OK, a Sunday thread, for those so inclined.
I’m looking for a single compact paragraph (or see if you can do it in one sentence) that gives me a clear idea of what the universe actually is, if anything. Not a dictionary definition of the word “universe”, but an attempt to summarise the essence of the actual phenomenon. No mathematics or technical jargon allowed :)
>>No mathematics or technical jargon allowed :)
What about King Jimmy?
No gods or miracles, I’m wanting “real universe”.
>>No gods or miracles, I’m wanting “real universe”.
Roger.
The Universe spontaneously popped out of nothing for no purpose, apparently.
The Universe spontaneously popped out of nothing for no purpose, apparently.
the first part is probably not true and the second part is probably true.
Yes but I’m wanting to know what it actually is. “Nothing” isn’t anything, so it’s not really relevant, unless the universe itself is essentially nothing, which doesn’t seem to be the case.
an environment where the fundamental forces are such that allow for the formation of complex systems.
but with such an open question just about anything can be right. and wrong.
It’s more about having a go than being right or wrong :)
i like to cover my bets.
Bubblecar said:
It’s more about having a go than being right or wrong :)
OK then.
I’ll start with:
“Everything that is”
But that (being stated in the present tense) implies a common time-frame for the entire Universe, which I understand to be not how it is, and also includes everything that might exist, but with which it is impossible for us to interact, even in principle, and my understanding of what people generally mean by “The Universe” exludes that, so I will try:
“Everything that can be causally connected to the hypothetical event known as the Big Bang”.
How’s that?
> I’m looking for a single compact paragraph (or see if you can do it in one sentence) that gives me a clear idea of what the universe actually is, if anything.
Hmm, I’ll give it some thought. First I need to consider some subtle distinctions, the distinctions between:
a) “The universe” and “the visible universe”.
b) “The universe” and “space-time”.
c) “The universe” and “the multiverse”.
d) “The universe” and “dark matter + baryonic matter + dark energy”
It occurs to me that a good starting point is that:
e) The universe is the sum total of everything that survived our big bang, excluding any pseudo-space-time postulated to be accessible through singularities such as those in the centres of black holes, and excluding the survivors of any subsequent further big bangs that formed outside the current visible part of the universe. The universe includes at least the following: space, time, baryonic matter from the standard model of particle physics, momentum, spin, dark matter, dark energy, the mathematics of general relativity and quantum mechanics, and all non-degenerate coordinate transformations.
The distinction that I’ve tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to make with “non-degenerate coordinate transformations” is to allow the universe to include those parts of space-time inside the event horizon of black holes while excluding space-time accessible through wormholes – unless both sides of the wormhole are accessible in our independently without passing through the wormhole.
mollwollfumble said:
It occurs to me that a good starting point is that:
e) The universe is the sum total of everything that survived our big bang, excluding any pseudo-space-time postulated to be accessible through singularities such as those in the centres of black holes, and excluding the survivors of any subsequent further big bangs that formed outside the current visible part of the universe. The universe includes at least the following: space, time, baryonic matter from the standard model of particle physics, momentum, spin, dark matter, dark energy, the mathematics of general relativity and quantum mechanics, and all non-degenerate coordinate transformations.
I suspect that some of that might be considered “technical jargon” :)
Mr Car – I am wondering why you felt it necessary to add “if anything”.
Are the words of Mr Descartes not enough for you?
Basically a philosophical question.
I don’t know if any of you have read Roger Briefly, Briefly states that as time is motion and life is when time is turned on for an individual and ends when time is turned off for that individual, their worldly body continues on in universal time and space but decays, an essence or cognative consciousness exists outside universal time and becomes timeless.
Peak Warming Man said:
Basically a philosophical question.I don’t know if any of you have read Roger Briefly, Briefly states that as time is motion and life is when time is turned on for an individual and ends when time is turned off for that individual, their worldly body continues on in universal time and space but decays, an essence or cognative consciousness exists outside universal time and becomes timeless.
Is any evidence provided for the Briefly stated hypothesis?
>>Is any evidence provided for the Briefly stated hypothesis?
Yes but it is technical jargon and as such falls outside the brief for this discussion.
