Einstein's Starting Point

SUGGESTION - write your response on paper, or in Notepad, first. Think about it for a while, then see if you can reduce the number of words by at least 50%. 75% would be much better, but 50% is an acceptable start.

LB

Larry, some people who hold some kind of "many worlds" interpretation of reality use the term "universe" to mean the realm of space and time we live in. Presumably, other "universes" - separate space/time domains - also exist. But then, what to call everything that exists? Such words as "omniverse" and "multiverse" have been proposed. But using "universe" in this way, for less than everything, is an oxymoron and leads to confusion. It may just reflect the confusion of the whole concept.

[nemesis' "It may just reflect the confusion of the whole concept."

That is why it so important to have a definition for each word, and to use each word according to its definiton. The ability to communicate is at stake here, folks. This is at least as important as making sure your units are right.

(Some of the best educated technologists on the planet are among the worst offenders. Even I have taken the sloppy way out on a few occasions. But the fact that we have all screwed up from time to time is no excuse for doing it again.)

LB

Right. If people want to talk about "many worlds" I would propose retaining "universe" in its established and logical sense of "everything" and coming up with a new term for the spacetime domains - maybe "subverse" or "infraverse".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nemesis</i>
<br />If people want to talk about "many worlds" I would propose retaining "universe" in its established and logical sense of "everything" and coming up with a new term for the spacetime domains - maybe "subverse" or "infraverse".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Agreed about the definition of "universe". But what is a "spacetime domain"?

I showed at metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp that the so-called "spacetime" of GR is simply a scaled form of proper time, and has no space-like component. I further maintain that space is a dimension, a concept, the most useful form of which is flat and Euclidean. And because it cannot be acted upon by anything material and tangible, it simply is what our minds create it to be -- a way of measuring extent. The "curvature" in GR is actually a density gradient in elysium, which is a very different matter from calling it "curved space" or "curved spacetime".

Given that, what could it possibly mean for there to be more than one space? With time as a measure of change, what could it possibly mean to have more than one time? And why add more mysticism by calling these "spacetimes" when that concept has no space-like character? If we cannot formulate clear definitions and crisp concepts, we will certainly fail to communiacte. Worse, our own thoughts will get muddled.

It is trivial for sci-fi authors to tell us to imagine other possible universes. Every choice made in this universe would lead to a different universe if the choice were reversed. But suggesting that these alternate possibilities for our one-and-only universe could co-exist crosses the line from deep reality physics into sci-fi fantasy, meaning that it is logically impossible (with present definitions) and requires a miracle. What could it possibly mean to "co-exist" if it does not occupy ordinary space or have extent that we can measure? -|Tom|-

I have no real argument here, Tom. I never actually said I agreed with these concepts or constructions. However, the MM proposes the universe is infinite in all respects, including scale. So maybe a "subverse" could correspond to a scalar level. Our own scale seems to range from subatomic particles to galactic aggregations - superclusters, walls, etc. The gravitons, I think you have said, operate on a smaller scale, and the LCM could be thought of as the "atmosphere" of a body of some kind at a larger scale. But there would be only one infinite space.