A recent New Scientist had an article on a "void" in the universe that
may be a point of contact with another universe.

These days multiple universes are postulated with great ease. They are
ubiquitous.

Even if multiple universes are infinite in number, we surely need a
word for the totality of universes that (may perhaps) exist. The word
universe is already taken. So what should we call the set of set of
all universes that (may perhaps) exist?

Lance

Lance wrote:
> A recent New Scientist had an article on a "void" in the universe that
> may be a point of contact with another universe.
> 
> These days multiple universes are postulated with great ease. They are
> ubiquitous.
> 
> Even if multiple universes are infinite in number, we surely need a
> word for the totality of universes that (may perhaps) exist. The word
> universe is already taken. So what should we call the set of set of
> all universes that (may perhaps) exist?
> 
I think that universe is being misused. If something is an any way 
accessible physically then it is in the same universe (even if it isn't 
it might still be).

I've heard the term 'multiverse' used, but it seems ugly and contrived.

Rather, it'd be better, I think, to have a name for the apparently 
self-contained entities that people have thought were the universe. 
Sub-universes might be a term.

Alternatively it could be like networks. A network of networks is just a 
network. Years ago somebody tried to introduce the ridiculous term 
'catanet' to describe a concatenation of networks.

Lance wrote:
> A recent New Scientist had an article on a "void" in the universe that
> may be a point of contact with another universe.
>
> These days multiple universes are postulated with great ease. They are
> ubiquitous.
>
> Even if multiple universes are infinite in number, we surely need a
> word for the totality of universes that (may perhaps) exist. The word
> universe is already taken. So what should we call the set of set of
> all universes that (may perhaps) exist?
>
> Lance


A multiple universe situation is nothing new: The Milky Way was once
regarded as the whole of natural reality. Although Kant had speculated
back in the mid-1700s that certain nebulae might actually be "other
universes", this wasn't confirmed until the 1920s. A sci-fi writer
even wrote a serialized novel at that time about intergalactic warfare
called "Outside The Universe" (outside the Milky Way).

Because a plural version of the word seemed contradictory to its
definition, talk of millions of "galaxies" soon replaced the talk of
millions of universes. But the current establishment has had little
desire to abandon "universe" as the label for our set of galaxies--as
they did so for our set of stars (Milky Way)--so we're stuck with
these "meta-universe" variations.

Since this scenario has happened before, I've always been puzzled by
the overly hostile reaction to "many universes" in recent decades, as
if discovering existence to be larger than we ever imagined was
unprecendented and ridiculous. Apparently Kuhn's attempt to restore
the historical background of science (after logical empiricism's
idealized reformulation of it) didn't quite augment or refresh the
memories of some "authorities".

......

almost Budapest wrote:
> 
> 
> Since this scenario has happened before, I've always been puzzled by
> the overly hostile reaction to "many universes" in recent decades, as
> if discovering existence to be larger than we ever imagined was
> unprecendented and ridiculous. Apparently Kuhn's attempt to restore
> the historical background of science (after logical empiricism's
> idealized reformulation of it) didn't quite augment or refresh the
> memories of some "authorities".
> 
The confusion comes because of the difference between the universe, 
which contains everything, and the observable universe that only 
contains things that we can, in principle, see. Looking it up, 
wikipaedia has it that the cosmic light horizon is about 46.5 milliard 
light-years away.

Now the actual universe may well be bigger than that.

Still, the problem with the multi-universe idea - that every event that 
could happen in more than one way leads to more than one universe being 
created is that all these must be mutually unknowable for the idea to 
make sense. So they might as well not be there.

If you then start saying that there are bridges between these separate 
'universes' it is saying that the universe is considerably bigger than 
the physical cosmic light horizon point would suggest. Instead of having 
a universe of ~10^80 m^3, we'd have it that size multiplied by all the 
events that have taken place. Which is hugely bigger, to be understated 
about it.

Still, as I've said, I think that the point is that, if these other 
sub-universes exist, then the proper name for the entire collection is 
still the univers - which is, I think, your point.

On 3 Dec, 09:26, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> Lance wrote:
> > A recent New Scientist had an article on a "void" in the universe that
> > may be a point of contact with another universe.
>
> > These days multiple universes are postulated with great ease. They are
> > ubiquitous.
>
> > Even if multiple universes are infinite in number, we surely need a
> > word for the totality of universes that (may perhaps) exist. The word
> > universe is already taken. So what should we call the set of set of
> > all universes that (may perhaps) exist?
>
> I think that universe is being misused. If something is an any way
> accessible physically then it is in the same universe

That's like saying the notion of mother and child is not useful, the
child
is part of the mother so call them both mother.

