Infinite Universes

[promethius]

Interesting. So the evidence for this theory is it’s abilityu to formulate laws and make predictions.

Meh… there’s more to it than that, but the general idea is that the many worlds theory is the current paradigm of quantum mechanics, and the math actually works in the real world…

Very interesting. The first theory posits multiple world coming into existence at every nano-second. Presumably they would also have the same laws of physics as our own. (Correct?)

Correct that they would have identical laws. Many world theory posits not that there are other DISTINCT and UNIQUE universes… it posits that THIS universe is subject to multiple realities.

I would say incorrect that it posits MORE coming into existence. Rather it says that the realities, or instances of this universe, exist already until such time as a distinction is forced, at which point we are separated from the other possibilities and don’t know if those branches of possibility die or if they just continue on in different realities. That much we can NEVER know, since the very nature of being in this reality necessitates that the other reality never occured. Simply put: no, new realities do not get created every second (at least, not in the current paradigm), but they are destroyed (or cut off from us) all the time.

The other theory posits many unknowable universes, and one in particular that created our own, and was the cause of the big bang.

Meh, the other posits that there are other universes. Or that there was another universe before ours which caused ours. Or a combination of the two. There are a lot of multiverse theories and none of them are empirically provable.

So here is the followup question: some people would claim that these theories are religious in nature, because they are unprovable.

They are faith statements (assuming the person actually BELIEVES it and is not just presenting it as a useful theory), but i would not call them religious.

I have a couple of issues with this statement, because it make presuppositions about what we mean by religion, and what constitutes a proff.

Why is that an issue? We know there is no such thing as an empirical proof for God for three reasons:

1. God is infinite, which means He exists outside of the universe in the realm which we cannot possibly perceive. We’ve known this since St Augustine.
2. God TELLS us we will have to go on faith and not emperical evidence multiple times throughout scriptures.
3. Free will demands that there be no empirical proof for God.

But the question isn’t whether or not we are satisfied based on empirical proof… it’s whether or not we’re satisfied by compelling proof… namely evidence that generally points to God.

When we consider that there IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for what is outside our universe, we have to look at other statements… religion asserts something about what is out there, and then offers a history of miracles and other occurances as evidence… science offers what MIGHT be out there, and then promptly admits it can’t even begin to prove it or make an assertion.

The case for christianity is about more than any single one proof… it is about the sum of the nature of the universe and existence which, when considered altogether, points to God. In other words, it seems like a wash until we consider other aspects of the Christian argument.

 

[promethius]

Ok. Perhaps all quite correct in regard to the Multiverse concept -it is indeed all ‘Theoretical.’

It must be noted, however that, perhaps, the evidence for, and extrapolation from said evidence for -God- is ‘theoretical’ as well -for the Atheist at least. There is NO Nobel Prize awarded for the proof of God either.

So. Just how far do we rely on this word- Theoretical?

I think I accidently answered this in the last part of my post above… God is expected to be proven through compelling rather than conclusive evidence in order to necessitate free will AND because of the limits of the nature of the universe.

 

[shoe]

Absolutely none - there is no way to detect them.

Implications - there would be universes with a God and fake universes too.

This is the atheist out to escape fine tuning and is fantasy.

Dittos. An infinite number of universes is basically a creation found mostly in the heads of those who apparently are lost in the world of their own infinite imaginations, hoping against hope that the more universes they can imagine, the more luck they’ll have in trying to disprove God.

 

[utunumsint]

Meh… there’s more to it than that, but the general idea is that the many worlds theory is the current paradigm of quantum mechanics, and the math actually works in the real world…

Correct that they would have identical laws. Many world theory posits not that there are other DISTINCT and UNIQUE universes… it posits that THIS universe is subject to multiple realities.

I would say incorrect that it posits MORE coming into existence. Rather it says that the realities, or instances of this universe, exist already until such time as a distinction is forced, at which point we are separated from the other possibilities and don’t know if those branches of possibility die or if they just continue on in different realities. That much we can NEVER know, since the very nature of being in this reality necessitates that the other reality never occured. Simply put: no, new realities do not get created every second (at least, not in the current paradigm), but they are destroyed (or cut off from us) all the time.

Meh, the other posits that there are other universes. Or that there was another universe before ours which caused ours. Or a combination of the two. There are a lot of multiverse theories and none of them are empirically provable.

