Christianity in a multiverse

[Halbhh]

Not to pick on this post because it goes wrong but, and I say this as a compliment, it goes wrong in interesting ways. First let’s take the implication that multiverse is a theory.

Multiverse is actually not a theory, it’s a prediction. Inflation theory and quantum theory both predict multiple universes. *Other* predictions of both theories have been proven true (let the colloquial “proof” slide for now Popperians and pedants) thus the *rest* of those theory’s predictions including the existence of multiple universes is derived even though they have not been directly empirically tested.

This is a common misconception about science. All the predictions of a theory need not be tested in order for us to rationally believe the theory. Only one prediction has to be tested provided that prediction is mutually exclusive to the predictions of that theory’s rival theories. Pretty lucky when you think about it. Free discoveries like multiverses come popping out for free when we test our best explanations and follow them to their logical conclusion. Even if the prediction of that one discovery is itself untestable.

About other universes being very different than our own, it all depends on what kind of multiverse we’re taking about. A different universe in a level I multiverse is similar to our universe because by definition they share the same physical constants. A universe in a level III multiverse is even more likely to be like ours obviously because of the branching effect. (See Max Tegmark’s taxonomy of universes, Wikipedia is fine)

It gets weirder.

Universes sharing the same physical constants will over time become more like each other even in one specific emergent property far above the level of physical laws, atomic particles, and so on. Namely the creation of knowledge. In two different universes with intelligent beings otherwise completely different from one another, General relativity will still be discovered. Just maybe by a girl name Ally instead of a guy named Albert.

Distinguishing properties that do converge across universes over time versus properties that diverge is worth exploring for this thread. Take religion for example: what properties of religions are likely to be similar across all universes with intelligent life? I suspect the specific details of the stories will wildly diverge while the core structures will repeat over and over we again.

Also, welcome to Christian Forums!

 

[Carbon]

You could broaden and deepen your understanding by reading more on competing theories. Here's a useful site especially for keeping up with QM theorizing and comparing theories: Quantamagazine.org. (I think this site is somewhat accessible, and even those without a physics background could probably work their way through articles enough to get an impression of the state of things)

You should want to avoid being merely a fan of some pet theories, but instead if you want to have a better understanding, read about the whole range of competing theories.

The eternal inflation multiverse idea is a very different and unrelated theory to the Many Worlds theory.

Also, it is useful to be aware that inflation itself is not sufficiently convincing to physicists for them to consider it a mostly sure thing, but...theorists are actively considering alternatives.

e.g. -- Alternatives to Cosmological Inflation


Inflation might be correct or correct and incomplete, we don't know yet nearly to the level of certainty we have for things like general relativity, and at best though it seems incomplete now. But it could well be merely a wrong idea. It remains to be seen.

In short, it helps to read not just 5 or 10 main articles to elaborate more on your favorite pet theories...

Instead you should read a lot more main articles really -- not just a few, but really more than a dozen, minimum, and more is better -- to learn about other theories.

---------
@Tone
@Chadrho

Halbhh,

The ball seems to have sailed past the plate. I would suggest rereading the post. Again, multiverse is a prediction of multiple theories not a theory itself. And convergence of universes within a given type of multiverse is more likely than divergence in some cases.

Some of what you are saying is correct but the parts that are correct either repeat a point I already made, or argue against a point no one is making.

 

[Halbhh]

Not to pick on this post because it goes wrong but, and I say this as a compliment, it goes wrong in interesting ways. First let’s take the implication that multiverse is a theory.

Multiverse is actually not a theory, it’s a prediction. Inflation theory and quantum theory both predict multiple universes. *Other* predictions of both theories have been proven true (let the colloquial “proof” slide for now Popperians and pedants) thus the *rest* of those theory’s predictions including the existence of multiple universes is derived even though they have not been directly empirically tested.

This is a common misconception about science. All the predictions of a theory need not be tested in order for us to rationally believe the theory. Only one prediction has to be tested provided that prediction is mutually exclusive to the predictions of that theory’s rival theories. Pretty lucky when you think about it. Free discoveries like multiverses come popping out for free when we test our best explanations and follow them to their logical conclusion. Even if the prediction of that one discovery is itself untestable.

About other universes being very different than our own, it all depends on what kind of multiverse we’re taking about. A different universe in a level I multiverse is similar to our universe because by definition they share the same physical constants. A universe in a level III multiverse is even more likely to be like ours obviously because of the branching effect. (See Max Tegmark’s taxonomy of universes, Wikipedia is fine)

It gets weirder.

