Infinite Universes

[promethius]

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.

The argument that the odds even out given an infinite universe (ie, that monkeys pounding on typewriters will eventually write a shakespearean play given enough time) was supposed before we knew that the universe was most definitely finite. When we consider the RECENT revelation that the universe is finite AND most definitely had a beginning, we have to realize that the “infinite rolls of the dice” counter to the argument of the fine tuned universe is much less tenable than before.

Nothing can come from nothing, and something can come from nothing. The only thing that limits these concepts is our own prejudices.
Please empirically demonstrate that something can come from utter nothingness without any cause.

 

[JDaniel]

As an atheist I have to agree.(sorry!) Whatever the source, there’s no good reason why we’re limited to one universe.

Cell:

Yes there is: it’s called the “particle boundary.” Man will never get past it, IMHO.

And while we have great evidence for our own universe’s existence, this does not mean we have evidence for an exclusively single universe.

Hypothetically.

We just have to be agnostic on the issue with the current state of evidence.

For how loooooooooooooooong?

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!

There are no infinities, therefore, there is no infinity of universes. But, the hypothesis certainly helps certain individual’s beliefs. It is demonstrative of a “faith” way beyond the faith of Christians. Of this I have NO doubt.

If only God could receive such Faith!

jd

 

[Warrior1979]

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.

Chance, randomness, etc…it doesn’t matter. My point is the only beings that would even be able to ask these questions are those people that came into being as a result of this chance/randomness. In fact, those people responding to this post experienced the same thing…each person responding had an infinitesimally small chance of coming into being, giving the number of eggs and sperm that existed.

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

Read about virtual particles and uncertainty principles. Something can come from nothing within certain parameters.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Read about virtual particles and uncertainty principles. Something can come from nothing within certain parameters.

Nonsense, see:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8511890&postcount=77

(Read the link therein.)

 

[promethius]

Chance, randomness, etc…it doesn’t matter. My point is the only beings that would even be able to ask these questions are those people that came into being as a result of this chance/randomness. In fact, those people responding to this post experienced the same thing…each person responding had an infinitesimally small chance of coming into being, giving the number of eggs and sperm that existed.

If you’re trying to argue that the fine-tuned universe argument is not empirical, I would say that you’re correct.

However, if you’re trying to argue that it isn’t compelling, I would say you have a lot more to justify…

Read about virtual particles and uncertainty principles. Something can come from nothing within certain parameters.

looks at physics degree hanging on the wall I would say I’ve read about both.

I would also say that when we state “from nothing comes nothing” we mean that all things follow physical laws, including that all things have a cause which can be described by physical law… atheists, of course, agree, since without this presupposition, we have to view the universe as subjective rather than rational (and therefore science can only be used as useful generalizations of observations on local areas, rather than laws and theories).

In other words, virtual particles don’t “come from nothing” in the sense that they are caused and they follow physical law.

 

[Warrior1979]

Nonsense, see:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8511890&postcount=77

(Read the link therein.)

Everybody’s got an opinion, and everyone assumes they are correct.

looks at physics degree hanging on the wall I would say I’ve read about both.

I show you the engineering and computer science ones also, if you’d like.

 

[promethius]

I show you the engineering and computer science ones also, if you’d like.

Yeah, I minored in computer science… and since then 3 new languages have come into common use. Yuck. I think I’ll stick with good old C+.

The point was not in a contest for who can throw pebbles farthest, but rather to state that those who are in favor of Christianity are not uneducated. In fact, a good scientific education should come with the understanding that some scientific applications are merely principles taken directly from Christian theology in the first place (such as the rationality of the universe).

At any rate, you ignored the request for demonstration of a particle that forms with no cause (aka, from philosophical nothing)

 

[Al_Moritz]

Everybody’s got an opinion, and everyone assumes they are correct.

If you think this, especially what is said in the “Letters to Nature” link, is just about an “opinion” then I really can’t help you.

 

[celluloid]

Cell:

Yes there is: it’s called the “particle boundary.” Man will never get past it, IMHO.

Agreed, humans can’t, but to be clearer, I just meant that it’s a huge assumption to assume there is only one universe in existence (and not that we can detect other universes or travel to them)

Hypothetically.

Yes it is all hypothetical. And not scientifically hypothetical at that since there is no data. More like speculation, and in the realm of philosophy.

For how loooooooooooooooong?

Perhaps forever and ever.

There are no infinities, therefore, there is no infinity of universes.

Genuine question: Does that imply God cannot be infinite as well?

But, the hypothesis certainly helps certain individual’s beliefs. It is demonstrative of a “faith” way beyond the faith of Christians. Of this I have NO doubt.
If only God could receive such Faith!

I have no faith is the multiverse idea(s), I merely think it is possible.

 

[Warrior1979]

At any rate, you ignored the request for demonstration of a particle that forms with no cause (aka, from philosophical nothing)

One thing about Internet forums is that you won’t change anyone’s mind. I can spends hours writing dissertations that people will simply “dismiss” with a link. It’s an utter waste of time.

Unless one actually studies the subject, they cannot understand the frame of reference from which the discussion is phrased.

 

[Warrior1979]

If you think this, especially what is said in the “Letters to Nature” link, is just about an “opinion” then I really can’t help you.

Unless you’ve demonstrated that you’ve spent a half dozen or more years study these subject’s in college, I can’t help you either.

 

[promethius]

One thing about Internet forums is that you won’t change anyone’s mind. I can spends hours writing dissertations that people will simply “dismiss” with a link. It’s an utter waste of time.

