Okay; so when he spoke of a multiverse, he wasn't speaking of something real, or even something even believed to be real; he was just speaking of a hypothetical? Can you give a hypothetical of when there could be more than one "all that exists"?Pedantically, yes.
Prior to modern maths and physics discoveries, as @Speedwell mentioned, this space-time manifold is all we conceived of when we said "universe". With the advent of new information it is the convention to consider that which we can perceive (which is the same prior to modern math) as the universe and that which is hypothetical as the multiverse or metaverse or some other term.
I wouldn't get hung up on it.
As I understand it the multiverse is a hypothesis for how things work. It, and other hypotheses are under consideration because they are consistent with the math.Okay; so when he spoke of a multiverse, he wasn't speaking of something real, or even something even believed to be real; he was just speaking of a hypothetical.
OK, so you got my last reply deleted. Let's get this back out there:When did I mention god as that cause? It appears that you are the one who made this leap; but at this time I see no need for your hypothesis to be challenged. Best wishes in your research
Again; if the Universe is by definition "all that exists" it would defy logic for there to be more than one don't cha think?As I understand it the multiverse is a hypothesis for how things work. It, and other hypotheses are under consideration because they are consistent with the math.
OK, so you got my last reply deleted. Let's get this back out there:
This is a thread about creation on a Creation & Evolution on a Christian website. The implication, therefore, is that Creation is the Biblical version, therefore God. Furthermore, your OP contains verses from the Bible. So, while pedantically you have not mentioned any particular agent the very clear implication is that God is your chosen agent. If that is not the case, please state this clearly. That is, after all, the nub of your OP.
Let's start with a couple of axioms.
1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that a quantifiable object cannot be contained in an indefinite amount of space?3. These claims are not consistent. If space is infinite, and the matter density or energy density are non-zero, then the total matter in the Universe must be infinite, and so must the total energy.
As far as creation or beginnings of the universe, I see nothing to support any particular inference, so I wouldn't infer anything. If by transcend you mean "prior to", then I would tend to disagree. If time only began when the universe began, then by definition there cannot be a "prior to". As far as a First Cause is concerned, I'm not convinced a First Cause is required. I find the whole cosmological argument unsatisfactory, and my understanding of modern physics is that causality is not necessary in all models.This concept might seem a bit abstract to you; but I would infer that what created all that is concrete; must transcend all that which is concrete. What would you infer?
If motion is dependent on time; and nothing were to exist in motion; and time could exist with neither the motion it defines, nor an an observer to ponder the abstraction; I would struggle to make a case that it would exist.If by transcend you mean "prior to", then I would tend to disagree. If time only began when the universe began, then by definition there cannot be a "prior to".
As far as a First Cause is concerned, I'm not convinced a First Cause is required.
Poor wording on my part, for which I apologise. Causality is not well defined is what I should have said.No causality?!? Causality is a fundamental of Physical science.
OK, so for purposes of argument we will take the universe to be all that exists, whether just this space-time manifold or including others if there are any. What's your point?Again; if the Universe is by definition "all that exists" it would defy logic for there to be more than one don't cha think?
You can't be "A" and "-A" at the same time, we must either change the definition of Universe (from all that exists, to something else) or recognize there can't be multiple of them.OK, so for purposes of argument we will take the universe to be all that exists, whether just this space-time manifold or including others if there are any. What's your point?
Why? It's just a word. You can specify a working definition for it. It can either mean just the connected space-time manifold in which we find ourselves or the meaning can be expanded to include other space-time manifolds which we hypothesize--although it appears that there is already a term in use for that concept.You can't be "A" and "-A" at the same time, we must either change the definition of Universe (from all that exists, to something else) or recognize there can't be multiple of them.
Causality is not well defined is what I should have said.
Very funny. But of course you know he meant as a physical phenomenon, not a word.Seems clear as day to me.
cau·sal·i·ty
/kôˈzalədē/
noun
- 1. the relationship between cause and effect.
- 2. the principle that everything has a cause.
What part do you have trouble with?
I still want to see what he says. This could get interesting.Very funny. But of course you know he meant as a physical phenomenon, not a word.
It's a convention. Go with it.Again; if the Universe is by definition "all that exists" it would defy logic for there to be more than one don't cha think?
It's a word that has specific meaning.Why? It's just a word.
Universe is not defined as a space-time manifold, it's defined as ALL that exists.You can specify a working definition for it. It can either mean just the connected space-time manifold in which we find ourselves
OK, but I still don't see what your point is. However you wish to define it, the "universe" is not known by science to have had a definite beginning.It's a word that has specific meaning.
Universe is not defined as a space-time manifold, it's defined as ALL that exists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?