Of course, any "form of existence/section of reality" is *something*. So my original point stands, regardless of semantic dispute over the term 'universe'

 Reply

Then I must additionally dispute your idea of definitions then. A definition identifies the fundamental characteristics of something. It does not include every aspect of a thing - known or unknown. For instance, the definition of "man" is 'rational animal'. Now, there are certainly many things which are unknown about man. But they are still *all* subsumed under that definition. The same thing is true of "universe". It is "all that exists". Now, there are certainly many things which are unknown about the universe. But those unknowns are still *all* subsumed under that definition.

"you can't simply say that "oh this is this way" when nobody can prove it."

I can say "existence exists" and "only existence exists". And those are easily proved via direct perception. If you claim otherwise, you have quite a lot to prove and literally *nothing* with which to prove it.

Have at it. :D

 Reply

This is incorrect. It is all that exists - *period*. No qualifiers.

"for the purposes of an observer situated in this particular existence, this place we are in is "the Universe", and there are theories that say that on a quantum level, something can in fact come out of nothing."

This place in the universe is something. Other places in the universe are something. So something (in this part of the universe) can indeed come from something (in another part of the universe). But something (anything in any part of the universe) cannot come from nothing (no part of anything).

Again, if you claim otherwise, you must point to this 'nothingness' (an impossibility) and show that it *exists* (a contradiction). And then you must *prove* it exists, which requires reference to it - ie *evidence* of it. Of course, since nothingness is the absence of *any* thing, and proof is reference to *some* thing, you will *never* be able to prove your claim. It will *always* remain an absurdity because it violates the fundamental law of reality - the law of identity (which is also the foundational law of logic). Any claim about the existence of nothingness is literally senseless. It is the epitome of irrationality. Which is why, as I said at the beginning, any claim about the existence of nothingness has all the intellectual weight of the creation myth - ie *none* at all.

If you want to make a claim to the contrary, you have a lot to do and absolutely nothing with which to do it.

Good luck on that. :)

 Reply

Not worth remembering at all, because there is no such thing as "outside the universe". There is *only* the universe, which is *everything*. That means if you discover something, it is part of the universe. Talk about stuff "outside" the universe is nonsensical. There simply is no "outside" everything.

If you want to make up terms to describe certain types of things or groupings of things which exist, go right ahead. But there is only one concept which identifies "all that exists" and that is "universe". To speak of multiple universes is an absurd contradiction of terms.

 Reply