Thanks for dumbing it down for me. I appreciate it.

I brought up these questions because I’m reading Dinesh D’Souza’s “What’s So Great about Christianity” where he deals with the different arguments that some atheists make against the existence of God, one of which was the multiple universe theory (he did not mention the multipe world’s theory, perhaps because it isn’t so useful in declaring God dead…)

They are faith statements (assuming the person actually BELIEVES it and is not just presenting it as a useful theory), but i would not call them religious.

Agreed. I guess the argument becomes which Faith position is more reasonable.

Why is that an issue? We know there is no such thing as an empirical proof for God for three reasons:

1. God is infinite, which means He exists outside of the universe in the realm which we cannot possibly perceive. We’ve known this since St Augustine.
2. God TELLS us we will have to go on faith and not emperical evidence multiple times throughout scriptures.

Meh… that isn’t what paul says in Romans 1 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. "

1. Free will demands that there be no empirical proof for God.

I guess it depends on what you consider to be empirical proof. Creation itself for Paul is empirical proof enough. Multiverse theories would argue against this kind of understanding.

But the question isn’t whether or not we are satisfied based on empirical proof… it’s whether or not we’re satisfied by compelling proof… namely evidence that generally points to God.

When we consider that there IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for what is outside our universe, we have to look at other statements… religion asserts something about what is out there, and then offers a history of miracles and other occurances as evidence… science offers what MIGHT be out there, and then promptly admits it can’t even begin to prove it or make an assertion.

The case for christianity is about more than any single one proof… it is about the sum of the nature of the universe and existence which, when considered altogether, points to God. In other words, it seems like a wash until we consider other aspects of the Christian argument.

Make sense. Plus Paul did not know anyting about empirical proofs or the scientific method when he made his statements.

Thanks again,
Ut

 

[Warrior1979]

Dittos. An infinite number of universes is basically a creation found mostly in the heads of those who apparently are lost in the world of their own infinite imaginations, hoping against hope that the more universes they can imagine, the more luck they’ll have in trying to disprove God.

Just as an infinite number of universes is a creation found in the heads of those who apparently are lost in the world of their own infinite imaginations, a finite number of universes are found in the heads of those who are lost in the world of their own finite imaginations.

Those with infinite imaginations tend to be more correct though, because those with finite imaginations limit their perception of reality.

 

[utunumsint]

From Pope Benedict’s Truth and Intollerance:

…Primitive Religion
…|
…Mythical Religion
…|
… Three ways to move beyond Mythical religion
…|…|…|
…Mysticism…Monotheistic…Enlightenment
…Revolution

Here we see three ways of moving beyond mythical religion by making absolute claims on truth (or on ways of seeing truth).

The first one is mysticism. The stories in mythical religion are taken up an explained by one mystical exprience that explains all the these mythical stories as symbols that point to the one mystical experience. This kind of spirituality is very much a part of the Hindu religion, and chinese religions. All myths, for HIndus, and in fact all religions, including Christianity, can be explained as relative symbols of their one (absolute) spiritual/mystical understanding. We find this understanding in new age spiritualily as well. The ancient Greek and Roman world had this (seemingly) pluralistic view as well.

Christianity emerged within this Mysticism context, and created the Monotheistic revolution. In many ways, the science of their age (Enlightenment culture of their day) supported the rise of monotheism. For the monotheistic revolutions, myths are rejected as man made. The absolute nature of the divine call as issued through Christ and the prophets and supplants mythical religion.

The third, enlightnment way, happened in early Greece. Here rational knowledge is absolute, and all other forms of knowledge are relative, compared to this way of knowing.

The pope says about mysticism:

The man of today … feels repelled by Christianity’s claim to absolute validity, which, in view of so many historical relativizations that are well known to him, seems to him little worthy of credence; and he feels much better understood and more attracted by the symbolism and spiritualism of someone like Radhakrishnan, who teaches that relativity of all religious expressions that can be articulated and the ultimate validity of that spiritual exprience alone which can never be adequately expressed, an exprience that (although, indeed, coming in stages) is everwhere one and the same.