Also the Internet seems to have plenty of mentions of people meeting or working with Roger Briefly, but nothing about the man himself, or his works.
Maybe you should start a Wikipedia page on him PWM.
>Mr Car – I am wondering why you felt it necessary to add “if anything”.
Well, there might be some who would suggest (as I once did) that the universe is essentially nothing, but nothingness is unstable and can sometimes decay into what we experience as “things” etc. But I don’t say that any more because there’s really no such thing as nothing.
The universe is an entity that begins in chaos and spontaneously organises itself into order, possibly to the point of all matter and anti-matter being separated at which point the combination of the two results in a new big bang and new chaos.
Ref: Ijustmadeitup.
Bubblecar said:
I’m looking for a single compact paragraph (or see if you can do it in one sentence) that gives me a clear idea of what the universe actually is, if anything. Not a dictionary definition of the word “universe”, but an attempt to summarise the essence of the actual phenomenon. No mathematics or technical jargon allowed :)
You want a correct statement without any technical jargon? Good luck with that!
Anyway, as mollwollfumble points out, you do need to distinguish between such things as the three-dimensional universe, four-dimensional spacetime, the infinite-dimensional multiverse, etc.
But I think The Rev Dodgson is on the right track with “everything that is”. The universe is an instantiation from a set of all possibilities. It is the information that is in principle obtainable that distinguishes it from other possibilities.
I think that’s probably the most realistic nutshell: “The universe is all the information we have relating to what exists.”
Not very inspiring, but there you go :)
Bubblecar said:
I think that’s probably the most realistic nutshell: “The universe is all the information we have relating to what exists.”Not very inspiring, but there you go :)
Actually, what I said goes a bit further than that. The notion that one possibility is required to be distinguishable from the other possibilities is an essential ingredient, and forms the basis of modern physics (gauge theories).
Q. “The Universe: what is it?”
A. Mostly empty.
I have heard a hole described as nothing with something surrounding it, perhaps the universe has similar properties?
No mathematics or technical jargon allowed :)
—-
Fail
Dimensionality of space is not the issue here. It doesn’t matter whether space has one, three, ten or eleven dimensions, space-time is still part of the universe.
> I think The Rev Dodgson is on the right track with “everything that is”
No. That’s the definition of “multiverse”. Or perhaps yes, see my comment at the end.
Let’s consider some types of multiverse and see how the distinctions between the different regions of a multiverse can be used to define universe.
1) A multiverse accessible by wormholes. A multiverse consisting of pseudo-space-time within the singularity of black hole.
Consider Penrose coordinates, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_diagram. In the absence of black holes, the universe appears as a square and is bordered by infinite past, infinite future, infinite distance, and the speed of light. In the presence of a black hole, the universe contains an extra triangle representing that part of a black hole between the event horizon and the singularity. The square part coupled with a triangle for every black hole is the universe. But in Penrose diagrams these squares can be tiled to create other universes. These are not part of our universe but are (if they exist, which seems likely) part of a multiverse.
2) A multiverse with multiple big bangs.
We can only see a limited distance. We also know from the mass of the Higgs particle that the universe is metastable. Suppose, as is very likely, that beyond the distance we can see the universe that metastability went unstable, and a new big bang occurred. The results of that second, third, etc., big bang would not be considered part of the universe, they would be parts of the multiverse.
A variant on this is looking back beyond the big bang.
3) A quantum multiverse.
In the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics each “world” is a universe. Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. In brief, one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations, each with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a die is thrown that contains six sides and that the numeric result of the throw corresponds to a quantum mechanics observable. All six possible ways the die can fall correspond to six different universes.
4) A topological multiverse.
In this possibility, if we go far enough in any direction we eventually end up back near where we started. Perhaps the easiest way to think of this is to imagine “cyclic in at least one dimension of space”. The universe then is the largest unique part of the multiverse.
5) A string theory multiverse.
In string theory a contiguous region where the number of large space dimensions is a constant is considered a universe and the whole of space-time containing several such regions is a multiverse. In this context, a cosmic “brane” is a universe.
