The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?

[TerryWoodenpic]

I rather think we do not under stand the multivers concept well enough to say "how" it impacts on anything, let alone philosophy or Dogma.

It seems certain that the Newtonian concept of space and time is far too simplistic to be correct. and that we must prepare ourselves for some quite serious shocks, of a far more fundamental nature and significance, than say "evolution" has had on religious beliefs up to now.

The application of Biblical concepts, to a world view of the multiverse, seems fraught with problems, and likely to require significant changes to our understanding of the nature of God.

It will clearly create far more problems for people following a traditional conservative Christian Dogma, than those who are more open to change or follow a more liberal approach.
If any one of the Multivers concepts proves to be true, it will change the way we perceive absolutely everything.

Churches, like the Catholic and Anglican, who have learned, with some pain, to accept scientific discoveries and truths, and have come to be able to re-evaluate their teaching to accommodate them, will find the change difficult but manageable. Other, more Dogmatic, faiths will have far greater difficulty to maintain their world view, in the light of such severe challenges to the Status Quo.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Logic is actually empirical.
Before Einstein, it wasn't considered "logical" that time is relative instead of absolute.
Before quantum mechanics, it wasn't considered "logical" that particles can show up in two places at ones.

The point is that we don't know what is "logical" in advance.
Logic is derived from reality, not imposed on it.

Certain philosophers don't seem to be aware of that.



Ow goody.... another biology denier who likes to talk about "real scientists".
Uhu.



Nobody is suggesting to "eliminate logic".

I don't deny biology. I deny liars who call themselves biologists. There are plenty of real biologists who realize that you can't deny an intelligent Creator, despite the brainwashing you all do in school and the worldly demand that the scientist cannot believe in a Creator. These real scientists accept the idea that, based on the serious intricacies of the world we see, a Creator is the most reasonable explanation not chance. There are plenty of real biologists who don't believe that two creatures of one species can produce a completely different kind of species--like the ape to human lies. And these real scientists realize that Darwin's smoke and mirrors of birds of the same kind producing various birds within the same kind doesn't equate to a gorilla becoming a human. And, it is fact that all the "missing links" were frauds, created by liars, not scientists, who wanted to propagate a lie. Many real scientists believe that the deception of age-dating and the geologic column are a lie that would be equally, if not better, explained by a catastrophic flood.

Isn't it interesting that for an experiment to be run to prove any of those things you mentioned that "defy logic," an intelligent being had to design them?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... it is fact that all the "missing links" were frauds, created by liars, not scientists, who wanted to propagate a lie...

You should understand that all fossils are of species caught in transition (all populations are evolving), and the 'missing links' found are species that fill out what were previously gaps in the record. There are hundreds of thousands of fossils that you could call '(previously) missing links' - those for the evolution of the horse and the whale being particularly comprehensive.

You may have been misled by the wide publicity that the exposure (by paleontologists!) of the few frauds has generated. If they were all frauds, it would have to be a global conspiracy (to what end?) and your post would be in the wrong forum - it ought to go in Conspiracy Theories.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I rather think we do not under stand the multivers concept well enough to say "how" it impacts on anything, let alone philosophy or Dogma.

We know enough to say that the cosmological and/or inflationary multiverse scenarios would have implications for the appearance of fine tuning (and justify using the Weak Anthropic Principle); and that the quantum multiverse (Everettian 'Many Worlds') would have major philosophical implications, as all possible worlds with the same origin as our universe would be real, and so-on.

It seems certain that the Newtonian concept of space and time is far too simplistic to be correct.

Einstein showed that 100 years ago, and it's been repeatedly confirmed ever since.

The application of Biblical concepts, to a world view of the multiverse, seems fraught with problems, and likely to require significant changes to our understanding of the nature of God.

The single universe we're familiar with is already fraught with problems for traditional biblical concepts.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

You should understand that all fossils are of species caught in transition (all populations are evolving), and the 'missing links' found are species that fill out what were previously gaps in the record. There are hundreds of thousands of fossils that you could call '(previously) missing links' - those for the evolution of the horse and the whale being particularly comprehensive.

You may have been misled by the wide publicity that the exposure (by paleontologists!) of the few frauds has generated. If they were all frauds, it would have to be a global conspiracy (to what end?) and your post would be in the wrong forum - it ought to go in Conspiracy Theories.

