Evidence for a Multiverse?

[JimG]

It’s said the idea was first used by Erwin Schrödinger in 1952, to explain quantum theory. I’ve read some of his writing. He was drawn to Hindu Vedanta philosophy and was a deep thinker about spirituality. Like Lemaitre he saw attempts to make God scientific as trivializing God, for instance “I think we know that whenever God is experienced, it is an experience exactly as real as a direct sense impression, as real as one’s own personality. As such He must be missing from the space-time picture”.

No doubt Erwin Schrödinger liked the idea of a multiverse as a way to explain how that cat could be both alive and dead until you opened the box and made the observation.

I’m admittedly a little disappointed though, that the odds favoring a flat universe are so high. I was hoping for a spherical universe (with regular three dimensional space, of course, being the surface of the sphere.) In such a universe, one could set out traveling in a straight line and eventually come back to your starting point after a few trillion years, having circumnavigated the universe. (If you’re traveling very fast, though, it wouldn’t seem so long.)

 

[inocente]

Einstein was dismissive of a personal God, but he was not completely dismissive of theism. He was completely dismissive of atheism, and said so on several occasions. It seems odd that you have never heard of this.

Einstein said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

He also said, “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein

Collins quote says it all. He says … “It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.” Tell me, how do you have an instruction book without designing one?

Sounds as if you think it’s logically necessary that Collins can only speak the truth, and the possibility he might be wrong or you might have misinterpreted him hasn’t occurred to you.

I’ve no ides why you’re quoting scientists as if they’re any more qualified as authorities of religion than taxi drivers or poets, but if you want to believe their opinions are infallible and they are the go-to authority on the bible, knock yourself out.

 

[inocente]

No doubt Erwin Schrödinger liked the idea of a multiverse as a way to explain how that cat could be both alive and dead until you opened the box and made the observation.

I’m admittedly a little disappointed though, that the odds favoring a flat universe are so high. I was hoping for a spherical universe (with regular three dimensional space, of course, being the surface of the sphere.) In such a universe, one could set out traveling in a straight line and eventually come back to your starting point after a few trillion years, having circumnavigated the universe. (If you’re traveling very fast, though, it wouldn’t seem so long.)

Yes, I’m no expert on QM but think the Schrödinger equation doesn’t differentiate between alternate and parallel histories, so he had no reason to rule out either of them. Most of us believe history could have been different anyway, and philosophers then got interested in the notion of possible worlds, all those logically possible alternatives to our universe with other histories.

So perhaps in another possible world, JimG is disappointed that his universe seems to be spherical.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’ve no ides why you’re quoting scientists as if they’re any more qualified as authorities of religion than taxi drivers or poets, but if you want to believe their opinions are infallible and they are the go-to authority on the bible, knock yourself out.

Well, there’s an interesting point to consider, that scientists cannot be philosophers but you can.

By the way, what is your authority for biblical interpretation? Isn’t it yourself?

And why would you be an authority?

 

[inocente]

Well, there’s an interesting point to consider, that scientists cannot be philosophers but you can.

By the way, what is your authority for biblical interpretation? Isn’t it yourself?

And why would you be an authority?

Just as last time you asked, irrelevant. You’re the one taking selected opinions of scientists as your authorities on scripture. And they are just opinions, you’ve not cited any philosophical treatise from any scientist.

You’ve been arguing for several days now that I should ignore all bible scholars, apologists and theologians, and instead accept your personal interpretation of Gen 1 based on a few short quotes you yourself selected from a couple of scientists, who don’t even mention the scripture. As I said, if you want to ignore your Church and go your own way, by all means knock yourself out, but your technique for interpreting scripture seems to be your own invention, and then some, and I decline to join you, thanks all the same. :tiphat:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You’ve been arguing for several days now that I should ignore all bible scholars, apologists and theologians, and instead accept your personal interpretation of Gen 1 based on a few short quotes you yourself selected from a couple of scientists, who don’t even mention the scripture. As I said, if you want to ignore your Church and go your own way, by all means knock yourself out, but your technique for interpreting scripture seems to be your own invention, and then some, and I decline to join you, thanks all the same. :tiphat:

You might want to ask yourself if everything you said above can be said about you.

Isn’t that the essence of Protestant theology, private interpretation, which means there is no authority but yourself?

