parallel universes

[Revy]

I don't think they exist and I don't understand why some people think it's rational to believe that there are universes out there where different stuff happened. but what's your opinion?

HOW could parallel universes split off based on "possible" events here on Earth? What process could be behind that?

I think it's possible if time travel ever gets developed, to cause different "timelines" to split off based on actions one takes in the past. But the many-worlds theory assumes that you can take any event and postulate that there is another universe where something different happened. i just find it hard to see the logic behind that.

[bcbm]

HOW could parallel universes split off based on "possible" events here on Earth?

its not just here on earth...


But the many-worlds theory assumes that you can take any event and postulate that there is another universe where something different happened. i just find it hard to see the logic behind that.

i think its based on a lot of quantam physics regarding the position of subatomic particles, and lots of math and lots of other shit i will never even come close to understanding. there's some good documentaries about string theory that try to explain some of the groundwork for it though?

[Sasha]

its not just here on earth...

i think its based on a lot of quantam physics regarding the position of subatomic particles, and lots of math and lots of other shit i will never even come close to understanding. there's some good documentaries about string theory that try to explain some of the groundwork for it though?

this...

try for example to make sense of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

i have an good articel that explains it quit o.k. but its written in dutch i'm afraid and i suck at translating this kind of stuff.

[which doctor]

I don't think things like this can really be explained to the layman. I don't understand them, but I still think they're fun to joke about with my friends.

This stuff all belongs to the mysterious realm of quantum mechanics and particle physics, which if you really want to understand, requires a huge amount of time and effort. You can find simplified explanations of this stuff out there, but it doesn't bare much resemblance to what actual people studying the field are doing. I've noticed a general trend in that becoming proficient in topics regarding fields like chemistry and physics involves a systematic unlearning of what you've previously been taught. The models used to explain things get progressively more complex and no longer resemble the previous models.

[black magick hustla]

the whole concept of parallel "universes" is just giving some wild interpretations to solutions of some nasty differential equations. there is as much science to it as there is in pure math (i.e. none). reminds me of the "saddle universe", which was a solution to Einstein's field equations.

[spiltteeth]

There's now 10 different physical interpretations of QM, none of which might be right, and anyone can use QM to justify virtually any ludicrous claim.

[Tatarin]

I, for one, am skeptical about the "every thing that can happen will happen in another universe"-kind of split. There just doesn't seem to be any point in endless events happening and creating new universes. However, I am open to the possibility of "other universes" which are much more defined, say, they formed differently, or consists of different building blocks.

[bcbm]

I, for one, am skeptical about the "every thing that can happen will happen in another universe"-kind of split. There just doesn't seem to be any point in endless events happening and creating new universes. However, I am open to the possibility of "other universes" which are much more defined, say, they formed differently, or consists of different building blocks.

as i understand, both of these are components of m theory.

[mikelepore]

What I'm skeptical about is the practice of beginning with a conclusion and then looking for some way for it to be "possible." The developers of the many worlds hypothesis began with the goal that the logical self-contradiction that time travel implies (effects can prevent their own causes) had to be overcome somehow, therefore making time travel possible after all. With that as their motivation, they came up with this answer. I deny that doing that is science. Science is about observation of real events and the hypothesizing related to that observation.

[black magick hustla]

There's now 10 different physical interpretations of QM, none of which might be right, and anyone can use QM to justify virtually any ludicrous claim.

not really

QM is a very precise and succesful branch of physics. A lot of material science stuff, like superconductors, or spectroscopy which is used to identify materials, would be impossible without QM. people just like making wild interpretations. (like religion lol)

[Red Dreadnought]

"Parallel" universes (the word parallel only give us a little understanding) is a briliant alternative to "anthropical principle". If our universe is only one of a lot that "have existed" or "are existing" (note the absurdity of locate em in a "time"), is easy to understand that one of them could develop conscient life. You don't need to appeal to "god intervention" to explain the existence of an statisticaly improbable universe like ours capable of generate life (that's "anthropical principle" argument).