Universes sharing the same physical constants will over time become more like each other even in one specific emergent property far above the level of physical laws, atomic particles, and so on. Namely the creation of knowledge. In two different universes with intelligent beings otherwise completely different from one another, General relativity will still be discovered. Just maybe by a girl name Ally instead of a guy named Albert.

Distinguishing properties that do converge across universes over time versus properties that diverge is worth exploring for this thread. Take religion for example: what properties of religions are likely to be similar across all universes with intelligent life? I suspect the specific details of the stories will wildly diverge while the core structures will repeat over and over we again.

When the same phenomena fits multiple competing theories it is of course not a support for one of the theories over others.

The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) has a plenty of competition in QM. If you think it's been supported in a unique way recently, I'd be delighted to read anything meaningful about that, other than just someone saying they like it.

Of course it should be able to merely explain the same phenomena other competing theories also explain. That's not much proof yet for it is it?

Until there is some kind of prediction unique to MWI that that can be actually checked, it's only another of the many competing speculative theories that try to go past the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Without testable predictions that are different than other theories, we are left with only fans and criticisms: Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Has Many Problems | Quanta Magazine

You did say: "Only one prediction has to be tested provided that prediction is mutually exclusive to the predictions of that theory’s rival theories. "

That's of interest. Do you have any such to tell us about for MWI?

I'd be interested in that, and delighted to read more about it.

 

[Kaon]

When the same phenomena fits multiple competing theories it is of course not a support for one of the theories over others.

The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) has a plenty of competition in QM. If you think it's been supported in a unique way recently, I'd be delighted to read anything meaningful about that, other than just someone saying they like it.

Of course it should be able to merely explain the same phenomena other competing theories also explain. That's not much proof yet for it is it?

Until there is some kind of prediction unique to MWI that that can be actually checked, it's only another of the many competing speculative theories that try to go past the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Without testable predictions that are different than other theories, we are left with only fans and criticisms: Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Has Many Problems | Quanta Magazine

You did say: "Only one prediction has to be tested provided that prediction is mutually exclusive to the predictions of that theory’s rival theories. "

That's of interest. Do you have any such to tell us about for MWI?

I'd be interested in that, and delighted to read more about it.

MWI can be theorized based on dual spaces. The ability to pull necessary mathematical objects from a dual (vector) space (with all elements and operations similar to our space - only conjugated) suggest many "worlds" from a fundamental point of view.

I still believe worlds/universes/etc. are just different words for dimensions, or realms. When the conceptual applications begin to entertain the reality that there is one creation with many "mansions"/dimensions/realms, then the physics will make better sense than the crudeness of today's academics. Physicists cant even reconcile gravity with the other fundamental forces because they don't entertain dimensionality. (Gravitational lensing is getting close, but it is still the wrong direction.)

 

[Halbhh]

MWI can be theorized based on dual spaces. The ability to pull necessary mathematical objects from a dual (vector) space (with all elements and operations similar to our space - only conjugated) suggest many "worlds" from a fundamental point of view.

I still believe worlds/universes/etc. are just different words for dimensions, or realms. When the conceptual applications begin to entertain the reality that there is one creation with many "mansions"/dimensions/realms, then the physics will make better sense than the crudeness of today's academics. Physicists cant even reconcile gravity with the other fundamental forces because they don't entertain dimensionality. (Gravitational lensing is getting close, but it is still the wrong direction.)

There are some variety of theories about extra dimensions in physics for quite a long while.

For example, string theory has been prominent (though not supported yet by observation to my knowledge):
String theory has one notable feature that requires extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. Spacetime is 26-dimensional in bosonic string theory, 10-dimensional in superstring theory, and 11-dimensional in supergravity theory and M-theory.
Here's a list:
Extra dimensions - Wikipedia

(Note that string theory hasn't yet found support; in fact:
At the LHC: In the collision debris, physicists have found no particles that could comprise dark matter, no siblings or cousins of the Higgs boson, no sign of extra dimensions, no leptoquarks — and above all, none of the desperately sought supersymmetry particles that would round out equations and satisfy “naturalness,” a deep principle about how the laws of nature ought to work.
What No New Particles Means for Physics | Quanta Magazine

 

[FireDragon76]

Multiverses always remind me of talking about fairies in the garden, it seems to be undue and unwarranted metaphysical speculation, the sort of thing that Occam criticized in his fellow Scholastics in the middle ages.

