Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?
If the universe is defined as everything then of course anything which is not part of everything is outside the universe. Everwill 13:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- The phrase "being outside the universe" is an oxymoron. The universe contains all of space. You can't be outside of something which contains every point that exists. It's a nonsensical idea. It's like "whiter than white". Good poetry, bad logic. --Pacman 14:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- I guess that was my point. It's just semantics and not a real question or a real answer. Everwill 11:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Please see the entry on the Multiverse. If this debate is to begin to make sense, then it needs to incorporate current ideas on how "the universe" might actually be constituted.--CatWatcher 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Also, you might want to read up on the string theory. This theory states that there are twelve dimensions, and MANY universes. It also has a pretty good explanation of the big bang.--Sersabian 01:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
With the current level of technology that humans have to explore space we won't be able to answer this question definitively for a long time. Though we won't be able to test any hypotheses that are created to answer this question both Pacman and Everwill are wrong that the question is semantic based because with the technology we do have at our disposal we can prove that the universe is expanding, leaving the question "expanding into what?" The answer to the question might come with a breakthrough into the nature of dark matter and dark energy or maybe the only way to find out is to break space-time. Its a long way off. --blutengel
Many Scientists belive that there are alternate universes that exist out of our space and time
Separate "does the universe exist and does it include 'everything'?", from "what is the universe?" - if you can't tell the difference between the questions, abandon your -pedia, it's valueless.
The universe is one entity by definition. The question then becomes what exacly is the question. Is the question: "Is there anything beyond what we know exists in the universe?" to which the obvious question is yes. Is it: "Is there anything beyond what there is somewhere beyond what we know exists in the universe?" which is what I believe the initial question was, and which I question its asking. or is the question: "is there anything which is unaccessable to our universe" to which there is speculation, but needlessly as if it is not accessible it will forever be unknown and if it becomes known it is no longer inaccessible.
Can an ant comprehend or even see the birds?
God can be outside the universe He created. But He is not physical. Deltaepsilon 21:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)
Ayn Rand taught me the notion of an invalid question, which is tied to the concept of an [invalid concept]. Asking about a qualified, physical universe avoids the heart of the matter. As stated above, the universe, by definition, includes ALL that exists, not merely all that physically exists. This concept is not something for scientific observation to "prove" or "disprove."
To say the universe is both finite and growing are natural corrolaries of understanding the concept of all that exists. For instance, what is beyond the edge of the universe is an invalid question because it refers to something that does not exist. How do I know? Have I been to the edge of the universe? No. It is not a matter of perception; it is a matter of conception.
String theory may suggest multiple dimensions but conceptually, each dimension is part of a connection with all that exists, i.e., the universe. A property of existence is that it is part of the universe. It is not that God cannot exist "outside" the universe, it is that "outside" has no reference. As the distance between matter expands, space is created, thereby enlarging the universe.
This debate is a semantic debate. What is a "universe?" If the universe contains everything, then nothing can be outside everything. This is a mathematical fact easy to prove. If God exists, he must exist within the universe. SEdwin 22:44, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
- To elaborate, if you define the universe as "everything physical" then there can be non-physical things outside it (if non-physical things exist). Some people define it as the (forgive me, but I use wikipedia links) observable universe, which only includes objects we can observe from Earth. This is why it's a semantic debate, until you know what each side is talking about. SEdwin 21:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
If we consider the idea that "everything" is included in the universe, does that then include the universe itself? It is the general paradox of Set Theory in mathematics: if we define something that includes everything, does it also include itself? It is the thing that has been defined, but is a separate entity BECAUSE of that definition; thereby by existing, defies its own definition.
Meaning of Universe
A universe is a oneness by name, yet even in scientific sources, there are theories of other universes. I like the former paradoxical argument, in that what is meant by a universe? The physical? God isn't restricted to physical. Neither is science. There are parameters that are unable to be understood because of this universe perspective. So I disagree with the universe including everything...as first of all, we don't know what everything is, and second of all, we are in a sense in the centre looking out at an ever expanding space with lots of things in it (not just things...LOTS of things!!!)
Exwikipediaperson 11:17, 6 August 2014 (EDT)