[posterboy]

Do you know what the uni~ i universe means? It means only (one-ly). How could there be multiple? That's just non-sense.

The parent implied counting, not the natural numbers, need two dimensions. But even in Set Theory you need at least one level deep nested sets to build the natural numbers. Qunatification is the (a?) difference between zero and higher order logic, I suppose.

[TeMPOraL]

> Do you know what the uni~ i universe means? It means only (one-ly). How could there be multiple? That's just non-sense.

Do you know what "atom" in "atom" means? "Indivisible". But somehow we've been dividing them for power for quite some time.

Arguments from etymology are invalid, because words are not obliged to be backwards compatible.

[posterboy]

> Arguments from etymology are invalid, because words are not obliged to be backwards compatible.

That's how you end up with loads of confusing homonyms, which the parent almost admited to. I mean, sure an etymologic argument can be insufficient or even wrong.

[TeMPOraL]

My point is, words are only labels - pointers to concepts. You can't prove facts about objects from just their labels, nor do the labels have causal power over reality. Universe being derived from "uni" doesn't force the concept of universe to be a singleton.

Proliferation of homonyms is another topic altogether; it is an issue, but it's about creating barriers to communication.

[posterboy]

So, extending the analogy, we've as well been dividing the universe? If you go with quantum mechanics, you also have to consider the Entanglement that, if I understand correctly, posits non-locality, so your argument of spacial division is still nonsense to me. To be fair, quantum theory might as well be nonsense to me. I wouldn't know, it's over my head. But multiverse is stuff of sci-fi and theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is mostly maths, indeed. So I agree to a point, I just contest the schism that's between maths and physics, because it's not constructive.

[zeroer]

In my particular comment, I meant that THE Universe (proper noun) could have different physics. Max Tegmark uses the term a bit differently, but he's quite clear about what he means.

As for your second paragraph, I really don't have any idea what you two are on about.

[posterboy]

I'm not really interested in metaphysics, hence my opposition to the claim.

>As for your second paragraph, I really don't have any idea what you two are on about.

I didn't quite understand the parent, but he clearly related to Computational Complexity of operations on Countable Sets. I happen to study that subject at the moment, so I am taking this discussion as an opportunity to test my understanding.

[deleted] apparently I need to learn a bit more.

[posterboy]

>Max Tegmark uses the term a bit differently

>he's quite clear about what he means.

but I didn't read him and it's pretty arrogant to assume I had to. Sure, I hadn't to butt in on the discussion, but I had to read the comment to find out I didn't want to read it, first. So I felt I had to say something. I mean, I thought it was informative, but obviously I didn't hit the right tone.