Universe and universes - some conformity please.

[Catastrophe]

Many of us are familiar on when it is appropriate to use a capital U or small u. Korzybski (Science and Sanity) clearly teaches that "the map is not the territory". Some find it easier to understand "the menu is not the meal". The words are not the reality they may purport to describe.

According to the "Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy" 2nd Edition Revised 2012:

Universe. Everything that exists, including including space, time, and matter. . . . . . . Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe, with a capital 'U', meaning the cosmos, and all its contents, and universe(s) with a small 'u', which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory. . . . . . .

I would prefer to give the following example of a universe. An observable universe (as per this example) is that part of the Universe observable by an individual (or other intelligent entity). As we know, limitations on how much of the Universe can be observed by any observer (from the relevant locality) vary with location. Limitations are also imposed or assisted by our means of observation. For example, telescopes allow observation of more distant objects. Means of observation are also permitting changes in observable universes. For example, visible wavelengths (limited by our eyesight) are being extended to include X-rays, IR, UV and so on. Science is allowing observable wavelengths to be extended by the ability to receive information beyond the visible by providing the necessary equipment.

It is important to understand that our perceptions of the Universe, our views of observable universes, will continue to expand as science provides us with improved equipment.

The early years of the new millenium promise to be a period of intense excitement, with experiments set to probe the microwave background in finer detail, and powerful optical telescopes mapping the distribution of galaxies out to greater distances. Who can say what theoretical ideas will be advanced in the light of new observations.

The icon critical dictionary of The New Cosmology, Ed. Peter Coles, Icon Books 1998.

I have, myself, been guilty of lapsing in to this terminological inexactitude, but will do my best in future to comply, and hope that we might all try to set an example, for science's sake. Failure to do so can perpetuate unnecessary misunderstandings. It is clearly not good to see questions posted asking "if the universe is all there is, how can there be more than one?" And does this "The concept of a multiverse suggests that our universe is just one of many universes, each with its own physical laws. These universes could exist in a vast cosmic landscape, beyond our observational reach" actually mean anything in reality? Observable universes - yes - but as for the rest???

There is an excellent entry in Wikipedia under observable universe, small parts of which read as follows:

The observable universe is a ball-shaped region of the universe comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes and exploratory probes at the present time; the electromagnetic radiation from these objects has had time to reach the Solar System and Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion

Cat comment: Of course, there is no reason why the above comment should be restricted to the immediate Earth environs.

Are parallel universes actually real?

Any time a quantum (or subatomic) process occurs anywhere in the universe, this wavefunction splits in two, meaning parallel universes are constantly created. But these interpretations have never been shown to be correct, and they have some major weaknesses that prevent them from being widely accepted.2 Jan 2023

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

It is imteresting to follow some consequences of what we have seen referred to as 'multiverse.
I would now understand parallel universe' as nothing more or less than one of a collection of different observable universes. The sum of parallel universes now becomes the Universe itself, since this is the Universe we already know as the sum total of all observable universes.

In fact, we must make a further allowance for the fact some parts of the Universe may not be 'seen' by any observers. Thus, the Universe would still be the total of all there is - whether this is observed by other observers or not.

We can still make unwarranted assumptions about this - such as different laws may apply in those parts of the Universe not subject to known observation. But this is just the same unwarranted assumption referred to above - and equally without meaning.

IF it is to be forever unobservable (due to the speed of light and the expansion of the Universe) then it has no meaning until such observations might become possible - not possible in our present state of knowledge.

Similarly, multiverse would be simply the collection of 'observable' universes - whether or not there were 'observers' at all locations whence observations might be made. Another possible definition might include all possible 'wavelengths' including those not yet discovered These altered definitions would need attention by the appropriate authority, replacing what some might consider unwarranted assumptions or 'guesses'.

Just compare the Oxford Dictionary (as above) entry.
"Multiverse. A collection of universes which some speculative theories suggest could exist.
If true, our own Universe would be only one member of the larger multiverse." It was suggested above that our Universe is the sum total of observable universes. In the following, it is clear that the Universe and its component universes would exhibit the same fundamental constants, leaving nothing to explain. Life appeared under those identical constants Occam's Razor applies."


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Departing from #2:

Just compare the Oxford Dictionary (as above) entry.
"Multiverse. A collection of universes which some speculative theories suggest could exist.
If true, our own Universe would be only one member of the larger multiverse." It was suggested above that our Universe is the sum total of observable universes. In the following, it is clear that the Universe and its component universes would exhibit the same fundamental constants, leaving nothing to explain. Life appeared under those identical constants Occam's Razor applies."

There are obviously differing possible views of observable universes.
Every different conscious being has a different one.
These are (starting with the view from planet Earth) all very similar, in that they are centred on this planet.
However, there will be differences arising from the 'sensory kit' available to different species.
We can see this easily, as different species hear different ranges of sound, and have unequal sensitivities to different electromagnetic wavelengths.

Moving further from Earth, observable universes will have different horizons.
As humans move away from this planet they will experience ever changing new centres of their observable universes.

Moving to a more philosophical viewpoint, it has been suggested from the flatlander analogy, that the view of a higher dimensionally equipped being (hi-D) could perceive what a lower dimensionally equipped being (low-D) sees his entire "universe" as being only a minute item in the "universe" of the higher dimensionally equipped being (hi-D).

