally refer to as “reality.”
Indeed, an example of how reality is forever expanding is via the constant addition of new souls (new minds / I Am-nesses) into the mix.
Now, on the other hand, if you want to suggest that the “infinite nothingness” is, itself, a part of “all that exists,” then I could agree with you that the “all that exists” has no boundary.
If the nothingness exists, it is part of all that exists, then it is not outside of all that exists and it has no boundary
1 Like