Probably too much complicated to vulgar materialists like Alan Woods.;)

[Red Dreadnought]

But I recognize, that is "only" an hipothesis

[spiltteeth]

not really

QM is a very precise and succesful branch of physics. A lot of material science stuff, like superconductors, or spectroscopy which is used to identify materials, would be impossible without QM. people just like making wild interpretations. (like religion lol)

I agree the math etc is completely worked out, but as I say, there are still 10 physical interpretations as to what it means. Some of these interpretations involve imaginary time or sets of infinity etc
As to weather or not this is reality-descriptive is another matter entirely, so the interpretations don't contradict the data, but have no evidence to support them either (parallel universes being one example)

[spiltteeth]

What I'm skeptical about is the practice of beginning with a conclusion and then looking for some way for it to be "possible." The developers of the many worlds hypothesis began with the goal that the logical self-contradiction that time travel implies (effects can prevent their own causes) had to be overcome somehow, therefore making time travel possible after all. With that as their motivation, they came up with this answer. I deny that doing that is science. Science is about observation of real events and the hypothesizing related to that observation.

I absolutely agree, but I actually feel many physicist are motivated by anti-theist reasons to avoid the conclusion that the Universe had a beginning and the implication that it needs a God.
Like another poster said, the multiverse theory is largely to rebut how absurd and wildly improbable it is for a universe that permits intelligent life to exist by chance.

I posted some of this elsewhere, but Hawking has said many theorists have put forth absurd theories simply to avoid the nessesary conclusion of this argument (god)

When scientists at last accepted the idea that the universe indeed had a beginning they descibed the idea as "scandelous" and even "immoral"! They openly admited their extreme hostility simply due to its theological conclusions, saying they found the idea "disturbing"
You probably recall Carl Sagan on his Cosmos tv series propounding the oscillating model and reading from Hindu scriptures about cyclical Brahman years in order to illustrate the model, but hiding from his viewers all the difficulties attending this model.

I did find these quotes:
quantum cosmologist Christopher Isham,


"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory"

As Jaki points out, Hoyle and his colleagues were inspired by
"openly anti-theological, or rather anti-Christian motivations"


Martin Rees recalls his mentor Dennis Sciama's dogged commitment to the Steady State Model: "For him, as for its inventors, it had a deep philosophical appeal--the universe existed, from everlasting to everlasting, in a uniquely self-consistent state. When conflicting evidence emerged, Sciama therefore sought a loophole (even an unlikely seeming one) rather as a defense lawyer clutches at any argument to rebut the prosecution case"
(Martin Rees, Before the Beginning, with a Foreword by Stephen Hawking

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The fact that the universe apparently had a beginning is not evidence of a intelligent creator, still less the Christian God.

The fact that intelligent life exists also provides no support to the theists - if things were otherwise, we wouldn't be existing in order to discuss the matter.

Also, what happened to NOMA? I thought the claim was that science couldn't tell us anything about religion and vice versa. It's not something I ascribe to, but it does seem a handy way of avoiding the fact that science rules out a lot of theistic claims, doesn't it?

[Red Dreadnought]

Why do you need a personal God to create the world? The idea of multiverse is very simple: why this universe is the only one that have "ever" existed; why not could "have existed" another universes "before" (note the absurdity of all the expresions that denote time, that is only a dimension of our universe).

Then scientifical thinking isn,t in contradiction with the pantheistic idea of the world like "the dance of God" (not a personal God). Feels like Brahman idea or Tao. Of course, I'm not defending organised religion.

[spiltteeth]

The fact that the universe apparently had a beginning is not evidence of a intelligent creator, still less the Christian God.

The fact that intelligent life exists also provides no support to the theists - if things were otherwise, we wouldn't be existing in order to discuss the matter.

Also, what happened to NOMA? I thought the claim was that science couldn't tell us anything about religion and vice versa. It's not something I ascribe to, but it does seem a handy way of avoiding the fact that science rules out a lot of theistic claims, doesn't it?

Well, I actually discussed this in the religion forum, I think science and religion complement each other, or at least science and Christianity.

In contrast to pantheistic or animistic religions, Christianity does not view the world as divine or as indwelt by spirits, but rather as the natural product of a transcendent Creator who designed and brought it into being. Thus, the world is a rational place which is open to exploration and discovery.

