Talk:Universe

The universe comprises all of nature, not all of existence (or reality).
The beginning of the second sentence in the lead is wrong. The terms "universe" and "existence" are not mere synonyms; among other things, that is why they have two different articles, instead of one simply redirecting to the other. Claiming nothing exists outside the universe is POV pushing. Philosophy is divided on ontology. Physics by definition does not address it.

To take the term "universe" to mean "all that exists" is an informal notion, not a scholarly one. It is contradicted by such diverse propositions as Platonism and the multiverse. 2001:9E8:8C0:E200:888B:6AA7:C062:799F (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Disputed
This is a large article with lots of scientific information. A lot of work has gone into it over the years. Even I don’t think we should have to delete it because the title, Universe, is scientifically unwarranted and unjustifiable.

The term “universe” is so wide-spread in common usage that it is effectively unquestionable. Among scientific lay-men and expert alike. Amongst militant atheist and god-fearing mega-church pastor the same. If all people did was laugh when I told them that I, as a confirmed idealist, do not believe in the universe, I would comfortably share my point of view at will. But, despite the fact that I hold “the nuts” (poker term), sharing my perspective has never once gone well. People are indoctrinated so deeply into this non-scientific fallacy that they cannot hear a challenge. On this topic, certainly, Wikipedia is and has been a major source of dis/misinformation.

The fact is, the whole article over, and including all the previous versions, there isn’t a single reliable source (WP:RS) establishing the propriety of the term universe itself. I could (perhaps) write an essay investigating the reasons why this fallacious term has become so popular, but the fact remains that, if the Wikipedia community here were to apply as vigorously as they are known to oft do the community standards toward the title/article/term “universe,” the community would not tolerate its usage. Here, or anywhere on the site? The term is an unwarranted and unjustifiable abstraction, doomed to a fate worse than that of Newtonian Mechanics (which remains pretty darn useful though ultimately inadequate and wrong). There is no universe qua Universe. I could tell you that there are persons harmonizing experientially because, as self-existent ideas (instances of the self-existent idea), we have no capacity to do otherwise, but that would be beyond the scope of this article and dispute? At length, we need better terminology.

Yesterday I made a revision to the page that assuaged my (continually being triggered by (my forced silence before) the uncritically, inductively, un-reasoned term “universe”) “wrath,” and all it really took was some careful caveats to the introduction/“definition” of the offending term. There is and cannot be any physical copula encompassing all of existence. “The physical universe,” if taken literally, is an absolute absurdity. Thank God Max Plank pointed it out early!:

“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”

https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up

Here is a link to my revision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=1225820689

Here is a link to the comparison of the changes made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=next&oldid=1225820689

I suggest we move the article forward from that basis upon conclusion of this “discussion.” If no one can justify with rigorous science the term “universe” itself, the article cannot in rights be left standing as it was? The term “universe” is too prevalent for complete deletion; even if we settled on a new, appropriate term, and migrated all the information there, a page for “the universe” should ever remain standing as a piacular memorial.

God Bless You and yours,

may we thingk (sic) better of ourselves going forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisciplinedIdea (talk • contribs)


 * Please read WP:SOAPBOX, you’re not going to get Wikipedia to remove the term “universe” from the article on the universe, and your edit summaries are wildly inappropriate. I’ve reverted more of your edits, Wikipedia is not the correct avenue for these kind of advocacy, and edits like this are mostly disruptive. You’re welcome to edit the article but just slapping a disputed template on top of the article because you personally dispute the idea of the universe isn’t a great place to start. If you have objections with the provided sources please be more specific so we can all work together to improve it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Reply: 

>Please read WP:SOAPBOX

great, the whole page is a soapbox for an absurd term. “No cap.”

>you’re not going to get Wikipedia to remove the term “universe” from the article on the universe,

you get to soapbox idealists forever, and they don’t even get a peep (disputed-tag): got it (as expected)

>and your edit summaries are wildly inappropriate.

your lies (on my talk page) and characterizations are wildly inappropriate. Attack the substance, padna.

“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”-Max Plank

https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up

>I’ve reverted more of your edits,

you should be the one at risk for that. The disputed tag is not to be removed until the dispute is resolved. I shouldn’t have to fight like this. Will I be allowed to? I’m not permitted to make you feel some type of way about a mere “disputed” tag, but you can go to all these lengths to bite me and make me feel the type of way idealists are ALWAYS made to feel among physicalists. It’s a travesty. Poor, poor kids. You should take this as your SECOND warning.

>Wikipedia is not the correct avenue for these kind of advocacy,

let’s delete the article until science comes to a complete Conclusion?

>and edits like this are mostly disruptive.

I bring competence and resources to share: address the substance.

>You’re welcome to edit the article

hardly. I have to be at the top of my game, near perfect. How many less qualified people with legit reservations have been banned for trying?

>but just slapping a disputed template on top of the article

don’t bite the newb and address the substance. I didn’t think so.

>because you personally dispute the idea

Max Plank was a chump?

