Talk:Multiverse (science)/Archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
needs more work
This article needs more editing work: it is interesting, but there are a number of separate strands here by different voices, all intermingled without much copyediting. -- The Anome 14:19 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
An anonymous user pasted the OED definition, which notes that the word was invented at least as far back as 1895, not 1960. I removed this from the article, as pasting the OED definition is a copyright violation, but this should be addressed. --Delirium 05:20, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is this article not only viciously POV but full of unverifiable theories that appear to be the work of cranks? I tried to clean up some of it, but the only legitimate part appears to be the intro and the part on multiverses in fiction. I think a good physicist should really look over the text here. Derrick Coetzee 00:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ideas for classifications ?
There are many multiverse theories: I would like to propose the following classification. If no objections or better ideas, I'll restructure the article accordingly in a week or 2.
- Scientific theories: theories that fit the observations data and have the ambition to make testable predictions. To me, it means theories of other universe that interacts with ours, for example the many world interpreation of quantum physics, or the Big bounce.
- philosophical theories: theories that fit the observations data and have the ambition to give us valuable insight. To me, it means theories of other universe that do not interact with ours. For example, theories to explain why the universe appears fine-tuned for intelligent life.
- fictional theories: theories whose only ambition is to entertain us.
Pcarbonn 10:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Proposed definitions of Universe, multiverse
Although I have not seen any of this in the literature, I would like to propose the following definition to help understand the issue:
- monoverse: the complete view of physical things that is observed by one observer
- universe: a view of physical things that a class of observers can agree upon. I believe that this is an acceptable extension of the usual meaning of universe: a view of the physical world that all men could agree upon.
- multiverse: the idea that different classes of observers have incompatible view of physical things.
Does it make sense ?
- These are good ideas. Unfortunately, you're not likely to find any people who use monoverse. The first hit on Google, for example, is the jargon-rich, extremely abstract, and content-poor page http://www.aya.or.jp/~nasukun/babalab/Monoverse.html. --[[User:Eequor|η
υωρ]] 01:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Terminology
Approximately what percentage of scientists believe the universe is the single piece of life and that there is no multiverse?? 66.245.31.111 01:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