 

[Kaon]

There are some variety of theories about extra dimensions in physics for quite a long while.

For example, string theory has been prominent (though not supported yet by observation to my knowledge):
String theory has one notable feature that requires extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. Spacetime is 26-dimensional in bosonic string theory, 10-dimensional in superstring theory, and 11-dimensional in supergravity theory and M-theory.
Here's a list:
Extra dimensions - Wikipedia

(Note that string theory hasn't yet found support; in fact:
At the LHC: In the collision debris, physicists have found no particles that could comprise dark matter, no siblings or cousins of the Higgs boson, no sign of extra dimensions, no leptoquarks — and above all, none of the desperately sought supersymmetry particles that would round out equations and satisfy “naturalness,” a deep principle about how the laws of nature ought to work.
What No New Particles Means for Physics | Quanta Magazine

Yes, I am no fan of string theory but I can appreciate its eagerness in trying to fill in the voids of quantum mechanics and relativity. I am a field theorist, although I still find field theory crude. Dimensions are spacial only; not temporal. And, dimensions even in higher orders are not necessarily infinitesimal bundles (i.e. the MWT where "world" are the same "size" as this plane of existence).

When science and myth come back together, physics will be a lot less obfuscated and crude.

 

[Kaon]

Multiverses always remind me of talking about fairies in the garden, it seems to be undue and unwarranted metaphysical speculation, the sort of thing that Occam criticized in his fellow Scholastics in the middle ages.

Occam and Merlin are two sides of the same coin.

When academia can entertain magic, as it were, then science as a whole will be much more... whole.

 

[Carbon]

When the same phenomena fits multiple competing theories it is of course not a support for one of the theories over others.

Again you have gotten all dressed up to go to the wrong party. I'll try one more time. A type III multiverse is a prediction of quantum theory not a theory in an of itself. All the assumptions and argumentation you are hoping to build upon your misunderstanding of this basic point are a castle on sand.

What is the difference between a quantum physicist who believes in many worlds vs. one who believes the wave function collapses? Is the difference that the latter denies quantum theory describes a multiverse? No. Quantum theory does describe a multiverse, full stop. The Schrodinger equation describes a vast world of particles identical to the particle observed in this world in every way except that some of those particles take a different possible path described by the wave function with interference. There is no argument about what the equation predicts.

The disagreement between the Everettian and Copenhagan physicist is simply that one takes the theory seriously as a description of reality, while the latter does not.

The extreme version of Copenhagen thinking is pure instrumentalism, the demand that theories never be treated as a description of reality. This is the "shut up and calculate" approach to science. Compare to scientific realism ala Popper. Reasonable people may debate which mode of science is better than the other. Anyone who pays attention to me will not be surprised I am on team Popper here.

Once a person understands that the many worlds version of multiverse is a prediction of theory rather than a theory itself, then they will understand why nonsense requests like "show me a prediction unique to MWI" are not even wrong.

 

[Halbhh]

Again you have gotten all dressed up to go to the wrong party. I'll try one more time. A type III multiverse is a prediction of quantum theory not a theory in an of itself. All the assumptions and argumentation you are hoping to build upon your misunderstanding of this basic point are a castle on sand.

What is the difference between a quantum physicist who believes in many worlds vs. one who believes the wave function collapses? Is the difference that the latter denies quantum theory describes a multiverse? No. Quantum theory does describe a multiverse, full stop. The Schrodinger equation describes a vast world of particles identical to the particle observed in this world in every way except that some of those particles take a different possible path described by the wave function with interference. There is no argument about what the equation predicts.

The disagreement between the Everettian and Copenhagan physicist is simply that one takes the theory seriously as a description of reality, while the latter does not.

The extreme version of Copenhagen thinking is pure instrumentalism, the demand that theories never be treated as a description of reality. This is the "shut up and calculate" approach to science. Compare to scientific realism ala Popper. Reasonable people may debate which mode of science is better than the other. Anyone who pays attention to me will not be surprised I am on team Popper here.

Once a person understands that the many worlds version of multiverse is a prediction of theory rather than a theory itself, then they will understand why nonsense requests like "show me a prediction unique to MWI" are not even wrong.

Lecturing me about basics regarding WMI I already knew and surmised isn't going to help your basic problem -- the competing theories (not just Copenhagen alone) that seem possible and frankly better in the eyes of many in the field.

