/sci/ - Science & Math

>read anders breivik manifesto
>He talks about the exact same thing but in politics

>>4065835
thanks anon, but I don't think it's the exact same thing; in particular, because he also makes use of exchanging words or phrases, to change a meaning of a different text.

Universe means the same thing as it used to, but our understanding of what is (possibly) existent has changed. We thought that universe referred to everything because we thought everything was in one chunk; we now realize there might be more than one chunk. Letting the word "universe" represent "everything" would have meant a convolution of the definition once our understanding of what "everything" might be.

kind of like how dawkins redefines the word atheism and tried to convince everyone the 'agnostic atheist theist' paradigm is wrong

truly, these are the worst types of disingenuous scumbags on earth. this is liberal atheist propaganda 101 (notice, they changed the term global warming into 3 different things, its climate change now) and liberals have changed their names about 20 times (progressive > liberal > now theyre using "left libertarian")

>>4065863
>Universe means the same thing as it used to, but our understanding of what is (possibly) existent has changed.

No, since the origins of the word universe, it always included things that are yet unknown.

>We thought that universe referred to everything because we thought everything was in one chunk; we now realize there might be more than one chunk.

No, the word universe used to refer to everything as a whole and didn't rely on everything to be in one chunk. It always included possible other chunks.

Language changes.
Deal with it.

>>4065899
faulty argument. the truth is that people change language. sometimes its natural, sometimes its intentional.

>>4065906
Language changes.
The mechanism doesn't matter.
Deal with it.

>>4065895
that's probably just because politics overuse a few ghost writers and those struggle to come up with new phrases, so nobody will notice it's all from a coupla samefags. they pick up words from others really fast, just so that they don't use the same words in so many sentences. (i.e. "finally" -> "at the end of the day")

>>4065909
im pretty fucking sure the mechanism was one of the central points to OPs fucking post you delusional homosexual apologist for all things SCIENZZZ HURR DURRR

>>4065899
>>4065909
I am well aware language changes. Usually the meaning or sound of words slightly changed over the centuries. This is different from what I described here, because this time people do it really quick.

The change of words used to be of minor relevance for actual work in progress, because related up to date information was in accordance with the momentary meanings of the words or it was well known that information origins from the past and the words may have different meanings now.

With the rapid misuse of words for other meanings, the misunderstandings can now also impact work in progress, because related up to date information may already be affected by the change.

this is ridiculous!
how can you say we are just idiots repeating wrong things!

sure is psuedoscience

I disagree. The example you gave is very poor, as there is a reason for the whole universe/multiverse split. Everything in the universe interacts with everything else. However, the seperate universes (as far as we know) don't interact at all. This kinda discrepancy in what we thought the universe should be like (everything that we can observe/interact with) means that the multiverse definition fits better. Yeah, the original definition of universe should include all possible "universes," but I think that the evolution of the term is fine, especially considering the lack of evidence of any multiverse anyway.

I've got a different problem with modern science, anyway. The attempts to obscure information to those without background. I'm not talking about not including all possible background information with new research papers, that's clearly not practical. But the phrasing and terminology used in a lot of research papers seemed designed to confuse and cause misunderstanding.

I got a paper sent back because the phrasing was "too conversational." I don't understand how that's a problem, when I'm trying to communicate information. It's not like I was being informal, and the terminology is correct and consistent. It seems to me that we're teaching people to attempt to be as confusing as possible.

actually universe was once used to mean only our Galaxy, at the time this was though to be all of space that had anything in it. the discovery that the great andromeda nebula was far away from the milky way, gave rise to the word "island universes" which eventually became galaxys. the word universe again became every thing. with the rise of the multiverse, it would be ridiculous to redefine the concept of universe (because a mutiverse is very different to a universe they are not just chinks of one universe) so nobody did.

the dictionary definitely may not be the same any more because its harder to define but the conceptual one is the same, and that's the important bit.

in any case the redefinition of universe happened almost a hundred years ago, your arguing about something that doesn't happen any more. the only changes in nomenclature happen through establishment of convention not definition.

>>4066071
If people don't understand enough background to know the definitions they certainly aren't going to understand the publication. publication is th communicate with other scientists not the general public, if yo wan't to do so write a book.

>>4066071
>The example you gave is very poor, as there is a reason for the whole universe/multiverse split.

No, there is no correct reason. Maybe you just fell for the misuse.