In quantum multiverses you have one universe which can the 'mother' to
a host of child universes. How would you express that idea by
outlawing the term 'multiverse'.

By the way, the term 'multiverse' is being used everywhere so that
*is* the answer to the original question.

> I've heard the term 'multiverse' used, but it seems ugly and contrived.

It seems fine to me, and gives an immeadiate impression of the concept
that is being put across.

> Rather, it'd be better, I think, to have a name for the apparently
> self-contained entities that people have thought were the universe.
> Sub-universes might be a term.

That's awkward, we only know for sure that there is our universe --
multiverse theories have not been experimentally confirmed-- so it
seems awkward to call the only definite universe we really know about
a sub-universe.

> Alternatively it could be like networks. A network of networks is just a
> network. Years ago somebody tried to introduce the ridiculous term
> 'catanet' to describe a concatenation of networks.

But our universe is not a network of universes.

Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> almost Budapest wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since this scenario has happened before, I've always been puzzled by
> > the overly hostile reaction to "many universes" in recent decades, as
> > if discovering existence to be larger than we ever imagined was
> > unprecendented and ridiculous. Apparently Kuhn's attempt to restore
> > the historical background of science (after logical empiricism's
> > idealized reformulation of it) didn't quite augment or refresh the
> > memories of some "authorities".
> >
> The confusion comes because of the difference between the universe,
> which contains everything, and the observable universe that only
> contains things that we can, in principle, see. Looking it up,
> wikipaedia has it that the cosmic light horizon is about 46.5 milliard
> light-years away.
>
> Now the actual universe may well be bigger than that.
>
> Still, the problem with the multi-universe idea - that every event that
> could happen in more than one way leads to more than one universe being
> created is that all these must be mutually unknowable for the idea to
> make sense. So they might as well not be there.
>
> If you then start saying that there are bridges between these separate
> 'universes' it is saying that the universe is considerably bigger than
> the physical cosmic light horizon point would suggest. Instead of having
> a universe of ~10^80 m^3, we'd have it that size multiplied by all the
> events that have taken place. Which is hugely bigger, to be understated
> about it.
>
> Still, as I've said, I think that the point is that, if these other
> sub-universes exist, then the proper name for the entire collection is
> still the univers - which is, I think, Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> almost Budapest wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since this scenario has happened before, I've always been puzzled by
> > the overly hostile reaction to "many universes" in recent decades, as
> > if discovering existence to be larger than we ever imagined was
> > unprecendented and ridiculous. Apparently Kuhn's attempt to restore
> > the historical background of science (after logical empiricism's
> > idealized reformulation of it) didn't quite augment or refresh the
> > memories of some "authorities".
> >
> The confusion comes because of the difference between the universe,
> which contains everything, and the observable universe that only
> contains things that we can, in principle, see. Looking it up,
> wikipaedia has it that the cosmic light horizon is about 46.5 milliard
> light-years away.
>
> Now the actual universe may well be bigger than that.
>
> Still, the problem with the multi-universe idea - that every event that
> could happen in more than one way leads to more than one universe being
> created is that all these must be mutually unknowable for the idea to
> make sense. So they might as well not be there.
>
> If you then start saying that there are bridges between these separate
> 'universes' it is saying that the universe is considerably bigger than
> the physical cosmic light horizon point would suggest. Instead of having
> a universe of ~10^80 m^3, we'd have it that size multiplied by all the
> events that have taken place. Which is hugely bigger, to be understated
> about it.
>


My apologies. I meant that to refer to hostility or guffaws over the
very "possibility" of discovering such, but upon re-reading it now it
is clear that I neglected to restore that intent after I deleted the
original paragraph (and then decided to mention it, after all).

And my choice of "many universes" creates confusion because the
Everett interpretation and Deustch's version (mulitverse) are often
called "many worlds". Perhaps that's also the kind of "multiple
universes" that the New Scientist article concerned (which I haven't
read yet), whereas a trio of "parallel universe" scenarios that Max
Tegmark once covered in an essay was what was rattling about in my
mind (additionally, any kind that seems to spring from M-theory).

