Comments by "SkyRiver" (@SkyRiver1) on "Is The Universe Just One Thing? | Full Interview | Sean Carroll" video.

@paultorbert6929 So it would seem. It was never stated in the original remark that "the universe" is ONLY a concept. Common sense would infer that our ideas about the universe refer to something "out there", separate and distinct from our subjective associations regarding it. Common sense also infers that the sun orbits he earth. I may be incorrect, but I think that the problem people are having with my original statement is that they do not know what the word "fungible" means. Consider this (for the moment considering the "multiverse" as another word for an expanded conception of the same thing) the "universe", as the word is commonly understood, is: everything considered as one thing. First we have the universe of everything, next you propose a "universe" minus it's most significant quality: life. Therefore according to the assumption that makes your question possible you refer to two quite distinct things as the universe: the universe that is everything and a universe minus life. This question in itself proves that though you may not realize it, you consider the universe to be a concept that is fungible. That is: a universe minus life can stand-in for a universe consisting of everything. Yet the universe minus anything would not be the universe would it? This is not even to examine the lack of actual knowledge about the real significance and magnitude of life. We do not know if life on earth is the only life, and there is a very good possibility that it is. We do not even know if the universe itself is alive on a scale that is beyond our present perception, though there are many various concepts that claim it is, and this would explain a lot. We do not know if life as it is automatically and commonly conceived of even exists. We do not know how the functioning of quantum mechanics would be altered without any observer. We do not even know if life and the apparent perception of a universe "out there" is a simulation. So we do not even know what is meant by a "universe without any life". Yet you still refer to it as "the universe". Which once again proves my original statement that the universe is a concept and as such is infinitely fungible. It can be one thing, It can be more than one thing. As it is a concept that is enormously ambiguous, and serves mainly as a conceptual black box for cosmological theories. Would there be anything without life? . . . Maybe. Would it be "the universe"? The question doesn't really even make sense. Who would there be to refer to it as such? The universe is a concept that mankind made up and uses. It has changed with our knowledge, it will continue to change as our perceptual and conceptual capabilities change in many ways, many different ways by many different minds. It is fungible. Is there a universe that is separate from our conceptions of it? Strictly speaking, no, not if the universe is held to be EVERYTHING, because our conceptions are physical just as our emotions are physical, and if the universe is held to be everything, then if you take everything and subtract a part of it that you do not even know the significance or magnitude of; it is no longer everything, and cannot be accurately referred to as "the universe". On the other hand since the universe is a concept and it is fungible you are certainly free to conceptualize it in a manner in which your question appears to make sense. This is because the universe is a concept and as such is infinitely fungible. If any further comments portray the inability to comprehend the preceding they will go without further response.
3
Is the universe just one thing? The universe is a concept. Therefore it is infinitely fungible.
1
@jimpsky easily: The conception of the universe IS defined as containing galaxies. You think you are switching back and forth between the finger and the moon but you are really only dealing with fingers. That is, everything you can possibly write or think is only a concept that AT BEST, symbolizes something that exists: with some degree of fidelity. Also I would suggest that you look up the definition of fungible before you respond further.
1
@jimpsky Both b and c are false. Presently most conceptions of the universe define it as containing galaxies. Therefore b is false. Your argument depends on you believing that your concept of galaxies is not a concept but the actual physical galaxy, so it cannot be contained in a concept. However you are naive. What you are referring to as galaxies is a concept. As I said, you are confusing the finger that points at the moon for the moon. You think that a finger cannot contain the moon, without realizing that the moon you speak of is just another finger.
1
@jimpsky Yes any concept is necessarily a concept. . . . duh. "The Universe is a concept therefore infinitely fungible." Remember that is the statement that you took exception to. Then you say. The universe contains galaxies. The words universe, contains, and galaxies are all concepts. Therefore your working conception of the universe as per this discussion is that the universe contains galaxies. Then you say that no concept contains galaxies, after just stating that your concept of the universe is one that contains galaxies. It is obviously you who is confusing the conceptual with that to which it can only allude with varying degrees of accuracy and detail. In fact your entire inane argument taken as a whole proves my original statement.
1