Science can both falsify and verify claims of religion. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are, in effect, making predictions which scientific investigation can either verify or falsify.

One of the most notorious examples was the medieval Church’s condemnation of Galileo for his holding that the Earth moves around the sun rather than vice versa. On the basis of their misinterpretation of certain Bible passages like Ps. 93.1: “The Lord has established the world; it shall never be moved,” medieval theologians denied that the Earth moved. Scientific evidence eventually falsified this hypothesis, and the catholic Church belatedly finally came to admit its mistake.

Another interesting example of science’s falsifying a religious view is the claim of several Eastern religions like Taoism and certain forms of Hinduism that the world is divine and therefore eternal. The discovery during this century of the expansion of the universe reveals that far from being eternal, all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into existence at a point in the finite past before which nothing existed. As Stephen Hawking says in his 1996 book The Nature of Space and Time,
“almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.” But if the universe came into being at the Big Bang, then it is temporally finite and contingent in its existence and therefore neither eternal nor divine, as pantheistic religions had claimed.

On the other hand, science can also verify religious claims. For example, one of the principal doctrines of the Judaeo-Christian faith is that God created the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible begins with the words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” (Gen. 1.1). The Bible thus teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was repudiated by both ancient Greek philosophy and modern atheism, including dialectical materialism. Then in 1929 with the discovery of the expansion of the universe, this doctrine was dramatically verified. Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler, speaking of the beginning of the universe, explain,
“At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).” Against all expectation, science thus verified this religious prediction. Robert Jastrow, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, envisions it this way:


[The scientist] has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Even Stephen Hawking has said if the universe has a beginning it indeed does point to a supernatural theistic cause.

The fact that intelligent life exists I think does point to intelligent design.

Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.
P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.
He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10(100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
There are a number of such quantities and constants present in the big bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. So improbability is multiplied by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The former agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments,
“Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.”
Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks,
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.”

I think it is a fallacious argument for you to say :

The fact that intelligent life exists also provides no support to the theists - if things were otherwise, we wouldn't be existing in order to discuss the matter.

The now famous "firing-squad" analogy illustrates the point well. If 5,000 sharp shooters all fire at me, and I emerge unscathed, I seek a plausible explanation which is not to be found in the retort, as John Leslie correctly notes, that
"if they had not missed me I wouldn't be here to consider the fact."
This response simply begs the question as to why this happened, given the fact that my survival was extremely improbable. It is far more likely that there was intentionality behind my survival (all the sharpshooters conspired to miss) rather than the unlikely suggestion that they all missed by chance.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

On the other hand, science can also verify religious claims. For example, one of the principal doctrines of the Judaeo-Christian faith is that God created the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible begins with the words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” (Gen. 1.1). The Bible thus teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was repudiated by both ancient Greek philosophy and modern atheism, including dialectical materialism. Then in 1929 with the discovery of the expansion of the universe, this doctrine was dramatically verified. Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler, speaking of the beginning of the universe, explain, Against all expectation, science thus verified this religious prediction.

No, it has been discovered that the universe has a beginning. Saying that God created the universe begs the question of the provenance of God.


Even Stephen Hawking has said if the universe has a beginning it indeed does point to a supernatural theistic cause.

So? That's an appeal to authority. What matters is the evidence, which shows that the universe had a beginning. Nothing more than that. Proposing a creator multiplies entities unnecessarily.


The fact that intelligent life exists I think does point to intelligent design.

Doesn't it bother you that the only known example of intelligence was the product of evolution? How can you posit an intelligence (let alone the specific example of the Christian God) without simpler forebears?


The now famous "firing-squad" analogy illustrates the point well. If 5,000 sharp shooters all fire at me, and I emerge unscathed, I seek a plausible explanation which is not to be found in the retort, as John Leslie correctly notes, that
This response simply begs the question as to why this happened, given the fact that my survival was extremely improbable. It is far more likely that there was intentionality behind my survival (all the sharpshooters conspired to miss) rather than the unlikely suggestion that they all missed by chance.

