The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?

[PsychoSarah]

Near death experiencer Howard Storm was shown quite a bit about the role that G-d had planned for the USA.




http://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html#a04

Sounds like Imperialism. Imperialism is bad, sir. Also, if God really wanted the U.S. to lead the world, it would have happened.

 

[durangodawood]

Multiverse theory is quite irrelevant to reality.

What we believe is very relevant to reality.
It shapes what we do.
What we do is part of reality.
The most important part, for us, some say.

 

[Chriliman]

The closer we look at creation without reference to a creator, the more confused we become. Logically, a creator would confuse those who only focus on creation.

 

[Thursday]

Hate to sound hyper-technical but I don't believe "multiverse" even rises to the level of a theory; it's an idea, a speculation. And quantum mechanics which is much more solid, with aspects of it proven experimentally, is still open to over a dozen philosophical interpretations, some of which include the idea of multiverse. So it's hard to say at this point anyway.

There is zero evidence for this idea and there will never be any evidence.

It is conjecture about something happening outside of our universe.

It was concocted by those who realize that if ours is the only universe(and it is) then there is not statistical way that life is possible without a designer.

 

[Michael]

There is zero evidence for this idea and there will never be any evidence.

It is conjecture about something happening outside of our universe.

It was concocted by those who realize that if ours is the only universe(and it is) then there is not statistical way that life is possible without a designer.

Keep in mind that multiverse theory doesn't even technically rule out a "designer". All it ultimately does is move the question back one step further and you end up asking if the multiverse itself had a "designer". There really aren't any cosmology theories that rule out a designer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The closer we look at creation without reference to a creator, the more confused we become. Logically, a creator would confuse those who only focus on creation.

Actually, I find certain aspects of biology make less sense if you assume they were created by an intelligent being rather than being a result of purely natural processes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is zero evidence for this idea and there will never be any evidence.

It is conjecture about something happening outside of our universe.

It was concocted by those who realize that if ours is the only universe(and it is) then there is not statistical way that life is possible without a designer.

Incorrect. If this is the only universe, it just means that our physics are the only ones that could exist, and those physics allow for life to develop.

 

[Thursday]

Incorrect. If this is the only universe, it just means that our physics are the only ones that could exist, and those physics allow for life to develop.

Yes, but the statistical possibility for life to develop here points to a designer.

If our universe is one of billions, then atheists don't have to deal with the impossibility of our life coming about randomly.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, but the statistical possibility for life to develop here points to a designer.

If our universe is one of billions, then atheists don't have to deal with the impossibility of our life coming about randomly.

The statistical probability of life existing, given our physics, is exceedingly high, to the point that life never developing anywhere would be the statistically unlikely outcome.

Your mistake is that statistics will give a false impression of improbability when measuring aspects of the universe if you aren't very careful to factor in the sheer size of it.

 

[Thursday]

The statistical probability of life existing, given our physics, is exceedingly high, to the point that life never developing anywhere would be the statistically unlikely outcome.

Your mistake is that statistics will give a false impression of improbability when measuring aspects of the universe if you aren't very careful to factor in the sheer size of it.

You are mistaken.

You subscribe to the wishful thinking school of atheism!

 

[Chriliman]

Actually, I find certain aspects of biology make less sense if you assume they were created by an intelligent being rather than being a result of purely natural processes.

Except when you take a closer look and realize those "natural processes" that make biology possible, came into existence at the same point the universe came into existence. This explains nothing.

Another explanation is that the "natural processes" that make biology possible, have always existed eternally. Which would mean life as we know it came from an eternal life giving force.

 

[HitchSlap]

The closer we look at creation without reference to a creator, the more confused we become. Logically, a creator would confuse those who only focus on creation.

"Deep thoughts, with Jack Handy."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Except when you take a closer look and realize those "natural processes" that make biology possible, came into existence at the same point the universe came into existence. This explains nothing.

Another explanation is that the "natural processes" that make biology possible, have always existed eternally. Which would mean life as we know it came from an eternal life giving force.

Life is a series of chemical reactions. The only difference between the maintenance of your body and the formation of a rock is the number of steps and reactions.