>of the universe

I see you letters but I know you ain’t got an idea that can defend it.

>isn’t a great place to start.

Wikipedia encourages newcomers to make bold edits. Policy. don’t bite the newb and address the substance.

I didn’t think so.

>If you have objections with the provided sources

put your source on the term universe there in line one, buddy.

>please be more specific

please consider the work I provided before biting

>so we can all work together to improve it.

I’ve contributed what the first reverter (of two) called “certainly valid” and “good faith,” but needing discussion.

You’ve contributed nothing but darkness to hide what you call my “trash.”

address the substance or don’t lay your filthy hands on me (or anyone like me) again

Don’t make me warn you a third time (I think I remember something about that being the LIMIT).

DisciplinedIdea (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You don't have the slightest idea of what Wikipedia is about, so I suggest to take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree with Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ and the entire field of astronomy. The term 'universe' is already thoroughly sourced; the Definition section has 10 citations.  DisciplinedIdea, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for your inadequately sourced WP:FRINGE views.  Wikipedia editors are required to be civil to each other (WP:5P4), that means WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS such as "...don’t lay your filthy hands on me (or anyone like me) again".  WP:DISRUPTIVE EDITING like the above can get you blocked. --ChetvornoTALK 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * More to the point, what peddles is New Age mysticism, not science. tgeorgescu (talk)  09:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @DisciplinedIdea was just indeffed, so back to business as usual. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Space and time
While spacetime is a technical term, the universe is spacetime and its contents. The interaction of space and time is part of science (see theory of relativity). Therefore, link spacetime and write space and time. Space and time should remain to aid nontechnical readers. Besides, space and time are everyday words which shouldn’t be linked per WP:OL. Closetside (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think linking the tactile concepts is much more helpful and intuitive for a general audience. Your conception of WP:OL is also a hair too broad and dogmatic: links are a navigation aid, so every article has other articles whence it can be linked: normally space and time shouldn't be linked, but they should be from here, as their encyclopaedic substance is directly relevant. Remsense  诉  23:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the context of the universe, space and time means spacetime. While a technical term, it is the correct term. It is technically incorrect to consider space and time as separate, which is what separate links imply. Additionally, space and time redirects to spacetime. Closetside (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this argument here is very robust or coherent, sorry. We're not operating in a particular technical frame, we're operating in a general, encyclopaedic frame. People following a link in this place are much more likely to be interested in learning about space and time as tactile, general concepts. Remsense  诉  23:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia should be accessible to the general, nontechnical reader, it should be technically accurate. Closetside (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because it bothers you doesn't make it inaccurate. The scope of the article is broader than a physics context. Remsense  诉  00:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's get a WP:3O. Closetside (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone else agrees with you, I'm sure they'll let me know. Remsense  诉  00:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

TLDR for 3O
While we both agree the first sentence should be: "The universe is space and time and their contents.", we disagree on how linking should occur for "space and time".  My opinion: space and time. Spacetime is a concept within the theory of relativity, an accepted scientific theory, that space and time are intertwined. Linking them together conforms to the theory of relativity while linking them separately does not because such linking implies space and time aren't intertwined.  's opinion: space and time. An implied technical inaccuracy is alright because the general reader would prefer to learn about space and time as separate concepts, even though these topics aren't technically separate.   @, feel free to provide your TLDR of this dispute if you want. Closetside (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word "Universe"
Shouldn't it be the Universe? I mean we only have one universe, doesn't it make the "universe" a proper noun? According to English grammar rules, all proper nouns should be capitalized, isn't it? 120.16.2.76 (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not quite on, both counts. There are many proper names normally used with the definite article in English running text, but those articles are not actually part of the name, e.g. Bible, United States. And no, not all proper names are capitalized in English, that's an oversimplification that works most of the time: other exceptions include summer, Remsense  诉  10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * MOS has had several discussions about this, one in 2014 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 14, a long one with an RfC in 2015 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 18 one in 2016 Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 23. None of these came to a consensus. Looks like they gave up.
 * We had a discussion on this page in 2019, see Talk:Universe/Archive 4, also with no consensus. In it I did an (unsystematic) survey of recently published astronomy books and there didn't seem to be a consensus, some capitalized and some didn't.  I suppose someone could look at the major refereed astronomical journals, and see if there is a consensus policy in those. --ChetvornoTALK 06:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The astronomical books stored in my local library use the capitalized Universe. I think the consensus among the estabished astronomical societies is to treat Universe as a proper noun and always capitalizing the word, which is the same method they use to resolve the Earth/earth issue. 120.16.2.76 (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think all proper nouns begin with the definite article are always capitalized (e.g. the Sun, the Moon, the Tibetan Plateau, and the National Basketball Association etc.). 120.16.2.76 (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * COMMENT We should use the capitalized "Universe" to describe the physical universe which we are a part of, and use the lower case "universe" to describe a fictional universe which often appears in comic books or games.
 * For this article, the capitalized "Universe" should be used. 58.152.51.59 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)