That's a flawed analogy - the sharpshooters are intelligent beings, the universe is not. Evolution shows us that there is no longer a dichotomy between chance and design in biology - why should physics be any different? They operate within the same universe.

[spiltteeth]

Why do you need a personal God to create the world? The idea of multiverse is very simple: why this universe is the only one that have "ever" existed; why not could "have existed" another universes "before" (note the absurdity of all the expresions that denote time, that is only a dimension of our universe).

Then scientifical thinking isn,t in contradiction with the pantheistic idea of the world like "the dance of God" (not a personal God). Feels like Brahman idea or Tao. Of course, I'm not defending organised religion.

Well, you would need a personal God for the universe to have a beginning.From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

This cause is what most people mean by 'God.'

Anyway, wholly apart from its speculative nature the multiverse hypothesis faces a potentially lethal problem, simply stated, if our universe is but one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.
Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller orderly universe. The odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, according to Penrose, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123).
Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all the constants and quantities of nature's falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of a multiverse of worlds.
Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse.

And then the final kicker - what started the Multiverse?
All this has been said, of course, without asking whether the multiverse itself must not exhibit fine-tuning in order to exist. If it does, as some have argued, then it is a non-starter as an alternative to design.

[spiltteeth]

No, it has been discovered that the universe has a beginning. Saying that God created the universe begs the question of the provenance of God.



So? That's an appeal to authority. What matters is the evidence, which shows that the universe had a beginning. Nothing more than that. Proposing a creator multiplies entities unnecessarily.

Not at all. The famous cosmological argument :

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

This cause is what most people mean by 'God.'

The big bang theory thus confirms what the Christian theist has always believed: that in the beginning God created the universe


Doesn't it bother you that the only known example of intelligence was the product of evolution? How can you posit an intelligence (let alone the specific example of the Christian God) without simpler forebears?

The intelligent design idea does not contradict evolution, and seems to make much more sense than the atheistic view that the universe just happens to be by chance fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision for the existence of intelligent life.


That's a flawed analogy - the sharpshooters are intelligent beings, the universe is not. Evolution shows us that there is no longer a dichotomy between chance and design in biology - why should physics be any different? They operate within the same universe.

The point is your saying we ought not be surprised, because if we didn't exist we couldn't ask the question. While you wouldn't be surprised that you don't observe that you are dead, you'd be very surprised, indeed, that you do observe that you are alive. In the same way, given the incredible improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, it is reasonable to conclude that this is not due to chance, but to design.

We can summarize this second argument as follows:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

The first alternative holds that there is some unknown Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) which would explain the way the universe is. It had to be that way, and there was really no chance or little chance of the universe's not being life-permitting.
The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,


Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. . . . the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. . . . There is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . .
. . . it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.


The odds of chance as I say are ridiculous. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments,
"I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."

[Red Dreadnought]

If our universe created "ex nihilo", probably that "nihil" is not an absolute one: it's remember to "mahayana" SUNYATA idea (KU in old japanese, VACUUM in an occidental rought translation). Many "mysticist" (even Christians) have experimented that state, besides a reallity "out of time", and a commnunity with all beings (living or not)

[black magick hustla]

I agree the math etc is completely worked out, but as I say, there are still 10 physical interpretations as to what it means. Some of these interpretations involve imaginary time or sets of infinity etc
As to weather or not this is reality-descriptive is another matter entirely, so the interpretations don't contradict the data, but have no evidence to support them either (parallel universes being one example)

it means nothing beyond the act of measurement.

[spiltteeth]

it means nothing beyond the act of measurement.

Well, it still needs a physical correlation, for instance Hawking's theories work out mathematically, but it is far from clear weather or not these theories can actually correlate to reality. For instance, he utilizes imaginary time but then does not translate his equations back into real time; so the math works out but we are left wondering if these theories are actually describing reality, since it is highly speculative that imaginary time can actually exist.
Or look at the mathematical use of infinity -a universe that is infinitely old may work out mathematically, but can never exist in reality.
So QM has 10 different physical explanations of what the math and measurements mean, and as I say, none of them may be correct, just because they are mathematically justified.