If you want to look in more detail at the concept of “multiverse” look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
But then I find myself led back to Rev Dodgson’s “everything that is”. That definition does make sense if we limit it to “everything that we are absolutely certain is”. Multiverses all remain unproven, at the moment . But then string theory is also unproven but a ten or eleven-dimensional space-time is still part of the universe, provided only three of those dimensions are macroscopic.
mollwollfumble said:
But then I find myself led back to Rev Dodgson’s “everything that is”.
The “Rev Dodgson’s “everything that is”. “ should be the “everything that is” concept that Rev Dodgson considered and rejected.
dv said:
No mathematics or technical jargon allowed :)
—-Fail
A bit harsh.
You can make meaningful hypotheses about what the Universe is without introducing mathematics or technical jargon, so you can have a worthwhile discussion on the same basis.
>You can make meaningful hypotheses about what the Universe is without introducing mathematics or technical jargon, so you can have a worthwhile discussion on the same basis.<
And if it’s genuinely impossible to do so, what does that tell us about the universe? Or is it impossible to answer that question too, without maths? I’ve no doubt that the universe can best be described in detail with maths & physics etc, but what this thread is asking is: what is it (in a more general sense) that we’re describing in detail with maths and physics? I’m not expecting the answer to be terribly illuminating, just helpfully basic. Something like “a historical geometric disturbance occurring in empty space that appears to be unfolding in accordance with certain predictable rules, for no discernible reason” although not that, because it’s probably not good enough :)
In contrast, mollwollfumble (and even KJW to some extent) appear to be looking at various detailed models, rather than a broader summary of the phenomenon we’re trying to model. For example, whether the empirically accessible universe is the only history that’s unfolding, or whether it’s part of a multiverse, doesn’t appear to be important for the purposes of this thread, because it’s a modelling question that may never be resolved. But that shouldn’t stop us trying to establish a basic conception of what it is we’re trying to model.
> And if it’s genuinely impossible to do so, what does that tell us about the universe?
Nothing, but it does tell us a lot about the English language. I like to illustrate the problem using the question “what is a chair?”. The distinction between a “chair”, a “stool”, a “sofa”, a “rock” etc. isn’t and cannot be exactly defined in a way that everybody agrees with.
mollwollfumble said:
> And if it’s genuinely impossible to do so, what does that tell us about the universe?Nothing, but it does tell us a lot about the English language. I like to illustrate the problem using the question “what is a chair?”. The distinction between a “chair”, a “stool”, a “sofa”, a “rock” etc. isn’t and cannot be exactly defined in a way that everybody agrees with.
But you can’t define fuzzy sets which have arbitrarily defined boundaries in a way that everybody will agree with using maths or any other language either.
Also, I don’t think that defining what should or should not be included in “The Universe” is really what the Car is wanting to discuss.
In answering the question “what is the universe” I don’t think we can do any better than describe the ways in which its components behave, or the way in which they seem to behave.
No doubt this can be done more exactly and in greater detail using maths and jargon, but there is a danger in that approach. It tends to lead to the belief that the conclusions reached are more certain than they really are.
The Universe – What Is It?
Everything “we” have observed to date.
Thinking along the lines of “ if something cannot be observed directly or by implication can it be said that it exists for us?”.
Also if something is outside of the Observable Universe can we really say it exists. It would always be hypothetical and an untestable theory is not a theory .. ?
Just a thought.
Brett
Bubblecar said:
In contrast, mollwollfumble (and even KJW to some extent) appear to be looking at various detailed models, rather than a broader summary of the phenomenon we’re trying to model. For example, whether the empirically accessible universe is the only history that’s unfolding, or whether it’s part of a multiverse, doesn’t appear to be important for the purposes of this thread, because it’s a modelling question that may never be resolved. But that shouldn’t stop us trying to establish a basic conception of what it is we’re trying to model.
I don’t think that one can separate what the universe is from why it is that way. Ultimately, the universe is what our measurements (including our perceptions) say it is. But since our measuring devices are made of the same “stuff” as the things we’re measuring, our measurements can only tell us about the relationship between what we’re measuring and our measuring devices, and not anything intrinsic about what we’re measuring. Thus, the “why” question becomes the only question that we can truly answer.