Unless one actually studies the subject, they cannot understand the frame of reference from which the discussion is phrased.

Hence my referencing that I have a degree in Physics. I have studied the subject.

The point I’m making is that you can’t empirically describe particles which actualize with no cause whatsoever, because no such proof exists. If you had conclusively proved this, you would be the holder of a nobel prize (and I would be aware of it).

In other words, the scientific, philosophical, and theological construct “From nothing comes nothing” still holds, even in the face of quantum particles, at least for the time being (and if that construct ever fails, then we can basically do away with science as a field of human endeavor).

 

[Al_Moritz]

Unless you’ve demonstrated that you’ve spent a half dozen or more years study these subject’s in college, I can’t help you either.

Nonsense. Our disagreement does not come from my lack of knowledge of the quantum vacuum and virtual particles, but from your philosophical ignorance.

Read the quotes from prominent cosmologists in the link I gave you. Do you think they have not studied these issues? Here they are:

“Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise ‘from nothing’. But they should watch their language, especially when addressing philosophers. We’ve realised ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a ‘point’, it is latent with particles and forces – still a far richer construct than the philosopher’s ‘nothing’. Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what ‘breathes fire’ into the equations, and actualised them into a real cosmos. The fundamental question of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ remains the province of philosophers.” (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers)

"The concept of a universe materializing out of nothing boggles the mind … yet the state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subjected to these laws. The laws must have existed, even though there was no universe. … we now know that the “vacuum” is very different from “nothing”. Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend a warp, so it is unquestionably something. As Alan Guth wrote, “In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from.” (Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One)

“In a quantum system, the notion of a vacuum is a little different from our usual conception of such a state. It is not simply ‘nothing at all’. Rather, it is what is left when everything that can be removed from the system has been removed: it is the state of lowest energy.” (John Barrow, New Theories of Everything)

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It’s possible that the LHC may have "debunked’ superstring theory and, by extension, M-theory, from which multiverse theories are derived…

pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392094,00.asp#fbid=CtoUkgWcA1p

 

[JDaniel]

Chance, randomness, etc…it doesn’t matter. My point is the only beings that would even be able to ask these questions are those people that came into being as a result of this chance/randomness. In fact, those people responding to this post experienced the same thing…each person responding had an infinitesimally small chance of coming into being, giving the number of eggs and sperm that existed.

Warrior:

Please do not include me in that group! I, for one, was foreordained. I am quite sure so were many on this forum.

Read about virtual particles and uncertainty principles. Something can come from nothing within certain parameters.

And , they … are … called … virtual … particles … for … what … reason? And, we know they pop in and out of existence, how?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Agreed, humans can’t, but to be clearer, I just meant that it’s a huge assumption to assume there is only one universe in existence (and not that we can detect other universes or travel to them)

Cell:

As I am sure you have no doubt guessed, I must disagree. No one, at the very least, no one alive will ever know. Might as well be the Alien.

Yes it is all hypothetical. And not scientifically hypothetical at that since there is no data. More like speculation, and in the realm of philosophy.

And, of course, that’s what this is all about. We agree here. Yikes!

Perhaps forever and ever.

I won’t have enough time to wait that long.

Genuine question: Does that imply God cannot be infinite as well?

This is the usual non sequitur that comes up along these lines. We know that all matter consists of mostly pure space, in other words, pure nothingness. Space between the particles in a proton. Space between the particles of a neutron. Space inside the electron shell. Space inside the nuclei of atoms. Space between the atoms of molecules.(Al Moritz could tell us authoritatively what that true (relative) percentage might be.)

Space, i.e., pure space, is probably the only exigency that can claim be infinite. But, wait, no it can’t! That would be a contradiction. On the other hand, that which is spiritual can be infinite yet not contradictory.

I have no faith is the multiverse idea(s), I merely think it is possible.

I think God is extant, and I have faith in him. Not disparaging your ideas, just stating mine.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

One thing about Internet forums is that you won’t change anyone’s mind. I can spends hours writing dissertations that people will simply “dismiss” with a link. It’s an utter waste of time.

Unless one actually studies the subject, they cannot understand the frame of reference from which the discussion is phrased.

Warrior:

I disagree: all one needs to do is provide a clear, cogent, conceptualization with at least some authoritative backing.

jd

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I don’t know about you guys but I think Ive lost a little interest in the multiverse idea until
theres something more that can warrant speculation. If its true, which looks very feasible , whats the point in using brain time for something which can never be proven or expand through proper investigation…this all adds to the sensible conviction or guess that science will always have a touch of wonder to keep the study busy…this multi world idea has got my attention, will be looking for the research on this …at least theres something that can go forward…any suggested introductory writings appreciated

 

[Warrior1979]

Nonsense. Our disagreement does not come from my lack of knowledge of the quantum vacuum and virtual particles, but from your philosophical ignorance.

FWIW, my opinion is that the “something” and “nothing” are simply constructs of the human mind, which materialized in our feeble attempt to explain our perceptions of reality…which, of course, may not have anything to do with reality, whatever that may be.

 

[JDaniel]

FWIW, my opinion is that the “something” and “nothing” are simply constructs of the human mind, which materialized in our feeble attempt to explain our perceptions of reality…which, of course, may not have anything to do with reality, whatever that may be.

Anyone can strawman and red herring any argument. But, if that person is simply going to stick his head in the sand and ignore that fact, there is no help or use in furthering discussion. “Something” and “nothing” are ontological exigencies that are grounded in our senses and intuitions. To postulate otherwise is to hold a particularly vile contempt for one’s neighbors."

God bless,
jd