Infinite Universes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess it creates just a little to much Gobbledegook for people to pass up,:hmmm:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
In the end, it seems that a multiverse is merely an elaborate way to opt out of intelligent design of the universe we are in. If there is a multiverse, only one universe is needed to explain why we exist. We are, according to mutiverse advocates, that single universe that seems dessigned yet really isn’t. This is to find an explanation that advances pure naturalism against intelligent design. Economically it should be for scientists the most noxious scientific argument possible (since it is impossible to prove), yet for atheistic scientists it is hardly so noxious as the possibility that this universe *seems designed *because it is designed.
Click to expand...
The multiverse is a consequence of the fact that the only inflation theories that fit current observations are so open ended that a multiverse is implied. Scientists are willing to stretch sanity to maintain the expanding universe with dark energy, because all the alternatives challenge the Copernican Principle (i.e., expanding wave of Temple and Smoller, or Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi models). The science establishment will do almost anything to maintain the Copernican Principle, no matter how ridiculous it is.

“If you want to preserve the Copernican principle and explain anomalous acceleration, you have to use dark energy,”

seedmagazine.com/content/article/erasing_dark_energy/P1/
 
Even Br. Guy Consolmagno from The Vatical Observatory is open to the idea of infinite multiverses.

ttbook.org/book/transcript/transcript-brother-guy-consolmagno-theology-and-astronomy

Fleming: One of the other things not science fiction that is currently talked about a great deal in the world of cosmology is the theory of the multiverse, the potentially infinite number of universes and we’re living in just one. What do you think of that?

Consolmagno: Well, we’ve got people working at the Vatican observatory who are actually looking into the mathematics of this, the physics of this. One of our cosmologists did his doctorate under Martin Rees, who is one of the people who’s come up with the idea. I think it’s a great idea both to make you think and to make you appreciate the infinite possibilities of creation. Back when Genesis was being written, and whoever wrote it took the best science of that day, which was Babylonian science, and said, “Bigger than the flat world that we all know we live on and the dome and the water above and below the dome, bigger that any of that was God,”and that was as big as they could imagine. If we say, “Bigger than the solar system, bigger than this galaxy, bigger than our universe, bigger than all of the infinite multiverses together, is God.”Then we’re really talking some big.
 
Faith1960 said:
Even Br. Guy Consolmagno from The Vatical Observatory is open to the idea of infinite multiverses.

ttbook.org/book/transcript/transcript-brother-guy-consolmagno-theology-and-astronomy

Fleming: One of the other things not science fiction that is currently talked about a great deal in the world of cosmology is the theory of the multiverse, the potentially infinite number of universes and we’re living in just one. What do you think of that?

Consolmagno: Well, we’ve got people working at the Vatican observatory who are actually looking into the mathematics of this, the physics of this. One of our cosmologists did his doctorate under Martin Rees, who is one of the people who’s come up with the idea. I think it’s a great idea both to make you think and to make you appreciate the infinite possibilities of creation. Back when Genesis was being written, and whoever wrote it took the best science of that day, which was Babylonian science, and said, “Bigger than the flat world that we all know we live on and the dome and the water above and below the dome, bigger that any of that was God,”and that was as big as they could imagine. If we say, “Bigger than the solar system, bigger than this galaxy, bigger than our universe, bigger than all of the infinite multiverses together, is God.”Then we’re really talking some big.
Click to expand...
*Vatican Observatory
 
I might be able to help. I take several pretty rigorous physics courses at the college level. Basically, a multiverse, if it existed, would have a minimal impact on our faith. I think the biggest thing to realize is that we’d be stupid to try and put limits on what God is capable of creating. Theology has no reason to deny that God may or may not have created a wider reality than just our universe. A common model of our universe includes a period of inflation, a trans-light speed era of expansion that causes an infinite array of “pocket” universes that bubble into existence out of the initial inflationary era. However, inflation as a theory and model has countless issues. Take Paul Steinhardt, a Harvard educated physicist who was a founder of inflationary theory but is now one of its biggest opponents.

nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

The so-called “smoking gun” or inflationary theory, and its progeny the multiverse, was challenged and realized to be noneother than distilled galactic dust the gave the appearance of gravitational waves. Thus, said non-detection could very well send cosmologists back to the drawing board. But the proponents of inflation are now saying that it is "immune’ to said results, as their new methodical theory allows the model to fit whatever the data is (but, as Dr. Steinhardt says, this isn’t really science). This makes infaltion essentially an untestable and unfalsifiable theory. This should definitely temper our confidence in it. If classical inflation is deflated, and the new “post-modern” inflation is out of the realm of natural science, then countless issues are present. Inflation was said to be eternal into the future. However, we have no experimental evidence in support of inflation now and even some to doubt it as a model.

Basically, this is whats important: the new findings (or lack thereof), lend credence to the idea that it may very well be just our universe. The “level 1” multiverse is really just expanding pockets of our own “inflationary” universe, which was predicted by inflation. This, however, may not even be the case anymore if inflation is as untestable and “deflated” as it increasingly appears to be.

If a multiverse exists, so what. For people who claim the untestable hypothesis that there is copies of us out there, there may or may not be. I don’t really know or care about said scenario. The idea that we contain an ihnerently nonphysical component could mean that other copies or our universe may not have humans with souls, but rather animals along a similar evolutionary path but who never were ensouled by God. Same with Jesus, as he was born out of a divine act, meaning He very well could be only appearing in our universe. reasons.org/articles/q-a-does-a-multiverse-negate-biblical-truth

The multiverse itself wasn’t necessarily put forth as some unscientific jargon that attempts to avoid fine-tuning as some people like to put it. However, it does contain countless leaps of logic and data that cause it to stand on shaky ground. It in and of itself is not a theory, but a prediction of other theories (like inflation). The seemingly uncontroversial level 1 multiverse (which is a misnomer of a sense) is really predicted from inflation, which as I said is moving into unflasifiable territory.

All this is said, obviously, with the caveat that a multiverse still would require a beginning and a good deal of fine tuning in order to exist.

As Fr. James Spitzer of the Magi Center of Faith and Reason puts it, “virtually every conceivable pre-big Bang scenario requires a beginning. By implication, even if there were multiple pre big bang eras, they too would likely have an expansion rate greater than zero. This makes an absolute beginning virtually unavoidable”.

Basically, all evidence points to an absolute beginning of our universe (or any hypothetical multiverse which may be contained therein). You need God as the First Cause and First Mover. You can’t have an infinite regress of beginnings.

Either way, we don’t have all of the answers. But you know what: THATS OKAY! We know who does, and He is the very cause of all that is, has been, and ever will be. Don’t be afraid of science and truth. Science is, whether people like it or not, the study of God’s true creation.

Yours In Christ,

Zach
 
LifeWithChrist said:
I might be able to help. I take several pretty rigorous physics courses at the college level. Basically, a multiverse, if it existed, would have a minimal impact on our faith. I think the biggest thing to realize is that we’d be stupid to try and put limits on what God is capable of creating. Theology has no reason to deny that God may or may not have created a wider reality than just our universe. A common model of our universe includes a period of inflation, a trans-light speed era of expansion that causes an infinite array of “pocket” universes that bubble into existence out of the initial inflationary era. However, inflation as a theory and model has countless issues. Take Paul Steinhardt, a Harvard educated physicist who was a founder of inflationary theory but is now one of its biggest opponents.

nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

The so-called “smoking gun” or inflationary theory, and its progeny the multiverse, was challenged and realized to be noneother than distilled galactic dust the gave the appearance of gravitational waves. Thus, said non-detection could very well send cosmologists back to the drawing board. But the proponents of inflation are now saying that it is "immune’ to said results, as their new methodical theory allows the model to fit whatever the data is (but, as Dr. Steinhardt says, this isn’t really science). This makes infaltion essentially an untestable and unfalsifiable theory. This should definitely temper our confidence in it. If classical inflation is deflated, and the new “post-modern” inflation is out of the realm of natural science, then countless issues are present. Inflation was said to be eternal into the future. However, we have no experimental evidence in support of inflation now and even some to doubt it as a model.

