The Omniverse
Multiverse theory really bugs me in at least three ways:
1) It means Shakespeare was just one of an infinite number of random text generators that produced his works as a one-off feat; no need for chimps, let alone typewriters, infinite quantities, or infinite time.
2) It's an excuse for doing real science - dis-provability is critical in scientific investigation - what experiment could ever disprove the existence of spit universes?
3) But mostly, philosophically, THE UNIverse must incorporate everything that 'is'. So what are we left with to define both a collection of unique 'universes', and the container class itself?
So, I don't really buy multiverse theory, but I can't exclude it - from now on I am going to use the term 'omniverse' to mean the entirety of everything that 'is'. Probably should have googled it before posting, 'cos I'm sure I'm not the first to come up with it.
1) It means Shakespeare was just one of an infinite number of random text generators that produced his works as a one-off feat; no need for chimps, let alone typewriters, infinite quantities, or infinite time.
2) It's an excuse for doing real science - dis-provability is critical in scientific investigation - what experiment could ever disprove the existence of spit universes?
3) But mostly, philosophically, THE UNIverse must incorporate everything that 'is'. So what are we left with to define both a collection of unique 'universes', and the container class itself?
So, I don't really buy multiverse theory, but I can't exclude it - from now on I am going to use the term 'omniverse' to mean the entirety of everything that 'is'. Probably should have googled it before posting, 'cos I'm sure I'm not the first to come up with it.
posted by Jaymax | 13:27
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home