[black magick hustla]

That is the point. Mathematics are not reality. What is the physical interpretation of "imaginary numbers"? It does not exist. However, imaginary numbers are useful because when used with differential equation, one can get oscillating solutions, like sines or cosines, that can model electric currents, quantum wavefunctions, etc.

It has always been a "rationalistic" enterprise to reify mathematics. That enterpreise is full of philosophical blunders though.

[spiltteeth]

That is the point. Mathematics are not reality. What is the physical interpretation of "imaginary numbers"? It does not exist. However, imaginary numbers are useful because when used with differential equation, one can get oscillating solutions, like sines or cosines, that can model electric currents, quantum wavefunctions, etc.

It has always been a "rationalistic" enterprise to reify mathematics. That enterpreise is full of philosophical blunders though.

Oh OK, I think I misunderstood you, I completely agree with this though.

[mikelepore]

"uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe" blah blah blah blah. Isn't there a rule against taking one favorite piece of text and copying it into numerous forum topics? (Even Rosa makes one main copy of her masterpiece and reposts only links to it 8o)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That is the point. Mathematics are not reality. What is the physical interpretation of "imaginary numbers"? It does not exist. However, imaginary numbers are useful because when used with differential equation, one can get oscillating solutions, like sines or cosines, that can model electric currents, quantum wavefunctions, etc.

It has always been a "rationalistic" enterprise to reify mathematics. That enterpreise is full of philosophical blunders though.

I think this is a rhetorical disagreement, but imaginary numbers "exist"; they are not subjects of the material world, perhaps just like the concept of infinity, which turns to the question of how space-time is "shaped."

[spiltteeth]

"uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe" blah blah blah blah. Isn't there a rule against taking one favorite piece of text and copying it into numerous forum topics? (Even Rosa makes one main copy of her masterpiece and reposts only links to it 8o)

Here's the link to the full argument, it's in the religious forum :http://www.revleft.com/vb/two-good-reasons-t120646/index.html

[chegitz guevara]

I, for one, am skeptical about the "every thing that can happen will happen in another universe"-kind of split. There just doesn't seem to be any point in endless events happening and creating new universes.

Existence doesn't have a point, yet here we are.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I don't think they exist and I don't understand why some people think it's rational to believe that there are universes out there where different stuff happened. but what's your opinion?

Because it's the simplest and most consistent answer to the reality of quantum mechanics.
Also there not really different universes, there different interpretations/possibilities/time lines of our universe. There is branching but not separation, all the other possibilities are contained within the same time/space as the world we perceive.


HOW could parallel universes split off based on "possible" events here on Earth? What process could be behind that?How can they? How can they -not-?
The cat is both alive and dead, fact.
We observe only a living cat, fact.
Simplest explanation- The universe branches along the probability axis. Thus the cat is indeed both alive and dead, despite the fact we can only observe the living possibility.


I think it's possible if time travel ever gets developed, to cause different "timelines" to split off based on actions one takes in the past.If timelines can branch, then many worlds QM is inherently true because alternate timelines require the possibility of alternate timelines.


But the many-worlds theory assumes that you can take any event and postulate that there is another universe where something different happened. i just find it hard to see the logic behind that.Your confusing common sense and logic. Science and common sense do not mix, because reality is not bound by the minds of a bunch of apes. You might as well claim the world is flat if your going to invoke common sense.

[Meridian]

It has always been a "rationalistic" enterprise to reify mathematics. That enterpreise is full of philosophical blunders though.

Mathematics exists just like capitalism and communism does. One difference between them is that capitalism and communism describes (arguably) modes of existence and organisation within human societies. Mathematics, in varying degrees of complexity and simplicity, describes the nature of organisation stemming from division. Number is derived from the division of a whole.

For something to exist it must be organised in one way or other, which makes mathematics a very rewarding pursuit indeed...

[Harveyholt]

Many scientists have relabeled universe and have come up with the word multiverse. Originally the word universe encompassed all things in all dimensions. To some people, they started to relate the universe to the collection of galaxies within the 4 dimensional space time that we exist within. People that wanted to talk about things "outside of the universe" and then there was a need for another term to define all things.