Basically, this is whats important: the new findings (or lack thereof), lend credence to the idea that it may very well be just our universe. The “level 1” multiverse is really just expanding pockets of our own “inflationary” universe, which was predicted by inflation. This, however, may not even be the case anymore if inflation is as untestable and “deflated” as it increasingly appears to be.

If a multiverse exists, so what. For people who claim the untestable hypothesis that there is copies of us out there, there may or may not be. I don’t really know or care about said scenario. The idea that we contain an ihnerently nonphysical component could mean that other copies or our universe may not have humans with souls, but rather animals along a similar evolutionary path but who never were ensouled by God. Same with Jesus, as he was born out of a divine act, meaning He very well could be only appearing in our universe. reasons.org/articles/q-a-does-a-multiverse-negate-biblical-truth

The multiverse itself wasn’t necessarily put forth as some unscientific jargon that attempts to avoid fine-tuning as some people like to put it. However, it does contain countless leaps of logic and data that cause it to stand on shaky ground. It in and of itself is not a theory, but a prediction of other theories (like inflation). The seemingly uncontroversial level 1 multiverse (which is a misnomer of a sense) is really predicted from inflation, which as I said is moving into unflasifiable territory.

All this is said, obviously, with the caveat that a multiverse still would require a beginning and a good deal of fine tuning in order to exist.

As Fr. James Spitzer of the Magi Center of Faith and Reason puts it, “virtually every conceivable pre-big Bang scenario requires a beginning. By implication, even if there were multiple pre big bang eras, they too would likely have an expansion rate greater than zero. This makes an absolute beginning virtually unavoidable”.

Basically, all evidence points to an absolute beginning of our universe (or any hypothetical multiverse which may be contained therein). You need God as the First Cause and First Mover. You can’t have an infinite regress of beginnings.

Either way, we don’t have all of the answers. But you know what: THATS OKAY! We know who does, and He is the very cause of all that is, has been, and ever will be. Don’t be afraid of science and truth. Science is, whether people like it or not, the study of God’s true creation.

Yours In Christ,

Zach
Click to expand...
Thanks! Great post.
 
LifeWithChrist said:
I might be able to help. I take several pretty rigorous physics courses at the college level. Basically, a multiverse, if it existed, would have a minimal impact on our faith. I think the biggest thing to realize is that we’d be stupid to try and put limits on what God is capable of creating. Theology has no reason to deny that God may or may not have created a wider reality than just our universe. A common model of our universe includes a period of inflation, a trans-light speed era of expansion that causes an infinite array of “pocket” universes that bubble into existence out of the initial inflationary era. However, inflation as a theory and model has countless issues. Take Paul Steinhardt, a Harvard educated physicist who was a founder of inflationary theory but is now one of its biggest opponents.

nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

The so-called “smoking gun” or inflationary theory, and its progeny the multiverse, was challenged and realized to be noneother than distilled galactic dust the gave the appearance of gravitational waves. Thus, said non-detection could very well send cosmologists back to the drawing board. But the proponents of inflation are now saying that it is "immune’ to said results, as their new methodical theory allows the model to fit whatever the data is (but, as Dr. Steinhardt says, this isn’t really science). This makes infaltion essentially an untestable and unfalsifiable theory. This should definitely temper our confidence in it. If classical inflation is deflated, and the new “post-modern” inflation is out of the realm of natural science, then countless issues are present. Inflation was said to be eternal into the future. However, we have no experimental evidence in support of inflation now and even some to doubt it as a model.

Basically, this is whats important: the new findings (or lack thereof), lend credence to the idea that it may very well be just our universe. The “level 1” multiverse is really just expanding pockets of our own “inflationary” universe, which was predicted by inflation. This, however, may not even be the case anymore if inflation is as untestable and “deflated” as it increasingly appears to be.