You are wrong; but, I understand why. You don't believe in a God, so the idea of a Creator doesn't work for you--at least until one thing or another happens. I would suggest that rather than trying to determine where my posts should go, you re-examine what you believe to be true. That way, you may end up with a better eternity than you are currently looking at.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are wrong; but, I understand why. You don't believe in a God, so the idea of a Creator doesn't work for you--at least until one thing or another happens. I would suggest that rather than trying to determine where my posts should go, you re-examine what you believe to be true. That way, you may end up with a better eternity than you are currently looking at.

Part of the reason I visit these forums is that I find my views constantly challenged by alternative views, and I need to continually reassess the evidence for them and my understanding of it. In doing so, I've learned far more than I would otherwise have done, both about religion and religious views, and science and philosophy - including evolutionary paleontology.

But although my own views have changed in that time, I'm no more inclined to religious belief than before, although I think I have a better understanding of it than before.

So thanks for the advice, but I prefer to follow real-world evidence, material fact. Nebulous creator concepts have no explanatory or predictive power; you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable - particularly one that raises more unanswerable questions than it answers.

The late Richard Feynman summed it up well:

“You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit and if I can't figure it out, then I go on to something else, but I don't have to know an answer, I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is so far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me.”​

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't deny biology.

Sorry, but when you say things like "logic is a foreing concept to evolutionists", then you make clear what your stance is on biology. And it is a stance of denial.

I deny liars who call themselves biologists.

You mean like, some of the people over at answers in genesis and alike?

There are plenty of real biologists who realize that you can't deny an intelligent Creator

Define "real biologist"? Could it perhaps be any and all people who call themselves biologists (regardless of their actual qualifications) and who deny evolution?

, despite the brainwashing you all do in school and the worldly demand that the scientist cannot believe in a Creator.

Francis Collins is a devout christian.
You can read what he thinks about evolution in my signature.
I think it's safe to say that the Pope is also a devout christian. He agrees with Collins.
Most christians, actually agree with Collins.

Clearly, accepting evolution doesn't exclude you from having god beliefs.

These real scientists accept the idea that, based on the serious intricacies of the world we see, a Creator is the most reasonable explanation not chance. There are plenty of real biologists who don't believe that two creatures of one species can produce a completely different kind of species--like the ape to human lies.

Humans are not a "completely different kind" of species.
Instead, humans are a "type of ape".

And psssst: speciation, has been observed in both the wild and the lab.

And these real scientists realize that Darwin's smoke and mirrors of birds of the same kind producing various birds within the same kind doesn't equate to a gorilla becoming a human.

Humans didn't evolve from gorilla's.
Funny also how none of these "real scientists" seem to be publishing any papers on the subject. Which, fyi, is kind of the core of "doing science". That's what scientists do: they do studies and then write reports about those studies and publish them for peer review.

You cannot be a "real scientist" without engaging in doing science.

And, it is fact that all the "missing links" were frauds, created by liars, not scientists, who wanted to propagate a lie. Many real scientists believe that the deception of age-dating and the geologic column are a lie that would be equally, if not better, explained by a catastrophic flood.

You should google project Steve.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what any scientist believes.

Isn't it interesting that for an experiment to be run to prove any of those things you mentioned that "defy logic," an intelligent being had to design them?

Not any more interesting then an intelligent being creating a freezer to make water turn into ice.

It's called "controlled conditions".

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are wrong; but, I understand why. You don't believe in a God, so the idea of a Creator doesn't work for you

Ken Miller.
Francis Collins.
The Pope (actually the entire Vatican and the vast majority of god believingt catholics)
....

All christians. All god believers.
All have no issues with mainstream biology.

Clearly, evolution and god beliefs aren't mutually exclusive.

The problem here, seems to only exist between your ears.

I would suggest that rather than trying to determine where my posts should go, you re-examine what you believe to be true. That way, you may end up with a better eternity than you are currently looking at.

And out come the "believe me or else..." threats.

Yawn.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

We know enough to say that the cosmological and/or inflationary multiverse scenarios would have implications for the appearance of fine tuning (and justify using the Weak Anthropic Principle); and that the quantum multiverse (Everettian 'Many Worlds') would have major philosophical implications, as all possible worlds with the same origin as our universe would be real, and so-on.

Exactly we don@ know anything about it for certain, it is all work in progress.

