If someone starts talking about “The Universe”, what would you assume they’re talking about? If you start talking about “The Universe”, can you clarify the boundaries of what you’re talking about?
There are nowadays many confusing elements to the idea including the idea of the ‘multiverse’, which is that the observable Universe is but one of a possible infinity of other universes, which may have entirely different physics and so not even be comprehensible to us.
But leaving that aside, the current mainstream cosmology of a single universe originating from the primeval singularity known in popular literature as ‘the Big Bang’ seems at least a coherent idea to me, with my layman’s grasp of the terminology.
In philosophical discussions I’m often inclined to use ‘universe’ interchangeably with ‘world’ to denote ‘the totality of empirical experience.’ Although again, the modern scientific vision of the Universe is literally unthinkabe - I defy anyone to form an adequate conception of ‘13 billion light years’.
The current Artemis mission has taken humans further from earth than they have ever previously been, but it’s a fraction of a hair’s breadth compared to a light year. Let alone 13 billion of them.
2 Likes
Yes, I think this varies, so one probably needs to define terms when entering these kinds of discussions. It is a bit like the idea of “reality”, which can refer to a supposed objective reality or to a more Kantian and constrained account: that which we can apprehend and makes some kind of sense to us
When I talk about it, I mean the physical entity that emerged from the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago. As I understand it there is no evidence that anything beyond that exists, although there is speculation.
To me it’s the celestial bodies (without people and animals: without observers) bound by gravity. So, when I say the universe, I don’t necessarily talk philosophically.
In philosophy, we don’t say “the universe” to mean reality and existence – we say “the world”.
So what do you, or other people, mean in a philosophical context when they say “the universe”?
Universe refers to the totality of being, all there is. The universe spans a vast scale from the quantum where gravity is practically nonexistent and uncertainty rules to the galactic clusters where gravity dominates and certainty is assured. Like an ouroboros the large and the small unite in as of now imaginary quantum gravity.
Like the word “entertainment”, the word “universe” has expanded in scope. At one point in history entertainment meant drinking large volumes of alcohol and its natural sequelae; the same with universe. Some have tried to invent new words, like “multiverse” for example, as acknowledgement.
However, certain idiosyncratic usages of “universe” occur in natural conversation e.g. one encounters “universe of discourse”, although I prefer the more standard, “domain of discourse”.
At first you say it refers to the totality of all there is, which I get, okay. Then you make reference to the physical laws in this place we find ourselves. So that begets a question:
Suppose there’s something that exists, that we don’t know about because we can’t interact with it, that is completely separate from this place we find ourselves in, completely separate from the physical laws that govern this place, completely separate from this “cosmos” if you will. That’s still part of the universe?
That’s interesting. Ietsism is right up your alley then.
1 Like
The question was about your understanding of the word universe.
Well, that’s the way I understand “universe”. As all there is. What seems to be problematic with this definition? We seem to be getting on fine with it.
Nothing, I just asked you a question that you don’t seem to want to answer 
We seem to be getting on fine with it.
Who?
I am answering. You wanted to know about the universe. I gave you quite a good answer, given what an average Joe like me can muster.
I also suggested ietsism as a view compatible with things we can’t “interact with” but exist (???).
What else can I offer?
Perhaps an etymology search will be illuminating.
It appears that you’re not happy with the definition I provided. I have to admit, “universe” is used quite differently in physics than in philosophy, despite the latter bending over backwards for the former. I just watched a Ms. Universe video yesterday and I know there’s a Mr. Universe bodybuilding competition. The word “universe” has multiple meanings. How do we select one?
Well I asked a yes or no question, so you can offer a yes or a no.
The definition you gave at first implied the answer was yes, but then you added some detail to it that kind of implies the answer might be no, so I’ve tried asking you explicitly, and instead of saying yes or no you give me words that are compatible with various things - I’m not asking for compatible words silly goose, I’m asking for a yes or no.
It’s not a trick question.
As far as I know, most people mean one of two things by “universe”.
- EVERYTHING that exists
- This particular “cosmos”, if you will, that we inhabit.
Now of course for people who mean #2, they leave open the possibility that there may be other cosmoses, and so when they say ‘universe’, they mean THIS cosmos and not those other ones.
So at first @Delirium you seem to be aligning with #1, “Universe refers to the totality of being, all there is.” Which is a fine answer.
But then you say, “The universe spans a vast scale from the quantum where gravity is practically nonexistent and uncertainty rules to the galactic clusters where gravity dominates and certainty is assured.” which kind of makes me think you’re leaning towards definition #2, maybe? Hard to tell. Hence the yes-or-no question I’ve tried asking you.
@FlannelJesus a yes/no question? I read this as a free-flow convo. Yes/No would be very counterproductive to your effort.
Please re-read my definition of “universe” and the mention I made of the multiverse. The multiverse is simply many universes, yes? The Devil though is in the details. I haven’t explored the idea enough to be of use to you on this front.
By the way these are advanced topics and what popular scientists dumb down for us is going to be very cartoonish. Have you wacthed Aladeen? Ncleaur Nadal figures out Admiral General Aladeen gets his physics from the Looney Tunes.
I encountered the multiverse in my theistic-atheistic pursuits, as a counterweight to the FTA. I do recall, very vaguely, unfortunately, that these universes are distinct, stablely so. Nothing much to do there.
I don’t think so, but it doesn’t seem like you want to just give a straightforward answer to clarify XD. That’s definitely counterproductive. Nevermind.
@Wayfarer a fair account of the concept. 
I did some etymology search and Google says uni-verse = one-turned (combined into one). I was close when I said that it meant the totality of being, all there is.
We marvel at the vivid pictures the HST and now the JWST sends back, but these props for furthering the scientific agenda hide a sad truth, to wit that the universe is 99.99\% a cold, dark, empty void. That is what I meant in my post in the We Create Reality Together, when I said life is insignificant and the Strum and Dang about subjectivity is most inappropriate. That said, we’ve barely scratched the surface in fields such as neuroscience and philosophy of mind and consciousness.
“Whether the universe is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation [Vacchagotta] remains the same.” ~ Siddhartha Gautama
@FlannelJesus have you heard of the Simon Singh-Katie Melua incident (9 million bicycles in Beijing)?
1 Like
No I haven’t.
I think it’s interesting that you think wayfairers account is good, when he gave what appears to be the alternative definition to what you gave. His definition was the “this cosmos” definition, while yours was the “everything that exists” definition. My yes or no question is as pertinent as ever, and I do wish you’d answer it.
Google etymology for “universe”. Quite informative, except Google seems to be flippant about the subject.
I’m happy to accept “this particular cosmos” we populate as what “universe” refers to. Could there be, as Wayfarer mentions, other cosmoses; this is what the multiverse is. The multiverse is a multiplicity of cosmoses/universes, each possibly with different physics. I don’t have the credentials to elaborate further.