If a multiverse exists, so what. For people who claim the untestable hypothesis that there is copies of us out there, there may or may not be. I don’t really know or care about said scenario. The idea that we contain an ihnertently nonphysical component could mean that other copies or our universe may not have humans with souls, but rather animals along a similar evolutionary path but who never were ensouled by God. Same with Jesus, as he was born out of a divine act, meaning He very well could be only appearing in our universe. reasons.org/articles/q-a-does-a-multiverse-negate-biblical-truth

The multiverse itself wasn’t necessarily put forth as some unscientific jargon that attempts to avoid fine-tuning as some people like to put it. However, it does contain countless leaps of logic and data that cause it to stand on shaky ground. It in and of itself is not a theory, but a prediction of other theories (like inflation). The seemingly uncontroversial level 1 multiverse (which is a misnomer of a sense) is really predicted from inflation, which as I said is moving into unflasifiable territory.

All this is said, obviously, with the caveat that a multiverse still would require a beginning and a good deal of fine tuning in order to exist.

As Fr. James Spitzer of the Magi Center of Faith and Reason puts it, “virtually every conceivable pre-big Bang scenario requires a beginning. By implication, even if there were multiple pre big bang eras, they too would likely have an expansion rate greater than zero. This makes an absolute beginning virtually unavoidable”.

Basically, all evidence points to an absolute beginning of our universe (or any hypothetical multiverse which may be contained therein). You need God as the First Cause and First Mover. You can’t have an infinite regress of beginnings.

Either way, we don’t have all of the answers. But you know what: THATS OKAY! We know who does, and He is the very cause of all that is, has been, and ever will be. Don’t be afraid of science and truth. Science is, whether people like it or not, the study of God’s true creation.

Yours In Christ,

Zach
Click to expand...
Are we, as Catholics, allowed to believe a multiverse may exist or does exist?
 
Yeah, as far as I know. The Church leaves this kind of information up to the realm of Believers to explore and discover. They, obviously, take no stance of the issue other than openness to what science discovers about Gods’ creation.
 
Faith1960 said:
Are we, as Catholics, allowed to believe a multiverse may exist or does exist?
Click to expand...
I mean are we as Catholics allowed to believe multiverses may or do exist?
I edited my post but it didn’t go through.
 
To be honest, the whole notion of multiple universes rests on inflation. This website puts a brilliant Christian spin on the whole notion: asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/universe2.htm

People tend to make “predictions” based on inflationary theory, which ironically is kind of a paradox because inflation comes in so many forms that each one can “give you what you want.”

If I were you, I’d read up on this. In my mind, it goes like this: If a multiverse exists, that’s fantastic. We may never know, but it has zero impact on our faith. It simply pushes up the apologetic design argument up a level, as the multiverse itself would likely have to display design and would certainly have a finite past (ex: has a beginning). But, if it doesn’t exist, which is a strongly realistic notion, than it very well could just be US.

Even the seemingly “noncontroversial” notion of inflation, upon which this is all predicted, has its issues, so even a level one multiverse may not be realistic if inflation is entering unfalsifiable territory.

This is a halfway decent critique of inflation by a Catholic philosopher. His understanding of its motivations may be slightly biased, but he does well to summarize the issues with inflation. For, as Catholics, many of the “problems” inflation set out to solve regarding the workings of the Big Bang are not really problem, perhaps just implications of Gods incredible fine tuning. strangenotions.com/the-deflation-of-inflationary-theory/

If inflation is at the worst wrong, and at best unfalsifiable, A level 1 mutltiverse wouldn’t even exist. Rather, our own physical reality would just be a constantly expanding universe. There wouldn’t be infinitely many spacial domains in one “mega universe” because those are based upon inflationary theory.

In any case, PLEASE know that we have nothing to fear regarding the notion of a hypothetical multiverse. If anything, I would expect the notion of a multiverse to be more plausible from a theistic interpretation than from a purely naturalistic/atheistic interpretation.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." John 3:16

This passage puts in all in perspective. God’s creation, no matter how immense or small it may be to us, is like a GRAIN OF SAND to Him. This does not speak to what He thinks of us, but rather to our size in regards to his Infinite Being. Whatever physical reality God created, of whatever size or domain it may be, He loved it. As it says in Genesis, He created it GOOD. Nothing can take that away from us as Gods children. We are His. He holds us in the comforting palms of His hand.

Be at peace, brother. You have nothing to fear. “Be Not Afraid.”