Therefore we have to ask the obvious question:
Does WMI have any special support competing theories do not have?

Is there any supporting evidence that uniquely fits WMI only and not the others?

No? Well, as many would say, then it would be a faith act to believe in it as somehow a given, when it's only one of a variety of speculative ideas, all of which have no special proof to distinguish them. The more objective view would be to only entertain it as one of several possibilities.

Earlier I already wondered if you had enough background, and now it seems even more the question, so as above I suggest you read nothing more on WMI until you learn more on the competing theories. If you learn more, you will not assert that QM simply predicts multiverses/WMI (except perhaps as just a pure article of faith).

For others that are interested, it's quite possible multiverses exist, such as possibly through eternal inflation, but such is not yet any kind of sure thing if one has a wide view of cosmology, has read enough, is aware of the competing theories.

 

[Noxot]

Most of this quantum mechanics stuff is over my head but I sure would like to know if anyone has studied scientist brains like they did the religious people. I want to know at exactly what point does scientific knowledge turn into the same kind of thought processes that the religious people have, or if it ever does.

With my limited knowledge it seems there is a simpler explanation such as not having all the mathematics right or not fully complete or not understanding part of reality to be the more likely explanation. But the qm world seems so alien.

This is probably not fair to say but the Limited Infinity of Worlds that keep branching off from each other sounds like a way to try to make the world mystical again. It also sounds lazy to me, almost as lazy as "God did it". But I know that qm is not supposed to be intuitive to the human brain since our bodies do not function and survive on that level.

How much of this is based on metaphysics and philosophy and how much of it is based on solid science I have no idea. hopefully one day in heaven I'll be able to understand this kind of stuff.

 

[Carbon]

the competing theories (not just Copenhagen alone)

Strike four. Good luck to you Halbhh. I’m out.

 

[Carbon]

I sure would like to know if anyone has studied scientist brains like they did the religious people. I want to know at exactly what point does scientific knowledge turn into the same kind of thought processes that the religious people have, or if it ever does.

Cool idea. Both science and religion begin with making stuff up, so I would guess an fMRI of scientific conjecture would have a lot of overlap with religious dogma-making.

 

[Kaon]

Most of this quantum mechanics stuff is over my head but I sure would like to know if anyone has studied scientist brains like they did the religious people. I want to know at exactly what point does scientific knowledge turn into the same kind of thought processes that the religious people have, or if it ever does.

With my limited knowledge it seems there is a simpler explanation such as not having all the mathematics right or not fully complete or not understanding part of reality to be the more likely explanation. But the qm world seems so alien.

This is probably not fair to say but the Limited Infinity of Worlds that keep branching off from each other sounds like a way to try to make the world mystical again. It also sounds lazy to me, almost as lazy as "God did it". But I know that qm is not supposed to be intuitive to the human brain since our bodies do not function and survive on that level.

How much of this is based on metaphysics and philosophy and how much of it is based on solid science I have no idea. hopefully one day in heaven I'll be able to understand this kind of stuff.

Human knowledge is silly at absolute best. It bothers me how much people cling to such crudeness, and then ridicule others for not accepting the same degeneracy - consciously or unconsciously. There is no such thing as solid science; it's all faith based. That's why you pick who you want to follow and be consistent.

There is only one truth. My opinion is academia gives laypersons and learned persons an illusion of truth while convincing people to abandon their own thought. People are intellectually handicapped by logic and reason on purpose; human logic and reason is too absurd to actually take seriously, yet people form their lives around the inside of these intellectual prisons. Who cares how the world treats you? People follow academics, logic and reason only to change their paradigm three or four decades later. I am not in the business of being told I am wrong only to be vindicated some decades later; no real person likes to say I told you so. So, I save myself the trouble and only entertain other men running to and fro claiming genius: there is only one truth.

 

[Halbhh]

...not fully complete or not understanding part of reality...

Well this part is simply fact. Physics isn't complete yet. In other words, we are sure we don't understand part(s) of reality. In fact, quite a lot of it, as we don't yet know anything much in a clear or supported way about 'dark energy' and 'dark matter', which are thought together to be about 95% of what this Universe is. Above we are discussing speculative theories. All quantum mechanics interpretations past Copenhagen are speculative theories not yet with any supporting evidence to my knowledge, and it will be big news in science if that changes.