Einstein showed that 100 years ago, and it's been repeatedly confirmed ever since.

However Einstein was very unhappy about, and did not believe quantum theory to be real, and was proved wrong. he knew nothing at all abut multiverse theory.

[/QUOTE]The single universe we're familiar with is already fraught with problems for traditional biblical concepts.[/QUOTE]

Only for those Christians who believe that the bible is infallible and the true word of God.
Unfortunately most of those are concentrated in American protestant Denominations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Exactly we don@ know anything about it for certain, it is all work in progress.

Multiverses are hypotheses, mostly predictions or extrapolations of current successful models. we don't know if they exist, but if they do, we can predict quite a bit about them because they are based on the physical theories we already know.

However Einstein was very unhappy about, and did not believe quantum theory to be real, and was proved wrong. he knew nothing at all abut multiverse theory.

Not quite; Einstein was one of the original developers of quantum theory (he got the Nobel Prize for his work on the quantum photoelectric effect). He didn't accept some of the implications of quantum theory that were proposed at the time. He was shown to be wrong about those implications.

But I was pointing out that your statement about 'the Newtonian concept of space and time' was about 100 years out of date.

Only for those Christians who believe that the bible is infallible and the true word of God.
Unfortunately most of those are concentrated in American protestant Denominations.

It also raises problems for those who think that we're a 'special' feature of God's creation, and/or that God made this world (and the universe) especially for us.

 

[Michael]

Multiverses are hypotheses, mostly predictions or extrapolations of current successful models.

Which "successful" models would those be?

we don't know if they exist, but if they do, we can predict quite a bit about them because they are based on the physical theories we already know.

Theories we 'know'? Like what?

It also raises problems for those who think that we're a 'special' feature of God's creation, and/or that God made this world (and the universe) especially for us.

I think the multiverse concept also gives comfort to atheists who'd like to believe that there is no God, and no "creation" process. I think that's part of it "popularity" among atheists. Nothing like inventing five of six supernatural processes and entities to replace just one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which "successful" models would those be?

The 'Core' or Standard Model of particle physics (based on Quantum Field Theory), and mainstream consensus cosmological models.

Theories we 'know'? Like what?

See above.

I think the multiverse concept also gives comfort to atheists who'd like to believe that there is no God, and no "creation" process. I think that's part of it "popularity" among atheists. Nothing like inventing five of six supernatural processes and entities to replace just one.

Frankly, I don't see that it makes any difference; God believers can still believe God-did-it, atheists just don't believe in gods, multiverse or not. Do Christians need comfort for not believing in the gods of other religions? I doubt it.

The vast majority and the vast majority of atheists don't know or care enough about multiverse concepts for them to be relevant (most are probably skeptical of them).

 

[Michael]

The 'Core' or Standard Model of particle physics (based on Quantum Field Theory), and mainstream consensus cosmological models.

But the 'core' (or standard) model of particle physics is at empirical odds with mainstream consensus cosmological models because there are no exotic forms of matter or energy described in the 'core' particle physics model. Already you're out on a metaphysical limb.

Frankly, I don't see that it makes any difference; God believers can still believe God-did-it, atheists just don't believe in gods, multiverse or not. Do Christians need comfort for not believing in the gods of other religions? I doubt it.

I think the real question is do some atheists find comfort in believing in, or at least entertaining multiple hypothetical entities of science? In my experience they're typically more interested in considering the belief that "the multiverse did it" or anything other than "God did it".

The vast majority and the vast majority of atheists don't know or care enough about multiverse concepts for them to be relevant (most are probably skeptical of them).

That's probably true.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Already you're out on a metaphysical limb.

Nope; I'm simply describing from where multiverse models derive.

I think the real question is do some atheists find comfort in believing in, or at least entertaining multiple hypothetical entities of science?

I don't see why a lack of belief in gods should be associated with 'finding comfort' in hypothetical science. Hypotheses are the life blood of science, but they're just explanatory propositions - where's the comfort supposed to be?

If you're suggesting that it's comforting to have hypotheses to test, I wouldn't argue - most scientists are uncomfortable if they have no plausible hypotheses for an unexplained phenomenon - that's called curiosity, and it's fundamental to science.

In my experience they're typically more interested in considering the belief that "the multiverse did it" or anything other than "God did it".