The pope says about enlightement:

When science becomes the dominant element in a view of the world (and this is just what we mean by "enlightmenet here), this absolute value becomes exclusive; it develops into the theory that scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge and becomes a denial of the absolute value of religion, which is in itself on a different level of reality. In that case, the believe, or even someone who pratices religion, whill have to point to the limitations of this aboslute claim. It moves within the lmits of certain categories, whithin which it is strictly valid; but to maintain that it is only within these categories that man can know anything at all is an unfounded presupposition, which in any case is shown by exprience to be untrue.

Thanks,
Ut

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I’ve believed in the multi-verse from even before I knew what it was, and never thought the notion was incompatible with believing in God.

I’m a writer and as such, I always seem to have ideas popping out of my head, but not enough time or space to write them. I can imagine God as sort of the Supreme Author, with an infinite amount of stories to tell and infinite resources to tell them. His stories are our universe and any other universes He may have chosen to create. Some authors may have only one story to tell, like Harper Lee, for instance, but I don’t think God, in His infinite love and boundless creativity, would limit Himself to just one story…

 

[cerad2]

Is there any evidence at all that support the theory of infinite universes?

Thanks,
Ut

universetoday.com/82097/evidence-of/
Still mostly speculation but scientists can be pretty clever. Wait a few centuries and see what they can come up with.

 

[meltzerboy]

Is there any evidence at all that support the theory of infinite universes?

Thanks,
Ut

I’ve heard of the idea of the multiverse but seem to recall the number 11 universes rather than an infinite number.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The Multiverse Theory was created to avoid a Creator.

If we posit an infinite series of universes with a branching infinite series of physical laws (which most Multiverse theories do), at least one of those universes would contain an infinite, all-powerful being. If the being is all-powerful, the being would be able to transcend its own universe and affect all others. Thus, there would necessarily be a God in our universe. Maybe not “our” God, but enough of one to make it impossible to be an atheist. This is the Anselmian paradox of trying to use Multiverse Theory to avoid dealing with the philosophical problems of God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I personally dislike the way that the word “theory” is used with many of these hypothesis. Were they supported by evidence supported I would feel okay with that. On one had I see those that try to emphasize that a “theory” in the scientific vernacular is a explanatory model supported by evidence. But then there are these models for explaining that are not supported as well and the meaning of the word “theory” that is synonymous with “hunch” is more appropriate. Seems a little inconsistent.

 

[shoe]

Just as an infinite number of universes is a creation found in the heads of those who apparently are lost in the world of their own infinite imaginations, a finite number of universes are found in the heads of those who are lost in the world of their own finite imaginations.

Those with infinite imaginations tend to be more correct though, because those with finite imaginations limit their perception of reality.

I think that because evolutionists probably realize deep down within themselves the odds are against a human-friendly environment existing in a single universe without a creator (God), the evolutionists have decided to invent an infinite amount of them, making believe that the more universes they can imagine, the better the odds are that a human-friendly universe may eventually pop into existence. But the evidence for the idea of infinite universes exists only in the realm of the imagination of the evolutionists and nowhere else. For me, it seems that invoking the name of an infinite amount of universes does not solve the problem that evolutionists have with the basic law of physics that states, “from nothing comes nothing.”

 

[Kismetji]

Speaking not as a Christian but as a theist, I think answering this question is bound up to what sort of conception of God you have. In my view God has infinite opulences: both material and spiritual. These opulences are like flowers which may seed even more flowers. God being infinite, has an infinity likewise of all these seeds in potential form. Individual "I"s (jeevas like you or me) routinely desire to plant them and birth new worlds. Why this is is inexplicable, just like sex is inexplicable. You might point to biology, but that does not furnish grounds for the “isness” of orgasm or the “aboutness” which the experience of it produces in you. The will is such a thing like this. It is glorifying itself in its own irrationality. Creation itself is irrational. It is the World-Will, the World-Spirit, which is ultimately identical with each our individual wills.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I was organizing my videos and came across one that I forgot that I thought was relevant here.

“We once thought that our world was the only world and our sun was the only sun. And then, after the 150 thousand years or so that it took to figure out what a galaxy was we, of course, concluded that our galaxy was the only galaxy. In all three of these assumptions we proved as wrong as any creature can possibly be. Is it so irrational to suppose our universe is not the only universe. In fact in light of our past mistakes, our 100% failure rate might it be irrational to presume otherwise. We have a long history of think the horizon was the edge of the world. Yet every horizon we’ve ever reached, physically or intellectually, only revealed another horizon in the distance. Just because we cannot see over the mountain doesn’t mean there’s nothing there. It never has before. Why shouldn’t there be other universes…There’s no direct evidence for the existence of other universes, but nor should we expect there to be at this point of our cosmic education…”

I thought that was worth sharing in this thread. If you want to see the cideo yourself you can find it here.