Let me just flesh this out a little for any having difficulty with this idea.
The flatlander (put simply) is defined as living within a spherical two dimensional surface, which some might think of roughly speaking, as a bubble.
If the "universe" of such a being were static - not expanding - the being would live out his life as changes in that spherical surface. If expanding, one might imagine the bubble expanding.
A flatlander would only experience this "expansion" as points on the surface of his spherical 22-D "universe" moving further apart. A hi-D observer would see the "radius" of the flatlander "universe" increasing.
Whatever the case, the flatlander's "universe" is represented by this two dimensional spherical surface. Minor differences in the analogy do not materially affect the basic idea.

If we now consider the viewpoint of the hi-D, in this case, it might be human, this observer sees what the flatlander sees as his "universe" (all there is as perceived by him - the flatlander).
In the hi-D "universe" there could be billions of flatlander "universes".

My point is that different beings, depending on their ability to perceive different dimensions, may regard other beings as having multiple "universes", based on their lower perceptions.

Thus, to define any "Universe" as "all there is" must inherently include the capabilities of the observer, and these must be agreed in any discussion - otherwise fruitless noise will be the only result. "Can white noise be made of signals?" as Mark Jacunski wrote.

Words like universe and infinity need great care in discussions, as we will otherwise be trapped in verbal quagmires from which there is no escape.

Thanks, as ever, to Alfred Korzybski.

Cat

 

[promytius]

Well, I suggest an infinite universe can fit any and all versions of a "universe" into itself; multiverse, parallel, higher dimensional, etc. Just to pick a number, I think everything within X billion light years from Earth (X being the largest size proposed less than infinite) is simply a "local" event in an endless expanse of space; infinite and eternal. It is the ultimate logical container, as it does not have a diameter, it (Everything) simply is, always was, and always will be.
An infinite universe allows for as much space as is needed to be called a "universe" by its inhabitants, like Earth, while being a misperception. There can also be an infinite amount of space between that one "universe" and the next closest one.
An infinite universe would include the existence of higher, and alternate, and unknown dimensions, easily allowing for a higher intelligence to view our "universe" as a tiny little bubble, as you suggest.
A non-infinite universe would be a nightmare of unprovable notions.
Time is, I suggest, an eternally valid measurement, and had no beginning and will have no end, in an infinite universe; any noticeable effects on its measurement will be explained by local influences, such as measuring relative extremely high speeds from more than one point, etc.
I'm not a PhD, just a retiree, with a lot of time on his hands, and I'm always looking up.

 

[Catastrophe]

OK, I am a scientist and 85 year old retiree. I understand the problems if you don't have a scientific background (or have I misunderstood you - in which case - apologies).
If so, you are not really at that much of a disadvantage, as we have very few facts to work with.
It is more a matter of thought progression. Not thinking of an idea and then clothing it with detail. Please do not think I am being critical or disparaging - it is just a matter of how each of us put ideas together. By all means criticise my approach as we go along. It will only go to help understanding.

If I can make one comment, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is that you seem to be looking as if from the outside - in, saying such things as universes being inside a bigger universe. Now I know I said just this in the context of the flatlander analogy, but I came to it looking outwards from where we are.

First the analogy, then the idea that a 'higher dimensional being' would see flatlanders as each thinking they inhabited their own "all there is" universe, then the jump to the there being any number of "flatland universes" for beings having to exist with lower levels of dimensional awareness. Do you see what I mean? This 'inside outwards' approach follows our development from flat Earth resting on the backs of a succession of turtles, to ball shaped Earth, to development through Solar System, to Galaxy, to galaxies, and so on. Maybe it doesn't matter!

Anyway I look forward to hearing as to whether this makes any sense, and/or is helpful or not.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Promytius,
Start with this:

Menger sponge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then work backward through the 2-dimensional, the 1-dimensional, and so on. Look up videos on them on YouTube. Finally settle down to the eventually infinitely broad and infinitely deep (looking) Flatland infinities of the 'Mandelbrot Set', the description and the videos on YouTube and elsewhere. You want the idea of infinite, infinitesimal, infinities, inside and outside of finites (Set of Universe (U) and sets of universes (u)), you'll get it before you are done.

 

[Catastrophe]

I suggest an infinite universe can fit any and all versions of a "universe" into itself;

Of course, this is quite correct only as long as you restrict the definition of "universe" to "all there is according only to a particular subset of beings, as their observable universe governed by their location and limited means of observation".

You obviously understood this by placing "universe" in quotes.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Promytius,
Did you go where I recommended you go? Do you understand that by dealing in the infinitesimal dimensionality you automatically deal in the infinite dimensionality? Did you see that by never even approaching zero as you went into the infinitesimal -- thus the infinite -- you dealt in infinite '0'-dimensionality, and via all that never ending fractality, you dealt in the infinite dimensions of an infinite multi-dimensionality: The 0-d / 1-d Cantor Set, the 1-d / 2-d Sierpinski Carpet. the 2-d / 3-d Menger Sponge, on and on to dimensional infinity . . . yet flatly setting and resetting to fundamental binary base2 '0' and '1' like what your information systems cyberspace is based on...?

Finite is relative. Infinite/infinitesimal is not. As you said, you can fit the first into the second. But what you didn't realize is that you can fit the second into the first! Look up the "Schrodinger Cat" (like the cat in Alice's Wonderland, the cat that is and isn't)!

By the way, ((+1) (-1)) = 1/0. You'll get that as an output, a result, at the LHC at CERN: in the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) of 'Creation': more than likely in blackholes and centers of power mad stars, too, but unlikely anywhere else . . . I suppose. It makes infinite density, an infinitely dense singularity, a flat impossibility. Just so you know.