2 Peter 3:16 ► King James Version (I assume Baptist are good with this version)

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

That is Peter, the first pope, speaking. How do you get a higher authority on interpreting scripture??

 

[inocente]

You might want to ask yourself if everything you said above can be said about you.

Isn’t that the essence of Protestant theology, private interpretation, which means there is no authority but yourself?

2 Peter 3:16 ► King James Version (I assume Baptist are good with this version)

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

That is Peter, the first pope, speaking. How do you get a higher authority on interpreting scripture??

I prefer the NIV:

“His [Paul’s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Note Peter doesn’t say that a bumper sticker magically makes someone right. He says those who distort scripture do so “to their own destruction”. I’m not the one who is going against bible scholars, apologists and theologians to make his own personal interpretation using the selected opinions of a few scientists. You are.

Peter goes on:

“Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.”

And like I said, being on my guard, I decline to join you, thanks all the same.

 

[thinkandmull]

Couple questions:

1. how many different definitions are there for the multiverse? It seems to be used in different waves
2. when they say particles can act like waves, this is, without having a direct locality, can’t we just respond “the locality is under your microscope silly!” I don’t understand the idea of something having an indistinct location

 

[inocente]

Couple questions:

1. how many different definitions are there for the multiverse? It seems to be used in different waves
2. when they say particles can act like waves, this is, without having a direct locality, can’t we just respond “the locality is under your microscope silly!” I don’t understand the idea of something having an indistinct location

At very small scales, matter and light don’t behave like anything we experience. Sometimes they behave like water waves or air waves. But other times they behave like bullets or pool balls. The best description I’ve seen is from an old Feynman lecture - feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html.

That double-slit experiment has been around for a hundred years, and the theory is well-understood.

On the other hand, multiverses are just hypotheses, and there are lots of them - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

 

[ThinkingSapien]

1. how many different definitions are there for the multiverse? It seems to be used in different waves

I don’t remember the exact count. Usually though when ever I see a discussion in these forums on a scientific publication and the multiverse the discussion here invokes a different usage than what was in the paper. In a recent discussion when I found the original publication behind the discussion the paper was talking about areas of the universe cut off from interacting with each other due to distance while the thread was criticizing a usage that was never invoked in the paper.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I prefer the NIV:

“His [Paul’s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Note Peter doesn’t say that a bumper sticker magically makes someone right. He says those who distort scripture do so “to their own destruction”. I’m not the one who is going against bible scholars, apologists and theologians to make his own personal interpretation using the selected opinions of a few scientists. You are.

Peter goes on:

“Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.”

And like I said, being on my guard, I decline to join you, thanks all the same.

You still haven’t identified the source of your authority for interpreting scripture. You seem to have none but your own. You have no infallibility such as the Church has. You have no catechism, such as the Church has. You have no 2000 years of profound Baptist theological writings to draw upon. Yet you are willing to deny others, including scientists, the right to assert their own interpretation based not on scripture even, but on their own reasoning powers that lead them inexorably to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being who has designed and created and sustains the universe, all the way from Newton to Einstein.

What is your problem, anyway?

What is your greatest objection to anything I have said in this or any other thread?

That God designed the universe?

If he did not design it, how did we get where we are?

And why are we so full of compulsion to believe that he has a plan and we are part of the plan?

Do you think God just plays dice with the universe to amuse himself?

 

[inocente]

You still haven’t identified the source of your authority for interpreting scripture. You seem to have none but your own. You have no infallibility such as the Church has. You have no catechism, such as the Church has. You have no 2000 years of profound Baptist theological writings to draw upon. Yet you are willing to deny others, including scientists, the right to assert their own interpretation based not on scripture even, but on their own reasoning powers that lead them inexorably to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being who has designed and created and sustains the universe, all the way from Newton to Einstein.

What is your problem, anyway?

Currently I use bible scholars, theologians and apologists, including Catholic, and the Holy Spirit to read Genesis.

Then a guy on the internet tells me no that’s all wrong, ignore all of them, for really Genesis is a (not very good) science book, and must be interpreted using opinions he himself has selected from scientists, that are not even about scripture and mostly not even theists.

And I’ve said no thanks, but he won’t accept that no means no. That’s my problem.

*What is your greatest objection to anything I have said in this or any other thread?

That God designed the universe?