 

[didymus]

The Multiverse Theory was created to avoid a Creator.

Well, many folks use it that way, specifically to knock out the “anthropic principle”.

But Catholics (or anybody) should not lock into opposing the idea of multiple universes just because it is espoused by atheists. Surely God may make as many universes as he wants.

 

[Warrior1979]

I think that because evolutionists probably realize deep down within themselves the odds are against a human-friendly environment existing in a single universe without a creator (God), the evolutionists have decided to invent an infinite amount of them, making believe that the more universes they can imagine, the better the odds are that a human-friendly universe may eventually pop into existence.

I do not believe evolutionists believe this. In fact, I’ve never heard of it. It is true that the odds of humans existing in the first place is a miracle in itself. However, the only humans that would ever be aware of it just so happen to be the same group that came into existence by chance in the first place.

But the evidence for the idea of infinite universes exists only in the realm of the imagination of the evolutionists and nowhere else. For me, it seems that invoking the name of an infinite amount of universes does not solve the problem that evolutionists have with the basic law of physics that states, “from nothing comes nothing.”

Nothing can come from nothing, and something can come from nothing. The only thing that limits these concepts is our own prejudices.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, many folks use it that way, specifically to knock out the “anthropic principle”.

But Catholics (or anybody) should not lock into opposing the idea of multiple universes just because it is espoused by atheists. Surely God may make as many universes as he wants.

True, God can do just about anything he wants, but, he can’t make a rock bigger than himself! So, there are no doubt those things that God might not wish to do. Besides, the prevailing cosmology surrounding the subject indicates that even an inflationary multiverse and a string cosmology require a beginning.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I do not believe evolutionists believe this. In fact, I’ve never heard of it. It is true that the odds of humans existing in the first place is a miracle in itself. However, the only humans that would ever be aware of it just so happen to be the same group that came into existence by chance in the first place.

Warrior:

Respectfully, do you have any idea what you’re postulating? Do you know that chance is not the same thing as randomness? That randomness is homogeneity and chance is the utter lack of homogeneity?

Chance takes the odds for the existence of our anthropic universe, multiplied by each one of its extremely precise fine tunings, to a number with so many zeroes in it that it is rendered, for all intents and purposes, incomprehensible.

Nothing can come from nothing, and something can come from nothing. The only thing that limits these concepts is our own prejudices.

Would you please explain to me how ‘something can come from nothing’? I am guessing that you yourself do not have the limitations “of our prejudices.”

jd

 

[celluloid]

Well, many folks use it that way, specifically to knock out the “anthropic principle”.

But Catholics (or anybody) should not lock into opposing the idea of multiple universes just because it is espoused by atheists. Surely God may make as many universes as he wants.

As an atheist I have to agree.(sorry!) Whatever the source, there’s no good reason why we’re limited to one universe. And while we have great evidence for our own universe’s existence, this does not mean we have evidence for an exclusively single universe. We just have to be agnostic on the issue with the current state of evidence.

In fact, this may be a simple answer to the rather petty argument about how eventually boring heaven will become for eternity. Not so with infinite universes to discover!

 

[promethius]

I was organizing my videos and came across one that I forgot that I thought was relevant here.

“We once thought that our world was the only world and our sun was the only sun. And then, after the 150 thousand years or so that it took to figure out what a galaxy was we, of course, concluded that our galaxy was the only galaxy. In all three of these assumptions we proved as wrong as any creature can possibly be. Is it so irrational to suppose our universe is not the only universe. In fact in light of our past mistakes, our 100% failure rate might it be irrational to presume otherwise. We have a long history of think the horizon was the edge of the world. Yet every horizon we’ve ever reached, physically or intellectually, only revealed another horizon in the distance. Just because we cannot see over the mountain doesn’t mean there’s nothing there. It never has before. Why shouldn’t there be other universes…There’s no direct evidence for the existence of other universes, but nor should we expect there to be at this point of our cosmic education…”

I thought that was worth sharing in this thread. If you want to see the cideo yourself you can find it here.

A cute fantasy, and a nice sounding supposition… but non-empirical and faith based none-the-less.