Also, how would the later mean that it came from "an eternal life giving force" exactly? You seem to jump to that conclusion for no reason. It is also rendered further irrelevant, considering that in order for you to even come to that conclusion based on your flawed reasoning, you have to eliminate the universe having an origin.

 

[Chriliman]

Life is a series of chemical reactions. The only difference between the maintenance of your body and the formation of a rock is the number of steps and reactions.

Sure, but this does not explain why or how the series of reactions began.

Also, how would the later mean that it came from "an eternal life giving force" exactly? You seem to jump to that conclusion for no reason. It is also rendered further irrelevant, considering that in order for you to even come to that conclusion based on your flawed reasoning, you have to eliminate the universe having an origin.

I don't eliminate the universe having an origin. I firmly believe the universe has an origin because we can observe that the universe originated somehow, most likely from something eternal and not from nothing. The question is how or why did it originate. The most fundamental explanation is that an eternal force that has no origin is the cause of our observable universe beginning.

Logically this eternal force would be natural and intrinsic to our very being. IOW, we can't separate ourselves from this eternal force because it is the reason or cause of our existence. I simply refer to this force as God and I recognize that without God, I would not exist, therefore I am thankful to God for existing before me so that I can exist.

It's a simple explanation for life, take it or leave it, it will always be there as the simplest explanation for life as we know it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sure, but this does not explain why or how the series of reactions began.



I don't eliminate the universe having an origin. I firmly believe the universe has an origin because we can observe that the universe originated somehow, most likely from something eternal and not from nothing. The question is how or why did it originate. The most fundamental explanation is that an eternal force that has no origin is the cause of our observable universe beginning.

Logically this eternal force would be natural and intrinsic to our very being. IOW, we can't separate ourselves from this eternal force because it is the reason or cause of our existence. I simply refer to this force as God and I recognize that without God, I would not exist, therefore I am thankful to God for existing before me so that I can exist.

It's a simple explanation for life, take it or leave it, it will always be there as the simplest explanation for life as we know it.

Nope, it doesn't explain it. Not knowing is not an excuse to shove God in, because it discourages you from actually trying to find the answer. If God is the correct answer, your findings will match it, but you shouldn't assume that will be the case. This is the God of the gaps fallacy.

Also, your definition of God is so vague, it literally can apply to natural forces. If the universe has a cause, you call it God. However, the rules of cause and effect in our universe only existed AFTER the Big Bang, so it is feasible that our universe doesn't have a cause, or, weirdly enough, predates its cause. Time, space, etc. did not exist.

 

[Michael]

Nope, it doesn't explain it. Not knowing is not an excuse to shove God in, because it discourages you from actually trying to find the answer. If God is the correct answer, your findings will match it, but you shouldn't assume that will be the case. This is the God of the gaps fallacy.

Also, your definition of God is so vague, it literally can apply to natural forces. If the universe has a cause, you call it God. However, the rules of cause and effect in our universe only existed AFTER the Big Bang, so it is feasible that our universe doesn't have a cause, or, weirdly enough, predates its cause. Time, space, etc. did not exist.

FYI, if God is the explanation, the assumption itself is valid, whether you like it or not. That very same criticism applies to pretty much every hypothetical cosmology construct however, including multiverse theory.

I'd also point out that the idea of anything precluding 'spacetime' is a bit of an atheist urban legend. As long as there is any amount of "energy" in the system, spacetime as Einstein describes it necessarily exists. Energy exists today, and it cannot be created nor destroyed according to the laws of physics as we understand them. In short, there really is no evidence that there was ever a time when spacetime did not exist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

FYI, if God is the explanation, the assumption itself is valid, whether you like it or not. That very same criticism applies to pretty much every hypothetical cosmology construct however, including multiverse theory.

I'd also point out that the idea of anything precluding 'spacetime' is a bit of an atheist urban legend. As long as there is any amount of "energy" in the system, spacetime as Einstein describes it necessarily exist. There really is no evidence that there was ever a time when spacetime did not exist.

You don't get to make special rules for God. The assumption being God doesn't make it any more valid than the assumption being an eggplant.