> Still, as I've said, I think that the point is that, if these other
> sub-universes exist, then the proper name for the entire collection is
> still the univers - which is, I think, your point.


Yes, and I should have stuck with the impulse to go back and stop
there; rather than obscuring matters in a hasty re-write of that
paragraph. :-)

.......

Paul Grieg wrote:
> 
> 
> That's awkward, we only know for sure that there is our universe --
> multiverse theories have not been experimentally confirmed-- so it
> seems awkward to call the only definite universe we really know about
> a sub-universe.
 >
Some might question how definite it is and how much we really know about 
it, but I agree, since a universe of universes is still a universe, I'm 
quite happy, myself, with the term universe.
> 
>> Alternatively it could be like networks. A network of networks is just a
>> network. Years ago somebody tried to introduce the ridiculous term
>> 'catanet' to describe a concatenation of networks.
> 
> But our universe is not a network of universes.
> 
No, but it might be a universe of universes.

almost Budapest wrote:
> Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> > almost Budapest wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Since this scenario has happened before, I've always been puzzled by
> > > the overly hostile reaction to "many universes" in recent decades, as
> > > if discovering existence to be larger than we ever imagined was
> > > unprecendented and ridiculous. Apparently Kuhn's attempt to restore
> > > the historical background of science (after logical empiricism's
> > > idealized reformulation of it) didn't quite augment or refresh the
> > > memories of some "authorities".
> > >
> > The confusion comes because of the difference between the universe,
> > which contains everything, and the observable universe that only
> > contains things that we can, in principle, see. Looking it up,
> > wikipaedia has it that the cosmic light horizon is about 46.5 milliard
> > light-years away.
> >
> > Now the actual universe may well be bigger than that.
> >
> > Still, the problem with the multi-universe idea - that every event that
> > could happen in more than one way leads to more than one universe being
> > created is that all these must be mutually unknowable for the idea to
> > make sense. So they might as well not be there.
> >
> > If you then start saying that there are bridges between these separate
> > 'universes' it is saying that the universe is considerably bigger than
> > the physical cosmic light horizon point would suggest. Instead of having
> > a universe of ~10^80 m^3, we'd have it that size multiplied by all the
> > events that have taken place. Which is hugely bigger, to be understated
> > about it.
> >
> > Still, as I've said, I think that the point is that, if these other
> > sub-universes exist, then the proper name for the entire collection is
> > still the univers - which is, I think, Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> > almost Budapest wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Since this scenario has happened before, I've always been puzzled by
> > > the overly hostile reaction to "many universes" in recent decades, as
> > > if discovering existence to be larger than we ever imagined was
> > > unprecendented and ridiculous. Apparently Kuhn's attempt to restore
> > > the historical background of science (after logical empiricism's
> > > idealized reformulation of it) didn't quite augment or refresh the
> > > memories of some "authorities".
> > >
> > The confusion comes because of the difference between the universe,
> > which contains everything, and the observable universe that only
> > contains things that we can, in principle, see. Looking it up,
> > wikipaedia has it that the cosmic light horizon is about 46.5 milliard
> > light-years away.
> >
> > Now the actual universe may well be bigger than that.
> >
> > Still, the problem with the multi-universe idea - that every event that
> > could happen in more than one way leads to more than one universe being
> > created is that all these must be mutually unknowable for the idea to
> > make sense. So they might as well not be there.
> >
> > If you then start saying that there are bridges between these separate
> > 'universes' it is saying that the universe is considerably bigger than
> > the physical cosmic light horizon point would suggest. Instead of having
> > a universe of ~10^80 m^3, we'd have it that size multiplied by all the
> > events that have taken place. Which is hugely bigger, to be understated
> > about it.
> >
>
>
> My apologies. I meant that to refer to hostility or guffaws over the
> very "possibility" of discovering such, but upon re-reading it now it
> is clear that I neglected to restore that intent after I deleted the
> original paragraph (and then decided to mention it, after all).
>
> And my choice of "many universes" creates confusion because the
> Everett interpretation and Deustch's version (mulitverse) are often
> called "many worlds". Perhaps that's also the kind of "multiple
> universes" that the New Scientist article concerned (which I haven't
> read yet), whereas a trio of "parallel universe" scenarios that Max
> Tegmark once covered in an essay was what was rattling about in my
> mind (additionally, any kind that seems to spring from M-theory).
>
> > Still, as I've said, I think that the point is that, if these other
> > sub-universes exist, then the proper name for the entire collection is
> > still the univers - which is, I think, your point.
>
>
> Yes, and I should have stuck with the impulse to go back and stop
> there; rather than obscuring matters in a hasty re-write of that
> paragraph. :-)
>
> .......

