"Uni"verse is impossible.

S

seekeroftheway

Let go your conscious self...
Registered Senior Member
Uni, the prefix meaning one, and "verse", meaning section, means, simply, one level of existence.

This is the universe.

Well, that's false, isn't it? How can there possibly be only one level of existence? I mean, even if you're Christian, "Uni"verse is impossible, because of Heaven and Hell.

While perhaps this is "a" Universe, it is merely a speck in a gargantuan, infathomable system of "poly"verses, just as our planet is a speck in our "Uni"verse, no?
 
i agree with you totaly,

but leave heaven and hell and christians out of this please!!! people will just debunk this so fast because of that little word religion,


peace :)
 
That's why it's here and not in the religion section. If we get a fanatic, hell, an ARMY of fanatic God fearing people, they can shove their preaching up their ass, that's not what this thread is for.
 
this topic has been well discussed in a thread "the universe is all that exists"

the general theme is that whatever exists on any level acorss multi dimensions is of the one existence, all of life sings "one song" whatever is is the universe.
 
seekeroftheway said:
That's why it's here and not in the religion section. If we get a fanatic, hell, an ARMY of fanatic God fearing people, they can shove their preaching up their ass, that's not what this thread is for.
Click to expand...


understood,

but people who are not religious will use your religious mention against you to conflict with your argument, and will easily debunk your argument just because you said the R word,


just trying to help, sorry if i didnt,

peace.
 
seekeroftheway said:
Well, I disagree with that, so new thread...
Click to expand...
what do you disagree with?

anyway i am all for a new thread and i am not athiest so not going to disparage everything you say just because you mention G*D or say the R word
 
noahfor said:
In what way do you disagree? Can you give an example of a different level of existence?
Click to expand...
the thing with it is even if it is ona different level it is still existing and therefore part of the whole. if it exists it is part of the universe.
 
ellion said:
the thing with it is even if it is ona different level it is still existing and therefore part of the whole. if it exists it is part of the universe.
Click to expand...

I was thinking maybe he or she was able to comprehend a different type of existence, which would seperate it from the whole you are speaking about. Of course, I'm pretty skeptical, but unless you can show how one type of existence is somehow fundamentally different than another, then this is just an argument about the meaning of the word.

In one definition the term Universe transcends spatial and dimensional differences, maybe even differences in physical laws, and in the other it doesn't, something like that.
 
all interactions affect all other interactions such that there is no way to section off parts of the universe. the universe may be infinite, but the relationships within it will still affect each other. so there really is no way to say that there isn't a universe. even if we can't see outside of what we call the universe, if there is an outside, then it is part of the universe as well.
 
I don't know. I can imagine a Universe that can never be affected by what happens in this Universe. Are they the same Universe? In that they both exist, yes, they are.

But where is it? It's nowhere, and yet it still exists. So then where are we to it? We're nowhere.
 
I disagree with it in the sense that "Universe" strikes me as this PHYSICAL realm. Not all realms on whatever level of existence, but just this particular physical realm, existing alongside other, how shall we say, "parallel dimensions" or "universes", therefor there are multiple universes and hence a polyverse.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
understood,

but people who are not religious will use your religious mention against you to conflict with your argument, and will easily debunk your argument just because you said the R word,


just trying to help, sorry if i didnt,

peace.
Click to expand...


Try to debunk, we here are actually trying to have a conversation, it's easy enough to ignore them.

Kinda like on the Star Wars v Star Trek argument in Sci fi, around page 100 they just started ignoring mars13 because he kept making up crap about star wars to try and support his own argument, and most of his info (all of his star wars info) was false.
 
As it seems to happen a lot on these forums, the original post has been misconstrued greatly, seekeroftheway's initial statement was about the impossibility of our 'world's being labeled a 'uni'verse due to the root words, but does that matter? There have been a multitude of mistakes in the languages of today, yesterday and we'll see about the future. Call it what you must, but the as long as your projected audience can understand what you are referring to, then you're set.

We can call it a "massive banana" from now on and as long as people are familiar with the term, its all relative and the meaning coincides with the objective: to label.
 
But, to add, I did enjoy the direction it went, the conversation that is and the above post was not bashing or as you call a "debunk" :D
 
seekeroftheway said:
Uni, the prefix meaning one, and "verse", meaning section, means, simply, one level of existence.

This is the universe.

Well, that's false, isn't it? How can there possibly be only one level of existence? I mean, even if you're Christian, "Uni"verse is impossible, because of Heaven and Hell.

While perhaps this is "a" Universe, it is merely a speck in a gargantuan, infathomable system of "poly"verses, just as our planet is a speck in our "Uni"verse, no?
Click to expand...
Maybe there is not such a thing as "universe".

This is the World.

According to my current understanding there is also a Mental World. Not composed of material things, but of mental things, where things do have shape, form, meaning, but it is absolute in a way.

There are scientists out there that say that there is a universe "for every set of mathematic rules" (or something in that manner).

As if the universes are buildt upon math. Fed upon by logical operations. We would need a factory bigger than the universe for that.

Of course math is in the universe, as it is ultimatly logical (in some way), math is made by us to understand the logical relations that happen between things in the universe.

(so you say that 1+1 exists with or without us, sure but only as an idea (in the mental world) and not as a rule of the universe). There is no 1+1 out there! What is 1 and what is it to add? (talking in a perspective of the universe).
 
Cyperium said:
Maybe there is not such a thing as "universe".

This is the World.

According to my current understanding there is also a Mental World. Not composed of material things, but of mental things, where things do have shape, form, meaning, but it is absolute in a way.

There are scientists out there that say that there is a universe "for every set of mathematic rules" (or something in that manner).

As if the universes are buildt upon math. Fed upon by logical operations. We would need a factory bigger than the universe for that.

Of course math is in the universe, as it is ultimatly logical (in some way), math is made by us to understand the logical relations that happen between things in the universe.

(so you say that 1+1 exists with or without us, sure but only as an idea (in the mental world) and not as a rule of the universe). There is no 1+1 out there! What is 1 and what is it to add? (talking in a perspective of the universe).
Click to expand...

THAT is a very good direction Cyperium, hands down.

Think of math as a tool, think of it only being there to help us understand our discoveries and to help formulate patterns to provide more useful information for furture referance: words are the exact same thing, although the two terms 'math' and 'words' do not seem on the an equal level, they can both be thrown into a 'tools' catagorey and every tool has a problem, for if all of our tools were perfect, then our movements would be 100% efficient and conflict would not exist, but obviously it doesn't work quite like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top