>Everything in the universe interacts with everything else. However, the seperate universes (as far as we know) don't interact at all. This kinda discrepancy in what we thought the universe should be like (everything that we can observe/interact with) means that the multiverse definition fits better. Yeah, the original definition of universe should include all possible "universes," but I think that the evolution of the term is fine, especially considering the lack of evidence of any multiverse anyway.

If they don't interact, we can never know they exist. It means, that their existence can't ever be proven. If it turns out there is some evidence for their existence, that would mean they interact. In that case we would just have a complete garbage of words. One set of words to describe them as not interacting and one set of words that didn't took care.

>>4066100
>definition.
redefinition*

>>4066100
>I've got a different problem with modern science, anyway. The attempts to obscure information to those without background. I'm not talking about not including all possible background information with new research papers, that's clearly not practical. But the phrasing and terminology used in a lot of research papers seemed designed to confuse and cause misunderstanding.

I noticed that, too. I think it may be related to publishing books, once the the paper gets lots of attention.

>I got a paper sent back because the phrasing was "too conversational." I don't understand how that's a problem, when I'm trying to communicate information. It's not like I was being informal, and the terminology is correct and consistent. It seems to me that we're teaching people to attempt to be as confusing as possible.

Yes, that's not nice. If you can frame your message in words that everyone can understand, you give it the potential of getting the largest possible audience.
However, maybe "too conversational" was suppoesed to mean "too many words for the number of topics or points actually raised". Not sure.

>>4065896
Call the 'universes' within the 'multiverse' bubbles and all of them together remain the universe. Why are you getting so working up about this?


Op confirmed for contrarian and troll.

>>4066102
No, "publication" is to make it "public".
"public" means everyone.

>>4066113
OP clearly wants others to do so or ... well to find a consensus that does not interfere with the old meaning of words. also it seemes OP wants people to do this with other vocabulary too.

>>4066112
yes and any member of the "public" can read the associated background and then read it.
anyway if publication is really about getting it out there why is it so expensive? surely if the goal is the general public it would be best to charge as little as possible. but no that's not what publication is for.

just because a word implies something doesn't mean that's how it works.

>>4066113
other universes are outside our universe, separate. by redefine these to all be the universe past publication based on our universe would make no sense what so ever.

alternatively we can modify the dictionary definition and the past use of the work makes sense. which do you think is easier?

>>4066117
well there go whether you refer to it as universe and the larger multiverse, or some bubble thingy and the larger universe it is all of little consequence and OP seems to be expressing frustration over nothing.
I didn't pay much attention to his initial post so I don't know what other words he takes issue with.

>>4066129
>by redefining these
>use of the word makes

>>4065895
But....what?

>atheismisgay

Oh God it's you again. I am glad that death is inevitably going to silence you.

>>4066140
>not even paying attention to initial post
>calling OP upset
>calling him contrarian and troll

ishyddt

>>4065818
You're an aspie.

The poiint of a multiverse is to differentiate it from the former models of the universe.

So now stifu.

>>4066462
what is an aspie?

so you admit a multiverse is just a former model of the universe with nothing but a new name.

>>4066855
Err.

So you admit you're an idiot?

>>4066890
>run out of proper arguments
>start insulting others
lulz

>>4066900
>running out of any argument
>lulz

Stay classy /b/

>>4066918
>/b/tard trying to troll on /sci/
>everyone makes fun of him

>>4066939
Yeah, OP sure failed his troll 101

i don't believe OP is troll.
i believe OP is just confused about some words with similar meanings, but can't really do something about it. well, that's just how things are nowadays. remember, when people started using "cool" for "nice" or "awesome" for "great". that's just what people do. it's nothing so dangerous. people will get the hang of it really fast and will learn to decide, whether to interpret them using the old or the new meaning.

>>4067007
In other words, you think OP is an aspie.

Here is OP's argument: WORDS ARE WORDS SO EVERYTHING IS A WORD. WHY MAKE WORD DIFFERENT FROM WORD, BECAUSE WORDS ARE IN WORDS, AND WORDS WORD WORD. THERE'D BE NO PROBLEM IF WORDS AND WORDS WERE USED THE SAME BECAUSE WORDS ARE WORDS!

>word

>>4067029

>>4067029
wtf is an aspie?

>>4067029
while this reasoning is a bit unclear at the end, it sure makes sense to me and i totally agree.

specially the points "WORDS ARE WORDS SO EVERYTHING IS A WORD." and "WHY MAKE WORD DIFFERENT FROM WORD" are absolutely valid and the essential basics of communications. they should only be violated by art, i.e. play on words.