 

[Halbhh]

Most of this quantum mechanics stuff is over my head but I sure would like to know if anyone has studied scientist brains like they did the religious people. I want to know at exactly what point does scientific knowledge turn into the same kind of thought processes that the religious people have, or if it ever does.

With my limited knowledge it seems there is a simpler explanation such as not having all the mathematics right or not fully complete or not understanding part of reality to be the more likely explanation. But the qm world seems so alien.

This is probably not fair to say but the Limited Infinity of Worlds that keep branching off from each other sounds like a way to try to make the world mystical again. It also sounds lazy to me, almost as lazy as "God did it". But I know that qm is not supposed to be intuitive to the human brain since our bodies do not function and survive on that level.

How much of this is based on metaphysics and philosophy and how much of it is based on solid science I have no idea. hopefully one day in heaven I'll be able to understand this kind of stuff.

Science on the frontiers of the unknown in physics is somewhat like groping in the dark in a very large room without a flashlight (or with only an immobile little light source that only reaches a little ways and we have learned might not reflect off of some of the things in the room).

 

[Halbhh]

Strike four. Good luck to you Halbhh. I’m out.

Good luck to you. A helpful thing to keep in mind: try to avoid assuming you know what others' positions and ideas are, so that you don't waste time arguing against what isn't even a position or idea they have (this isn't a principle just for others, but for all of us ). This would also help you avoid making judgments about others' presumed views, which is just self-defeating. Finally, yes, WMI is speculative, no matter all the fun elaborations -- and has respected competitors --and will remain so until it gets some unique experimental support, if ever, or until a competing theory does.

 

[Carbon]

What is the person when alternate versions exist.

cloudyday,

You’re talking about the god that is three yet one, divine yet human, unchanging yet changes his mind every time the wind blows.

If any religion can square the circle of a self-contradictory god, it’s Christianity

But I grant you, a multiverse god does up the ante a little.

 

[Kaon]

cloudyday,

You’re talking about the god that is three yet one, divine yet human, unchanging yet changes his mind every time the wind blows.

If any religion can square the circle of a self-contradictory god, it’s Christianity

But I grant you, a multiverse god does up the ante a little.

The Word of God Himself, and the Most High God are two separate entities that are one - like marriage is supposed to represent on this plane of existence. Spiritual "unions" are a different entity than marriage on this plane of existence for physical beings. When you give yourself to a "god", it means you completely devote yourself to it. Witchcraft is a contract between a human and a "god" - a covenant. In exchange for "powers and abilities", you "give yourself completely" to the entity (including spiritual dominion eventually). That parenthetical part is why humans have been dabbling in necromancy - to live forever so that their contracts never have to come up.


Contradictions and paradoxes are our inability to reconcile a particular juxtaposition of reality.

 

[Carbon]

The Word of God Himself, and the Most High God are two separate entities that are one

The strength of cloudyday's point is that in a multiverse the apparent contradictions of the god are multiplied, increasing the heavy lifting required for the theologian to explain them away. Your marriage analogy is fine as far as it goes but I think we can both agree there is no apples to apples natural analogy for the supernatural have-your-cake-and-eat-it reality the trinitarian god is purported to be. Transcendence is after all one of his major selling points right?

Spiritual "unions" are a different entity than marriage on this plane of existence for physical beings. When you give yourself to a "god", it means you completely devote yourself to it. Witchcraft is a contract between a human and a "god"

Yes and no. Some forms of Judaism and Christianity are transactional and some forms of witchcraft are not. The Deuteronomist insists that community obedience combined with priestly rituals guarantee favors from the god. Jesus blames unmet prayer requests on the requester's lack of trust or obedience. Meanwhile maleficia based witchcraft often places all the supernatural power squarely in the hands of the practitioner such as evil eye, death wish; and countless sorcery practices like dactyliomancy, oneiroscopy, and scapulomancy gain their power from the users' mastery of wordly implements like finger rings, dreams, and animal shoulders, etc.

Diabolism is a little closer to what you describe as a contractual relationship between a god and human, but again Christianity's relationship to god contracts is ambivalent even today, faith healers being one example. It seems more fair to say diabolism and idolatry are just special pleading pejoratives aimed at the "wrong team" while the home team does pretty much the same thing.

Contradictions and paradoxes are our inability to reconcile a particular juxtaposition of reality.

I am actually not totally deaf to these kinds of noises. But a god who is a stand in for everything does looks a lot like a shapeless free for all. In which case why bother, let's just call it "reality" and get on studying it.