Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ReverendJames
Well then there is no such thing as a uni-verse.

You are right unless we define 'universe' as everything that is. Then what we have until now thought of as the universe is just a sub-component of the actual universe and it needs a different name.

Of course the more the definition of 'universe' is stretched the less it means. If we add 'everything that was' and 'everything that will be' to 'everything that is' to the definition of 'universe' it becomes less and less quantifiable. Add 'everything that never was and never will be' (why not? isn't the universe 'everything?') and 'universe' becomes something that is impossible to ever measure, mentally picture or understand.

I simultaneously love and hate these mental conundrums. ;^)

54 posted on 12/18/2010 7:17:19 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: TigersEye

To me just the word “uni” designates an individual thing.


63 posted on 12/18/2010 8:54:34 PM PST by ReverendJames (Only A Lawyer And A Painter Can Change Black Into White)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson