From: Mark D. Fulwiler (mfulwiler@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Jan 12 1998 - 14:27:11 MST
Hal Finney <hal@rain.org> wrote:
> > Since the Universe, by definition, includes everything there is, there
> > cannot logically be any "thing" else to explain it. The Universe is the
> > result of a quantum fluctuation from nothing.
> >
> > Mark Fulwiler
> There is a terminology problem here. Sometimes we use the term
> "universe" to refer not to everything there is, but rather to the full
> four-dimensional space-time structure we see around us. Using this
> terminology there could be other universes, and in fact we read about
> "baby universes", "basement universes", etc. Sometimes people then use
> terms like "multiverse" or "omniverse" or other coinages to refer to
> the collection of all the universes.
>
> If you want to reserve "universe" to mean all that there is, then you
> need to suggest a word for the four-dimensional space-time where we live.
>
> Hal
The problem with these multiple universe theories is that I know of no way they
could be proven. And something that cannot be proven is totally irrelevant.
Therefore, I assume that the "universe" and the four dimensional space-time we live
in are one and the same. However, whether everything there is includes other
universes or just the one we can observe, the fact remains that the universe or
universes are/is the result of (a) quantum fluctuation(s).
Mark Fulwiler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:26 MST