Time itself did not exist prior to the Big Bang, so, technically, terms like "before" don't work all that well. However, I am limited by language, so I don't know better words to use to describe the concept I am trying to convey. Also, I am free to disagree with Einstein.

 

[Michael]

You don't get to make special rules for God. The assumption being God doesn't make it any more valid than the assumption being an eggplant.

Why not? Astronomers make special rules for all hypothetical constructs including inflation, dark energy, dark matter, M-Theory, Multiverse theory, QM concepts about gravity, etc. Even creating numerous "properties" related to hypothetical entities is simply par for the course in astronomy.

Time itself did not exist prior to the Big Bang, so, technically, terms like "before" don't work all that well.

Technically anything that has energy has time associated with it. Even if we *assume* a "bang", there can be no assumption about there ever being a zero energy state. Your statement of faith should read......"If all matter/energy came magically popping out of "nothing", then maybe there was a period of time when spacetime did not exist."

However, I am limited by language, so I don't know better words to use to describe the concept I am trying to convey. Also, I am free to disagree with Einstein.

The concept you're trying to describe is "creation ex-nihilo" and it comes straight out of "religion", not physics.

You are of course free to disagree with Einstein if that makes you happy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why not? Astronomers make special rules for all hypothetical constructs including inflation, dark energy, dark matter, M-Theory, Multiverse theory, QM concepts about gravity, etc. Even creating numerous "properties" related to hypothetical entities is simply par for the course in astronomy.



Technically anything that has energy has time associated with it. Even if we *assume* a "bang", there can be no assumption about there ever being a zero energy state. Your statement of faith should read......"If all matter/energy came magically popping out of "nothing", then maybe there was a period of time when spacetime did not exist."



The concept you're trying to describe is "creation ex-nihilo" and it comes straight out of "religion", not physics.

You are of course free to disagree with Einstein if that makes you happy.

What special rules exactly? Of the things you have listed, the only one I know hasn't been observed either directly or indirectly in a conclusive way is dark energy, which while working well with the model of the universe when implemented, there is a decent chance it does not exist, so doubting it is reasonable. Which I can say about a lot of physics. Our understanding of that topic is highly limited, so it isn't uncommon for the mainstream ideas to be completely discarded within a few years. However, no evidence for deities exists at all, something every one of those things on that list has some of.

I didn't say anything about energy. I brought up time and space specifically, but otherwise, I didn't specify. Etc. doesn't stand for literally everything.

I am not saying that the universe came from nothing, but technically, since our physics didn't exist prior to the expansion of the Big Bang, it is entirely possible that events that would completely defy physics as we understand them would happen "prior" to the existence of time and space. Also, creation implies a creator, something I most certainly am not doing. I am stating this all as a natural process. BTW, where do you think God comes from exactly?

I not only can disagree with Einstein, but it is reasonable for me to. Much of his understanding of physics turned out to be flawed, and much of what he regarded as garbage gained evidence to support it later on.

 

[Chriliman]

Nope, it doesn't explain it. Not knowing is not an excuse to shove God in, because it discourages you from actually trying to find the answer. If God is the correct answer, your findings will match it, but you shouldn't assume that will be the case. This is the God of the gaps fallacy.

I agree, not knowing is the reason to question. However, we are free to either assume God or not. If we assume God and God is correct then this truth would logically be revealed to us by God, if He so pleases to reveal Himself to us.

If we assume God is the wrong answer, then we should expect a different truth to be revealed that is not God.

If a different truth is revealed to us, we are free to question where this truth came from, in order to get to the real truth and not just rely on what people are telling us is "the truth".

Also, your definition of God is so vague, it literally can apply to natural forces. If the universe has a cause, you call it God. However, the rules of cause and effect in our universe only existed AFTER the Big Bang, so it is feasible that our universe doesn't have a cause, or, weirdly enough, predates its cause. Time, space, etc. did not exist.

Right, my definition of God would logically be very different from the actual nature of God as experienced from God's own perspective. This is because I am not God and I could never fully understand God's way of being. Just like we may never fully understand why or how the universe came to be, but at least we can question why or how it came to be, assuming there is a truth that can be comprehended by us.