For me "universe" means "The totality of all existing things" even if
those things are not accessible to us.

So I rather like using the word "World" to describe self-containined
universes, and would prefer people to use universe instead of
multiverse for the totality of things. But it won't work out like
that, I'm sure.

Thanks for the posts!

Lance

Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> Lance wrote:
> > A recent New Scientist had an article on a "void" in the universe that
> > may be a point of contact with another universe.
> >
> > These days multiple universes are postulated with great ease. They are
> > ubiquitous.
> >
> > Even if multiple universes are infinite in number, we surely need a
> > word for the totality of universes that (may perhaps) exist. The word
> > universe is already taken. So what should we call the set of set of
> > all universes that (may perhaps) exist?
> >
> I think that universe is being misused. If something is an any way
> accessible physically then it is in the same universe (even if it isn't
> it might still be).
>
> I've heard the term 'multiverse' used, but it seems ugly and contrived.
>
> Rather, it'd be better, I think, to have a name for the apparently
> self-contained entities that people have thought were the universe.
> Sub-universes might be a term.
>
> Alternatively it could be like networks. A network of networks is just a
> network. Years ago somebody tried to introduce the ridiculous term
> 'catanet' to describe a concatenation of networks.

I agree with you about the word universe.

Catanet sounds a bit catatonic to me...

Lance

> For me "universe" means "The totality of all existing things" even if
> those things are not accessible to us.

Then you will misunderstand many papers in modern cosmology. You
need to glean the meaning of "universe" from the context in which it
is
used.

It's common to say 'our universe' to show we are not (necessarily)
talking about "the totality of all existing things".

> So I rather like using the word "World" to describe self-containined
> universes.

You are free, of course, to like old-fashioned, superseded
terminology. But don't try using it in serious cosmological
discussions! Using "world", now, for universe would be like using
"nebula" for galaxy. That is, just wrong.

> and would prefer people to use universe instead of
> multiverse for the totality of things. But it won't work out like
> that, I'm sure.

It might work out that way in a few decades, who knows, but then we
would need a new name for our bit of the universe.

On Dec 5, 9:19 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> > For me "universe" means "The totality of all existing things" even if
> > those things are not accessible to us.
>
> Then you will misunderstand many papers in modern cosmology. You
> need to glean the meaning of "universe" from the context in which it
> is
> used.

I am not sure I understand you. Do you mean teh word changes meaning
in different contexts? Do you mean that it is used like statisticians
use "population" - to define what we are talking about? If the latter,
then I don't think your remark is true. If a statistician says they
are interested in the population of eligible voters in the upcoing USA
elections, then this definition stops all comparisons with other
populations. So 43% of the population will vote X and 23% will vote Y
excludes comparisons with non-voters. The word "universe" in contrast
seems always to be used in relation to other hypothesized universes.
If a physicist is juts talking about Newton's laws (say) there is no
need to use the word universe at all. But if he wants to say that the
fundamental constants may be differ from one universe to the next
there is a clear comparison across universes. So I don't think
"universe" is used like "population" is used by statisticians.
>
> It's common to say 'our universe' to show we are not (necessarily)
> talking about "the totality of all existing things".

Well it is not even certain that we are still in the same universe ten
minites after a physicist has made a pronouncement about our universe.
If the universe splits everytime a quantum inderminism is resolved
then how can we be sure that our universe is still teh same as the one
pronounced on by the physicist?
>
> > So I rather like using the word "World" to describe self-containined
> > universes.
>
> You are free, of course, to like old-fashioned, superseded
> terminology. But don't try using it in serious cosmological
> discussions! Using "world", now, for universe would be like using
> "nebula" for galaxy. That is, just wrong.

Ah, the old authoritarianism rears its head.

>
> > and would prefer people to use universe instead of
> > multiverse for the totality of things. But it won't work out like
> > that, I'm sure.
>
> It might work out that way in a few decades, who knows, but then we
> would need a new name for our bit of the universe.

Now its a bit, is it?

Lance