As far as modelling is concerned, a mathematical model can provide us with details about relationships and behaviour, but the problem is that interpretations of the model can lead us to think that the model is describing what the universe is rather that what the universe does.
Slight thread hijack, but it’s closely related, what’s the universe made of? I don’t mean what’s what’s in the universe made of, but what’s the fabric of the universe? Is there even any way of testing or discovering the answer to this question?
In short, we need to stop thinking that the universe is anything in particular, and start focussing on how the universe relates to itself.
Wocky said:
Slight thread hijack, but it’s closely related, what’s the universe made of? I don’t mean what’s what’s in the universe made of, but what’s the fabric of the universe? Is there even any way of testing or discovering the answer to this question?
Maybe the Universe is not made of anything other than the stuff that what’s in the Universe is made of.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Wocky said:Slight thread hijack, but it’s closely related, what’s the universe made of? I don’t mean what’s what’s in the universe made of, but what’s the fabric of the universe? Is there even any way of testing or discovering the answer to this question?
Maybe the Universe is not made of anything other than the stuff that what’s in the Universe is made of.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Wocky said:Slight thread hijack, but it’s closely related, what’s the universe made of? I don’t mean what’s what’s in the universe made of, but what’s the fabric of the universe? Is there even any way of testing or discovering the answer to this question?
Maybe the Universe is not made of anything other than the stuff that what’s in the Universe is made of.
There exists a possibility something like that.
The universe is the set of allowable space-time coordinates ;)
had to laugh I haggled with a street hawker for a pair of cool led skate things you attach to your shoes. Talked him down to $30 for two pair.
mrs Skeppo promptly bought another two pair of another hawker for $15 so she was a smug as a pig in shit and kept giving me heaps.
Anyway a few minutes later we were offered two pair for $6
Skeptic Pete said:
had to laugh I haggled with a street hawker for a pair of cool led skate things you attach to your shoes. Talked him down to $30 for two pair.mrs Skeppo promptly bought another two pair of another hawker for $15 so she was a smug as a pig in shit and kept giving me heaps.
Anyway a few minutes later we were offered two pair for $6
you are re-learning to shop around?
OK then.
I’ll start with:
“Everything that is”
———————————
That is the least likley phenononom… om mani…
There is no reason to suggest that where it is from is in anyway diminished by the farting off of undisirable 3 demensional constants/constraints within an eternity of time frames.
Jail, no less.
Everyone is in for a life time…
On a brighter note, it will be warm and sunny for the rest of the weak.
The Universe is an apparently-consistent set of potentially categorical, observable and describable phenomena.
esselte said:
The Universe is an apparently-consistent set of potentially categorical, observable and describable phenomena.
as we see it.
maybe others have different perspectives?
roughbarked said:
esselte said:
The Universe is an apparently-consistent set of potentially categorical, observable and describable phenomena.
as we see it.
maybe others have different perspectives?
“Perspective” implies categorization, and observation. “Apparently” covers potential differences in perspective.
I appreciate what your saying, but I think my definition already takes it in to account.
esselte said:
roughbarked said:
esselte said:
The Universe is an apparently-consistent set of potentially categorical, observable and describable phenomena.
as we see it.
maybe others have different perspectives?
“Perspective” implies categorization, and observation. “Apparently” covers potential differences in perspective.
I appreciate what your saying, but I think my definition already takes it in to account.
fairynuff. I can see it now.
This is the only chance the universe gets to be my playground. So it had better make the most of it.
So it had better make the most of it.
———————————————————
There is the very very finesse of chance that you may have that arse about tit…
Nooo, the universe is gradually learning where it stands vis-a-vis the Car. I’m sensing a more humble attitude which is quite encouraging.
Bubblecar said:
Nooo, the universe is gradually learning where it stands vis-a-vis the Car. I’m sensing a more humble attitude which is quite encouraging.
Sounds like it might invoke a curse of the black jelly bean karmic smackdown. Touch some wood.
I’m sensing a more humble attitude which is quite encouraging.
—————————————————————————————————-
Humility or benige indifference?
Matbe it is giving up on that particular experiment…