Everything but the kitchen sink + the kitchen sink, every which way but loose and loose also.
I was going to ask for a cite, but then I realized I don’t have a cite for my description, either.
Yes, universe originally meant “the whole”.
The term “multiverse” was actually coined in 1895 by William James. However, he was using it in a different context.
Anyway, I agree that it seems odd to use the term for “everything” and then say that that is really only a part of stuff, and there are multiple everythings. But that’s the nature of language. We create a term that means something, then we change our understanding, but keep the term even though the new usage isn’t quite “right”.
For instance, that pocket computer/camera/texting device that everyone carries around is called a “phone”, even though talking on it is often one of it’s lowest use features.
Actually, I think it would be better to start calling the surrounding framework of all the “universes” the “universe” and come up with a new name for our local bubble (if the theories are ever proven true). Basically have “universe” always mean the biggest thing and rework the smaller components as needed.
What then did the big bang create if not “our universe”?
That’s what we need the new word for.
It seems to me the situation is pretty closely analogous to “atom” on the other end of the scale: The indivisible things which it turned out were divisible after all.
If a new term for “atom” isn’t needed then I don’t think a new term for our universe is “needed” either.
Historically it’s real difficult in science to simply say “effective Jan 1 2017, *this *word now means that, and this *other *word now means what *this *used to mean. So whenever you read something published before this date and not edited since, use the old meanings. But if you read anything published or edited after this date use the new meanings.” Not gonna happen.
What happens is what Chronos just said while I was typing. The deeper etymological basis of the word gets invalidated and the word continues to mean just what it did before. “Atom”'s etymology means “indivisible”. But we now know they’re not. But we still call them “atoms”.
The word “universe” is no longer the all-encompassing One. It just means the same thing it used to: our local bubble that we mistakenly once thought was everything.
When the word “world” was first used it meant both the planet and the universe. Because they thought this planet was the only solid object in the universe and that those spots in the sky were something else altogether. Turns out they were wrong. Or at least underinformed about reality. But we’re still OK using “world” to refer to the Earth.
I’ve heard “multiverse” used to refer to all possible variations of history (i.e., the Many Worlds Interpretation), while the collection of all realities- including ones that no alternate history of our universe could have produced- are referred to as the Omniverse.
Chronos’s word, it’s something with an “…um” at the end damnit. It’s at the tip of my tongue. I tried to do a Boolean on GQ but the wildcard syntax wasn’t taking on the little Java scriptlet I use.
Perhaps that should be the Word, which Chronos spake.
It’ll come to me.
The chronosynclastic infundibulum?
The endoplasmic reticulum?
That’s a great point I didn’t consider
Maybe the Big Bang was not a singularity, some of the structure of the CMB may suggest that the Big Bang was just a massive fart in a pre-existing universe. Logically, “before the Big Bang” is not meaningful, in the context of the theory, but the theory may not be adequate to truly describe what happened.
On the other hand, sometimes the meaning does change. The word “Universe” was once used to describe merely our own Galaxy. After it was discovered that those other swirly spiral things were the same category as the Milky Way, there was a trend for a while to refer to them as “island universes”, but that has now fallen by the wayside, and we now say that the Universe contains [sagan]Billions and Billions[/sagan] of galaxies.
Continuum
I like that: a unit of Sagan.
Except, there would not be much in the way of contiguity amongst and between all the universes. It is probably more like some kind of supracosmic revue, a sort of incomprehensible goulash, heavily seasoned with paradox.
Okay then, supracosmic discontinuum.
I’m going to call it the “connectinuum”, as presumably for us talk about all of reality it must all be connected in some way. Some metaphysicists though might argue that there may be some elements of reality that are not connected to each other, to which I would say that is the even larger “disconnectinuum” of course.
Quibble : The observable universe is everything we can point to in our space and time.
The universe is larger than the observable universe.
We can see stuff approximately 13.8 billion years ago./ light years away
Due to expansion, that point is actually about 46 billion light years away., making the observable universe approximately 93 billion light years across.
The universe is bigger than that.
Then there is the global universe, whose size (boundedness , finite or infinite) and global shape ( flat, curved analogous to a saddle or a sphere or other form) and connectedness are yet to be determined.
One link above states the universe could be 250 times bigger than ~ observable universe ( but presumably still infinite)
I have difficulty understanding this curvature and the concept of a global universe (which is not the omniverse)