Yours Forever in Christ Our Lord,
Zach
 
LifeWithChrist said:
To be honest, the whole notion of multiple universes rests on inflation. This website puts a brilliant Christian spin on the whole notion: asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/universe2.htm

People tend to make “predictions” based on inflationary theory, which ironically is kind of a paradox because inflation comes in so many forms that each one can “give you what you want.”

If I were you, I’d read up on this. In my mind, it goes like this: If a multiverse exists, that’s fantastic. We may never know, but it has zero impact on our faith. It simply pushes up the apologetic design argument up a level, as the multiverse itself would likely have to display design and would certainly have a finite past (ex: has a beginning). But, if it doesn’t exist, which is a strongly realistic notion, than it very well could just be US.

Even the seemingly “noncontroversial” notion of inflation, upon which this is all predicted, has its issues, so even a level one multiverse may not be realistic if inflation is entering unfalsifiable territory.

This is a halfway decent critique of inflation by a Catholic philosopher. His understanding of its motivations may be slightly biased, but he does well to summarize the issues with inflation. For, as Catholics, many of the “problems” inflation set out to solve regarding the workings of the Big Bang are not really problem, perhaps just implications of Gods incredible fine tuning. strangenotions.com/the-deflation-of-inflationary-theory/

If inflation is at the worst wrong, and at best unfalsifiable, A level 1 mutltiverse wouldn’t even exist. Rather, our own physical reality would just be a constantly expanding universe. There wouldn’t be infinitely many spacial domains in one “mega universe” because those are based upon inflationary theory.

In any case, PLEASE know that we have nothing to fear regarding the notion of a hypothetical multiverse. If anything, I would expect the notion of a multiverse to be more plausible from a theistic interpretation than from a purely naturalistic/atheistic interpretation.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." John 3:16

This passage puts in all in perspective. God’s creation, no matter how immense or small it may be to us, is like a GRAIN OF SAND to Him. This does not speak to what He thinks of us, but rather to our size in regards to his Infinite Being. Whatever physical reality God created, of whatever size or domain it may be, He loved it. As it says in Genesis, He created it GOOD. Nothing can take that away from us as Gods children. We are His. He holds us in the comforting palms of His hand.

Be at peace, brother. You have nothing to fear. “Be Not Afraid.”

Yours Forever in Christ Our Lord,
Zach
Click to expand...
Thanks, but again, as Catholics, we are allowed to believe there are multiverses though, right?
 
As I have said multiple times, yes. It’s a personal choice which has zero implications on Church doctrine.
 
Faith1960 said:
Some cosmologists think there are an infinite number of universes. Does this conflict with the existence of God and Christianity?

I have two names of cosmologist from the book, "Is God Unnecessary? Why Stephen Hawking is Wrong according to the Laws of Physics,"who disagree with infinity universes, Alan Guth and Paul Davies. Are there any others?
Click to expand...
It really is a red herring to judge a metaphysical concept within a scientific context.

In reality it really does not matter if there is an infinite number of universes.
  1. A first cause is not to be thought of as a cause existing within space and time. Of course the infinite universe argument has always been an argument against a straw-man and at best it serves only as a rebuttal against the kalam cosmological argument.
  2. An infinite regress of universes is still an infinite number of changing universes insofar as they are all contingent upon each other for their act, and this is to say they are all moving from potency to act. They all begin to exist regardless of how many there are. This would mean that there is no universe within an infinite number that can explain the existence of an infinite number, since they all move from potentiality to actuality.
  3. If there is an infinite number of universes then that would mean that potency would infinitely precede all physical acts, which is incoherent since something cannot move from potency to act without an act of existence bringing that potency into act. It is meaningless to speak of potency without existence, and there can be no change without potency.
  4. Therefore an ultimate act of existence that transcends time and space must exist in order to explain the potency of an infinite number of universes.
There is also an ontological problem with the idea of an infinite number. Not only is it not a scientific concept since you cannot measure an infinite number, it is also incoherent to speak of a definable quantity as being infinite in extent.

No matter how many numbers you have, you only ever have a finite number. There is no such thing as a quantity that defines infinity and thus it is incoherent to speak of an infinite regress in terms of quantity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top