The Nov 29 edition of TIME contained yet another article about
multiple universes, or a multiverse. It seems to me that the notion of
a multiverse consisting of numerous universes besides our own is more
semantic than cosmological. The Oxford English Dictionary defines
"universe" as "all existing matter, space, and other phenomena
regarded collectively." Stated otherwise, the universe is everything,
both observed and unobserved.
 
Linguistically, "everything" admits to no additional components. Why
then do cosmological theorists insist on defining "universe" as
something less than everything? Why not speak instead of the
possibility of still unobservable dimensions within that singular
whole, regardless of whether each possible component is postulated to
differ dramatically from all the others?
 
While I realize that pure science often uses terms that vary in
definition from the same words used by laypersons, scientists who seek
to gain public support for esoteric research would be well advised not
to wander too far away from well established common usage. Stephen
Hawking and the late Carl Sagan come to mind as two
physicists/cosmologists with the savvy to grasp that. Lesser lights,
however, throw clarity of language to the wind by injecting concepts
that make no logical sense to anyone except their ilk.

What say you?

Nautico,

This seems to be a question that calls for comments and not one that
can really be addressed definitively by research, so I'm going to
venture an opinion.

I agree with your (inferred) position that the distinction is semantic
rather than scientific for exactly the reasons you say.  But I don't
think it is necessarily an obfuscating distinction.

Many people speak of the universe with the qualifier "known," even
though it must necessarily be the case that far more of the "known
universe" is unknown than known.  I think this expression and the
thinking behind it acknowledge a faith in the consistent manifestation
of the laws of physics, even if we don't know what they all are and
even if some of them seem to be more like religion than science as it
is commonly understood.  We imagine and trust that as more becomes
known, it will appear as a logical extension of what we already know,
and that even when new observations turn everything we think we know
on its head, it will still occur in ways that can eventually be
explained by our human reasoning and understanding.

We are not particularly good at envisioning things that can't be
envisioned by human beings.  Every construct we have is by definition
a construct that human beings are capable of entertaining.  So any
notion of the universe that we have is going to be limited by the
ability of human beings to conceive and describe, even when using
words like "inconceivable" and "indescribable" and "ineffable."  We
fondly think we grasp the meaning of "infinity."

In this way and in this sense, the universe exists only within the
minds of human beings.  Ultimately what we call human knowledge is
really nothing but a  picture of the inside of our minds.

Even more limiting than the scope of the human mind is the human
capacity for voicing thought in language, and even more limiting than
that is the ability to use language in such a way that it gives rise
to the same thought in another mind.

When we speak of the universe, I think what we typically mean is "the
universe as we (however poorly and imperfectly) understand it," or,
said another way, "everything-there-is that fits into our best and
most accepted scientific framework for everything-there-is."

So when scientists want to talk about any kind of alternate realities,
when they want to express multiplicities on a universal scale, when
they want to change frameworks, they have to use language that
subdivides the idea of "universe" as we know it, or else they have to
use language that posits more than one set of existences that compose
everything-there-is.

It seems to me that the language of multiplicity, which is still just
language, does less violence to our collective notion of "universe"
than the language of subdivision, which, to our typically narrow
horizons, is easily understood as something less than
everything-there-is.

In fact, it is probably a fair reflection of our time and place and
culture, our mentality that says "I want it all" and so does my
neighbor, and we both think we can have it, a habit of thought that
uses unqualified superlatives ("absolutely! fantastic! totally!") as
mild intensifiers, so that you can have the ultimate vacation
experience, extreme snowboarding, magnificent accessories, and an
utterly perfect sandwich spread, that we can more readily think in
multiple totalities than we can contemplate variation within
everything-there-is on dimensions that generate simultaneous exclusive
everythings.

My opinion is based more in language than in science and may exhibit a
corresponding bias.

Archae0pteryx

Archae....

"My opinion is based more in language than in science...."

And that's my point! This is all about language, not science. If one
accepts the denotation of "universe" (forget about connotations) as
"everything" known and unknown, then it would seem easy to subdivide
"everything" into constructs that enable further investigation. Why is
that so hard? Why is it necessary to postulate other "everythings"?
Beats me.

Nautico,

I didn't miss your point.  I understood it.  

>I agree with your (inferred) position that the distinction is
>semantic rather than scientific for exactly the reasons you say.
>But I don't think it is necessarily an obfuscating distinction.

And my point, simply put and without argumentation, is just that in
addressing their audience (readers of weekly newsmagazines, for
example), I think scientists--and reporters on scientific
subjects--are choosing language that the majority can somewhat more
readily understand, because neither way is really more nearly right
than the other.  Perhaps they would put it another way in addressing a
roomful of certifiably abstract thinkers.

My closing line simply exposes my bias as a contributor of an opinion
and does not speak to the bias of the scientists you are talking
about.

Archae0pteryx

Howdy, Nautico.

The "multiverse" thing bothers me, too. I still haven't grasped the
concept that there are infinitely many infinities. This reminds me
somehow of the apocryphal story whose punch line is "It's turtles all
the way down."

You may enjoy this article. Or, if not, your counterpart in a parallel
universe may:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/fringe-watcher.html

Hiya, Pink!

I'm with you, kid. It all smacks of "how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin?" (I've always thought 14 was the limit, esp when you
factor in the morbidly obese angels.)

Interesting article you cited. Methinks astrophysicists come up with
this stuff just as constructs from which they can explore further,
though I have no idea what they use. Certainly not their fingers.

 -- Bob (nautico)