the entire cosmic totality which has proved to be theoretically deficient|
Since linguistic archaeology suggests that the prefix 'uni' implies oneness, it is appropriate that the word 'universe'
should apply to the single unreplicated cosmic entity.
Speculations as to the possibility of multiple universes immediately evaporates any possibility of using the word
to be the all-encompassing label for the all-inclusive totality of everything.
When there is more than one entity in a category, we usually contrive a term to describe the collection.
A collection of bubbles is called a 'froth' or a 'foam'.
A set of unions is a 'network' and a group of units is a 'set'.
The set of all universes would need a collective name to describe its multiplicity.
Whilst it might seem a pragmatic initiative, to suggest the word 'cosmos' as the group name
for the totality of all universes, the probability of there being more than one universe in the cosmos
would be about nil, even for very large values of zero.
Abstracting mathematical forms from the structures of the universe and then identifying multiple solutions to the hypothetical
equations relating those forms, does not justify assuming that various universes thereby exist for the express purpose of
satisfying the egos of cosmologists.
Certain cosmological models suppose to predict the specific numbers of actual entities
that should eventuate from the origins of a uniform undifferentiated singularity.
Whilst some convenient approximations are touted, there is a sufficient lack of agreement between what is actually here in the
universe and what theory demands there should be, to give a clear indication of the academic deficiencies of the cosmos.
It has become apparent that the excesses of some particles and shortcomings of others, supports the view that the universe
is less satisfactory than it might have been.
Sadly... for reasons that are less than clear... the universe has not evolved as would be expected.
Without some assistance from the home-brewed products of zymolysis, gardeners... in particular... find this revelation a
disappointment that is not easy to resolve.
The geocentric model was adequate for predictions of diurnal
periodicity, but it was forced to
incorporate increasingly complex and inaccurate
suppositions of epicyclic motion for planets.
The heliocentric model of all the planets... including the earth... moving in ellipses
about the sun, facilitated a greater accuracy in the creation of
predictive tables as to the future relative positions of the planets.
The evolutionary model provides a structure upon which a diverse
range of concepts and ideas have been positively reinforced, whereas the
spontaneous creation proposal has some difficulty in making the
psychology of the creating deity remotely plausible.
There is a sense in which the universe is indifferent to the models promoted by
even though humans are inclined to suppose that their intelligence is the process by which
the universe is in fact inspecting itself.
Whether certain humans suppose that the earth rotates about the sun, or that the sun rotates about the earth,
or that comets are harbingers of portentous events,
or that comets are remnants of solar system formation processes...
it is of no consequence whatsoever to the universe...