If he did not design it, how did we get where we are?

And why are we so full of compulsion to believe that he has a plan and we are part of the plan?

Do you think God just plays dice with the universe to amuse himself? *

My greatest objection?

Since I’ve joined CAF, I’ve talked to a number of posters who developed their own theories. One tried to get me to accept that God is made of 50% consciousness and 50% dark energy. Another that time is both analog and digital. Another decided he is God and no one else exists outside his imagination.

And a guy who says Genesis must be interpreted using a 1980’s TV show script and a few selected opinions of a few scientists.

I suggest that if he stopped using them as authorities, and instead listened to bible scholars, theologians and apologists, then that would challenge his theory. But if he wants to continue down his path, fine but I won’t join him since I have been forewarned to be on my guard so that I may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from my secure position.

I’m doing exactly as 1 Pet 3 counsels me. The other guy isn’t.

As this is off-topic and no means no, you have the last word on it.

 

[thinkandmull]

What does it mean when they say a particle acts like a wave. An ocean wave acts very much like a ball being kicked, same physics. A wave needs locality in order to flow too

 

[Clevus]

We all know the universe exists. Some people offer the hypothetical that many universes could co-exist. What concrete proof is there for a multiverse?

Has our universe ever bumped into another one?

You may find interesting Fr. Ripperger’s article on it:

youtube.com/watch?v=OIqi9bcZSBA

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Currently I use bible scholars, theologians and apologists, including Catholic, and the Holy Spirit to read Genesis.

Then a guy on the internet tells me no that’s all wrong, ignore all of them, for really Genesis is a (not very good) science book, and must be interpreted using opinions he himself has selected from scientists, that are not even about scripture and mostly not even theists.

And I’ve said no thanks, but he won’t accept that no means no. That’s my problem.

My greatest objection?

Since I’ve joined CAF, I’ve talked to a number of posters who developed their own theories. One tried to get me to accept that God is made of 50% consciousness and 50% dark energy. Another that time is both analog and digital. Another decided he is God and no one else exists outside his imagination.

And a guy who says Genesis must be interpreted using a 1980’s TV show script and a few selected opinions of a few scientists.

I suggest that if he stopped using them as authorities, and instead listened to bible scholars, theologians and apologists, then that would challenge his theory. But if he wants to continue down his path, fine but I won’t join him since I have been forewarned to be on my guard so that I may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from my secure position.

I’m doing exactly as 1 Pet 3 counsels me. The other guy isn’t.

As this is off-topic and no means no, you have the last word on it.

Instead of answering questions you make vague unsubstantiated charges. so It would be useless to have the last word with you as it would never be the last word.

You still haven’t explained the source of your authority except to throw out the Holy Spirit as your source, as if the Holy Spirit visited you regularly and affirmed everything you said.
I believe the Holy Sprit is claimed to be the usual “source” for nearly all protestant apologists, who never seem to notice that the Holy Spirit must be dreadfully confused having spread a thousand different “truths” among a thousand different sects.

"And a guy who says Genesis must be interpreted using a 1980’s TV show script and a few selected opinions of a few scientists."

You know, of course, I never said anything of the sort. Science does not decide theological questions. But if a TV script and a few scientists happen to say something consistent with Genesis, why is that a problem for you?

By the way, you have never explained why it is that God never intelligently designed our universe. How would you know that? More inspiration from the Holy Spirit?

 

[IWantGod]

We all know the universe exists. Some people offer the hypothetical that many universes could co-exist. What concrete proof is there for a multiverse?

Has our universe ever bumped into another one?

One day your going to have to accept that the reality is far more complex than what is contained in genesis.

 

[IWantGod]

There is no evidence and cosmologists and physicists know they can never observe one.

In addition, the multiverse is an attempt to evade the implications of fine tuning. This will keep the research money flowing.

So you think the scientific community are purposely inventing theories to avoid God?

 

[IWantGod]

Settle down guys. It’s just a mathematical possibility…

And the math is really bad.

 

[IWantGod]

You posted this in the other thread:

*2) Any form is possible in a infinite universe
3) Therefore everything is possible without the grand design *

So in an infinite universe, can you find a human who could jump down his own throat?

Only that which is logically possible can exist.

 

[Bradski]

And the math is really bad.

I think that you’ll have to follow that up.