On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote: > > > Today, a lot of people who are bothered by that state of affairs like to > seek refuge in some version of the multi-verse hypothesis. But I think > Davies is correct in saying that is just a dodge - what laws govern the > multi-verse? Where did they come from? > > But that's religion, right? >
I don't agree to abandon "Universe" as my term for all that is within human discourse regarding "all that's so" (similar to the philosophers' "World") i.e. if a "multi-verse" enters into cosmological thinking, then I account that as just more "Universe" (akin to "discourse"), with the understanding that big bangs might happen independently of one another in the sense of no single timeline (i.e. it makes no sense to organize them chronologically -- or maybe it does, wouldn't matter).
This is probably easier for me because of all that reading in "explorations in the geometry of thinking" (subtitle, Macmillan-published), wherein Universe is emphatically aconceptual aka non-simultaneously conceptual i.e. any one-frame comic book drawing or model "ain't it". This vocabulary may be remote / obscure but it's not one I'd give up on in the face of multi-verse speculations (a sign of my loyalty, aka faith in a vocab). Indeed, such speculations feed the meme that said Universe of mine is "eternally regenerative".