Home Forums Deep Time Journey Forum Is the universe a "living system"? Reply To: Is the universe a "living system"?

#3957
Jon Cleland Host
Participant

  Duane –         Thanks for the response.   I would like to add that I greatly appreciate your work and contributions, and see a lot of positive impact in our world from you and  your work, and am  honored to be friends with you.  That’s regardless of whether or not we’ll find points where we disagree. 

 

you wrote:*** In that spirit, I question your assumption that “the universe is by definition everything.” This assumption is now being strongly questioned by scientists developing multiverse or multiple universe theories***

 

((A))  It’s not an assumption, it’s the simple use of a definition.  Universe:     noun

1.

the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
 
It’s important that we use definitions, and not try to make up our own definitions for things.  Clear communication depends on clear definitions.  It’s also helpful if we don’t call things that we don’t agree with “assumptions”, unless they, in fact, are.
 
****For example, if I go to the “Google Scholar” search engine, it lists nearly 13,000 references regarding the “multiverse.” See: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=multiverse&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5 ****
 ((B))
Irrelevant.  you can get tons of hits for things like “alien abduction”, or whatever.  Hits don’t equal truth, both because papers often talk about speculative ideas as speculation, or otherwise discuss the topic without supporting it.
 
****Also, in publications such as “The New Scientist,” ****
 
citing “new scientist” can hurt your claim, as New Scientist often publishes crackpot ideas.  They do usually have plenty of real science, but pseudoscience, and especially misleading hype, can be found in New Scientist.  You can see this from their “Was Darwin wrong” cover from 2009, supporting creationists.
 
((C))
******This does not mean the multiverse is “real” or “proven” but it does suggest that we keep an open mind regarding whether there is a larger context within which our universe resides. ****
 
Then do we agree that it is outside the realm of material for teaching in a “scientific field”?
 
((D))
   *****In terms of energy, it is well-established that particles are constantly popping in and out of existence at the quantum level. This does not mean they are coming from “outside” the universe, particularly since 95 percent of the known universe is invisible. However, it does open the door to discovery and curiosity as to where this activity is originating.  ***
 
Then do we agree again that it is outside the realm of material for teaching in a “scientific field”?  
 
((E))
****You say that Brian Swimme is “not a scientist.” …  dissertation entitled Singularities in the N-Body Problem.[1] Swimme was a faculty member in the department of mathematics*****
 
Right.  I’m familiar with all that.  Having a background in Math does not make one a scientist, and not a astrophysical scientist either. 
 
 
****He describes himself as an evolutionary cosmologist.****    How one describes oneself is completely irrelevant (to the point that mentioning  how he describes himself hurts your case).  Many creationists describe themselves as scientists.
 
((F)) 
Als0  I asked what the text of the “living galaxy” article said.  I thought that you had it.  I didn’t see that in your reply.
 
 More later – gotta go.
 
-Jon