Is it possible that an infinity of universes exist?

What!!! You say this is a science forum (I agree) and yes logic must be used. How ever science does not involve leaps of faith and such thinking is not scientific.

No we don't know but as I have been trying to say over and over. To find proof of another reality "universe" it must influence our universe in some, even small, way. Again if it influences our universe it is part of our universe.

Faith is not logical or scientific. I could say a giant tea cup in the sky controls the universe. I must be right as you cant prove i'm wrong. It is illogical to use leaps of faith to augment a scientific debate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about our universe being a white hole from a black hole from some other universe, and so on ad infinitum?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The OP would have to clarify his intended definition of "Universe", and you may already know this, but the concept of a collection of Universes is called a Multiverse.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I havn't a smidgen of evidence for my take on it but I believe we are part of one Universe floating among an infinite amount of other Universes that are floating in an infinite expanse.I have never been able to comprehend a beginning to all of this,it's always been.

 

It's pointless to try and have a reasonable discussion if we can't agree on the definition of words. The concept of "totality of everything that is" needs to have a word associated with it- and it does - that word is -- universe. No conditions, no limits, just everything that exists. If someone has a concept of some other thing - it needs a different word.

 

I would disagree that "Universe" has such an iron-clad and immutable meaning. In fact, in the context of responding to OP of this thread, the definition of the word "Universe" is very much dependent on the OP author's intended meaning. I just noticed that he appears to be banned so I doubt we're going to learn his definition any time soon...

 

At a given time? No

 

I think I know what you mean - there can be some very strange and unexplained things - either observed or imagined - that don't seem to fit our normal world - things that don't follow our normal rules of physics. Sub atomic particles are evidently like that, but no one says they aren't part of the universe.
Don't you agree that there needs to be a word for "everything that exists"? If that word isn't universe, than what should it be?
I wonder why the op got banned - there was nothing wrong with his post, and there is nothing wrong with discussing strange things in the universe (or what comprises the universe).
I enjoy these discussions - it's a welcome break from thinking about (worrying about) everyday stuff like job, etc. Thanks

 

First, I'd cheekily ask what's wrong with "everything that exists"? Why does it have to be a single word?

But yes, since the word "universe" has been coopted to mean
"this spacetime continuum", another word that means "all there is" would be useful in contexts where "this spacetime continuum" is suggested to be possible not "all there is. The original poster used such a word: "multi-universe". The portmanteau "multiverse" is more common.

This seems to be pretty standard usage now, in pop-science cosmological discussions, at least. "universe" (with no initial capital) means "a 4D spacetime continuum", "Universe" means "this particular universe", and "Multiverse" means "all spacetime continuums."

 

i'm a bit puzzled as to how you reason. the point had nothing to do with faith or that there was proof of anything. it doesn't seem you are paying attention or you have some mental block as to what is being clarified. i was clarifying a point that was assumed that was a leap of faith.


i already explained to you the difference between not knowing and "belief" in something. "speculation" is not belief (which you are jumping to conclusions) and saying 'this is all there is' is an emphatic and absolute presumption of all knowing knowledge. that truly is the "leap of faith." whether what is found or detected will perhaps be part of the universe is irrevelant regarding this point. what's even worse is how one would overlook the blatant leap of faith in blatant assumption but blame or fault the lucid truth (we don't yet know) as a leap of faith. that's intellectual dishonesty.

there is really not much more to say unless this is understood. the point is very simple.

 

No, infinity is NOT a real number - only a finite number of universes is logically possible.

 

What makes 'logically' a prerequisite of existance?

 

I think there could be an infinite of universes however not in the way you think. I like the black hole infiniverse speculations they are very interesting and whats cooler is one could come up with a theory for it.

Basically it says our universe was spawned by a black hole in another universe, and our black holes spawn little universes from our universe.. etc etc etc.

 

Very logical reasoning...which of course makes your argument circular and therefore invalid. tee-hee :runaway:

 

This is the last time I say it.

Science needs proof. To imagine another "universe" is not proof. To have proof of another universe requires demonstrable repeatable evidence. This requires the other universe to have an influence on this one. If this happens then we must say that the two are one, they are part of the same system, and thus part of the same universe.

With non sensible sentences like this I find it difficult to even know what your trying to get at.

"we don't yet know" I am taking about, if we find out. How can we know without proof.
I am simply saying that to find proof negates the existence of other universes. To exist they must be totally separate and totally unprovable. To believe in such requires a leap of faith. Speculation is part of the scientific process and it is important for the forward movement of science. But speculation is just human imagination nothing more, it does not make reality.

Science needs proof, imagination requires nothing more then thought.

 

evidently, you know nothing about science because it's chockful of theories and not exactly or always proof. no one is even making a theory but just a speculative hypothesis at most, the op. there is a thread on string theory on this subforum, show me proof? you can't. that's why it's called a theory.

furthermore, NO ONE stated that imagining a universe is proof. no one said that other universes are proven. the reference was not about the op but another statement which you keep pretending is not the issue.

you also keep resisting the difference between "belief" and speculation. that is what the op is doing, just like scientists and all their theoretical models.

i'm not really sure why you have a hard time grasping this issue which is so simple. it is a leap of faith to assume or make statements that this universe is all there is just because that is all we can ever know, presumably.

imagining something else is not proof of it's existence but saying that we don't know if there are other universes is not a leap of faith.

what is the problem? it seems you have reading comprehension difficulty because no one is asserting the op is a "fact" as you keep railing about "proof."

 

The Universe

Universe: As defined by an ancient French Alchemist;A word which encompasses all that is or thought to be.:shrug:
Machiaventa

 

no ma'am, times have changed. the term multi-verse is understood terminology the op has used for his speculation.

if scientists did not ever use conjecture or speculation, they would never test it out or make discoveries. just like a botanist wouldn't get the idea to trudge through the rainforest in hopes to find a cure for a disease.

it seems blindman is upset because it can't be tested out at this time. also, he's arguing from a point of practicality but that still doesn't negate that an absolute statement of all knowing knowledge "there is only one" is not even science. that's not even speculation, that's just dogmatic presumption.

 

Birch:
Do you actually read what I type.

It addressed the OP.

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
"The theory has yet to make testable experimental predictions, which a theory must do in order to be considered a part of science."

Guess I better throw my BSc in the bin.

Please start using your shift key. A sentence starts with a capital. (Sorry mod just trying to educate.)