Not belief, hypothesis (they're very different).

But I guess if you don't believe in a god, you're unlikely to consider "God did it", any more than God believers would consider gremlins or faeries did it

 

[Michael]

Nope; I'm simply describing from where multiverse models derive.

They evidently derive from a metaphysical cosmology model that is in conflict with the standard model of particle physics. That's just adding more metaphysics upon boatloads of previous metaphysics.

I don't see why a lack of belief in gods should be associated with 'finding comfort' in hypothetical science. Hypotheses are the life blood of science, but they're just explanatory propositions - where's the comfort supposed to be?

It's comforting to believe that the universe is organized in some way, and maybe it's comforting to have an alternative belief or a "hypothesis" if you prefer, about how the universe came to exist.

If you're suggesting that it's comforting to have hypotheses to test, I wouldn't argue - most scientists are uncomfortable if they have no plausible hypotheses for an unexplained phenomenon - that's called curiosity, and it's fundamental to science.

That curiosity about how we got here is part of the human condition. Regardless of which path one takes, a religious path, or a scientific path, both paths lead to a hypothesis in the unseen, in the lab.

Not belief, hypothesis (they're very different).

Meh. Sometimes, yes, sometimes no depending on the individual and the specific hypothesis in question. There are in fact "evangelicals" who vigorously defend the merits of one hypothetical entity or another (or several at once).

In your case, I'd grant you that there's a significant difference however as it relates to multiverse theory. You may "entertain" the concept without "believing" it. I'm not sure if you're as open minded to hypothetical concepts related to the topic of God, but that's possible.

But I guess if you don't believe in a god, you're unlikely to consider "God did it", any more than God believers would consider gremlins or faeries did it

Ya, which is pretty much where I stand with 'multiverse/inflation/dark energy/dark matter/space expansion did it' hypothesis. From my perspective it's like considering the possibility that invisible gremlins, dark faeries, space expansion unicorns and physics defying energy pixies came popping out of "never never land".

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Ken Miller.
Francis Collins.
The Pope (actually the entire Vatican and the vast majority of god believingt catholics)
....

All christians. All god believers.
All have no issues with mainstream biology.

Clearly, evolution and god beliefs aren't mutually exclusive.

The problem here, seems to only exist between your ears.



And out come the "believe me or else..." threats.

Yawn.

How do you know who is a real God-believer? On what basis do you, an atheist, make such a claim? How can you even talk about a dimension of reality that you clearly know nothing about and can't know anything about?

Not threats, just reality which you refuse to accept.

While you are yawning, read: Romans 1:20-32. You have the freedom to reject God's Word, and in exercising that freedom to the end of God's patience with you, you will live with the foretold consequences of that rejection. It behooves you to not be limited by man's wisdom which is foolishness to God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think the multiverse concept also gives comfort to atheists who'd like to believe that there is no God, and no "creation" process. I think that's part of it "popularity" among atheists. Nothing like inventing five of six supernatural processes and entities to replace just one.

You think wrongly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do you know who is a real God-believer?

Unlike some other people here, when a person tells me "I believe such and such", I just accept that they believe such and such.

Your "no true scottsman" is not relevant to what people actually believe.
A muslim is just as much a god believer as a christian (of any denomination).

On what basis do you, an atheist, make such a claim?

On the basis of what people say that they believe.

How can you even talk about a dimension of reality that you clearly know nothing about and can't know anything about?

What people believe is not some alternate dimension of reality.
Their beliefs are in their heads, in this reality.

Not threats, just reality which you refuse to accept.

No. It's just what you believe. What one believes and what really is, isn't necessarily the same thing.

While you are yawning, read: Romans 1:20-32.

I already read it.

You have the freedom to reject God's Word, and in exercising that freedom to the end of God's patience with you, you will live with the foretold consequences of that rejection. It behooves you to not be limited by man's wisdom which is foolishness to God.

Yes, that is what you believe. Theists of other religions, believe different things. You don't care about their beliefs, just like I don't care about yours.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I work with a meaning of life that is plausible in all universes: rational attraction to Being. No matter where you are, its a good idea.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I work with a meaning of life that is plausible in all universes: rational attraction to Being. No matter where you are, its a good idea.

Can you explain what, exactly, you mean by 'Being'? Is it a noun, a verb, an adverb? is the capitalisation significant?