Is the idea of parallel universes/alternate reality compatible with Catholicism?

[CivisRomanusSum]

There is this theory in science about the “multiverse,” where other parallel universes exist and move in time simultaneously with our own, and where everything that is possible actually happens. So, assuming that there is “another me” in another universe, is it still possible to believe in Catholicism? How would I make sense of it if “copies” of us go to hell and we (us in “this” universe) go to heaven, and vice-versa? Moreover, will that other universe have a different salvation history, where, for example, Mary was not the mother of Jesus? If so, won’t it be absurd if there will be multiple “Queens of Heaven”?

 

[mikekle]

Just because Mary was the mother of Jesus in our world, does not mean, the same thing happened in every single other ‘world’ God has created, whether its other dimensions, planets, something else, their ‘introduction’ to the creator could have been very different from ours, but I would bet the goal is the same for them.

Personally, I think the wide variety of life that we know has existed here on earth is proof enough God has created billions of other worlds, I mean, millions of years ago in this world, we had HUGE dinosaurs roaming the earth, if we did not have their bones as proof of their existence, it would likely be too bizarre for most people to believe such a thing.This shows how creative God is and also shows he likes to create, Id say its even possible he has created new ‘worlds’ after he created ours, he is probably in a constant state of creation.

I have a feeling when we make it to heaven, its going to be surprising how many different types of beings are there.

 

[Tomdstone]

I suppose it is possible that there are other universes, but I doubt that there are copies of ourselves.

 

[Polycarp1]

Nothing has been revealed in God’s revelation or science that would support such a theory. It’s basically just an fanciful idea or imagination someone had based on the “anythings possible” school of thought.

 

[GEddie]

God would be God of any such alternate realms if they existed.

But in the absence of any perceptible evidence that they exist, philosophizing about them is way premature. IMINWHO

ICXC NIKA

 

[psalm90]

Nothing has been revealed in God’s revelation or science that would support such a theory. It’s basically just an fanciful idea or imagination someone had based on the “anythings possible” school of thought.

…and not to mention that this “singularity” is commonplace is a chief hypothesis to preclude that the big bang creation was the same in any way as the Biblical account – an atheistic or atheistic-leaning idea.

On EWTN radio and TV, there are various programs like** The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing**, which demonstrate how some people try to sway mass opinion. There is the same sort of wishful thinking here, to spread what is for now and probably forever nothing more than a scientific myth, to replace what the atheists see as a religious myth – figuring one is as good as the other, especially a myth of their own ‘creation.’

The idea of multiverses includes the idea that they each may have different laws of physics, which makes those universes impossible to detect and therefore, to verify.

We could expand (no pun intended) this idea of multiverses by postulating that the expansion of our universe is pushing away those multiverses, making them impossible to verity. I think the reverse is true, that if they existed, they should be penetrating our universe from everyplace in the sky where we can point a telescope, and rather than all galaxies speeding away from us, we should see an incredible number, blue-shifted, speeding towards us. This could be true, actually, but the distant light simply hasn’t had time to get here. I strongly predict that the first aliens we contact will be Franciscans.

 

[z_0101]

Nothing has been revealed in God’s revelation or science that would support such a theory. It’s basically just an fanciful idea or imagination someone had based on the “anythings possible” school of thought.

… and yet nothing in God’s revelation, that I know of in the Magisterium of the Church, has precluded that a multiverse exists either, just because it’s not stated directly in scripture doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, how many events and actions of Christ are not recorded in the Bible and yet the happened (John 20: 30 and John 21:25). To me, this is like saying, “because uranium wasn’t revealed in scripture or by Church Tradition; therefore, it doesn’t exist” a statement that we could easily disprove with science (please read on, this is only part of the concept I’m working on here).
Who’s to say that Science is NOT revealing what God has made when it comes to the concept of Multiverse?

As for Science, in a general sense, in that a theory is a hypothesis that can be tested and retested, you may have a point, ( Smithsonian.com - Can Physicists Ever Prove the Multiverse Is Real? Astronomers are arguing about whether they can trust this untested—and potentially untestable—idea (link) ) - in the strictest definition of the word. Let us not forget, theories are based upon hypotheses which are in turn based upon a question about something that is observable, either physically or by inference of other theories. It was an observed behavior of the Universe that prompted the question about the multiverse in an effort to explain that which we observed - in this case the theory of Cosmic Inflation which has basically replaced the Big Bang theory in many academic circles (you might want to go get a large pot of coffee for this article alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=32024.

In anycase, some in the physics world are saying that there is now hard evidence, other’s are debunking it; thus, to make the blanket statement that “nothing in science” has been revealed to support such a theory is may be an over-reach. In Science, we run into the same wall with the multiverse as we run into when using Science to examine God in that both, multiverses in general and God, are outside of our Universe, which by definition, is what our current Science is limited to studying. We can however, make inferences, and as such, just because we don’t fully understand, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

 

[on_the_hill]

… and yet nothing in God’s revelation, that I know of in the Magisterium of the Church, has precluded that a multiverse exists either,

This is my thought, as well. Sometimes, it seems, people have a bias toward believing or accepting only that which the Church has affirmatively approved, while disbelieving or not accepting everything that the Church has not affirmatively approved.

Church approved = good

Church silent <> good

Church disapproved <> good

<> good = bad

 

[porthos11]

This is my thought, as well. Sometimes, it seems, people have a bias toward believing or accepting only that which the Church has affirmatively approved, while disbelieving or not accepting everything that the Church has not affirmatively approved.

Church approved = good

Church silent <> good

Church disapproved <> good

<> good = bad

Right.

In many or most cases, where the Church is silent, belief is permissible.

The Church has not ruled on anything involving other universes/realities or intelligent life on other planets (we all know they exist; the proof being they haven’t tried to contact us ) Since there’s nothing contrary to faith or morals on such issues, the only risk is appearing to be a wackjob to some people. But it doesn’t constitute heresy. So I’d say, believe away. It won’t endanger one’s immortal soul and we’ll definitely know once we get to heaven anyway.

 

[Qoeleth]

Since the single Incarnation, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, is a unique event for the salvation of the Universe, it is theologically wrong to think of more than one possible universe (or parallel universes).

The Church also teaches, in Humani Generis, that all human being, unique made in the image and likeness of God, had a common origin. The purpose of this teaching was, at the time, to negate theories of polygenesis of humans (which were associated with racist anthropologies).

But it does seem to articulate with the issue of multiple-universes.

But it would be quite possible that there are multiple, unseen aspect, of our current universe. But only one Jesus, Mary, and only one origin of the human race.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Father Robert Spitzer S.J. Ph.D. does a good treatment on this subject. In one of the episodes of his show ,“Father Spitzer’s Universe” on EWTN, he mentioned that the idea of parallel existences in a multiverse were far too remote of chance. I couldn’t find which episode it was but you could browse through them here: magiscenter.com/father-spitzers-universe-ewtn/

Here are a couple excerpts from an interview he gave:

Briefly put, do string theory and the multiverse contradict a theocentric view of creation? Why or why not?

They do not. Every multiverse must be inflationary, and as such, is subject to the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem. This theorem requires that any universal configuration with an average Hubble expansion greater than zero have a beginning in the finite past (see Borde et al 2003 Physical Review Letters v. 90 -15). Since all multiverses are inflationary, they must meet the B-V-G condition, and so they must have a beginning. Furthermore, universes in the higher dimensional space of string theory also meet the one condition of the B-V-G Theorem—meaning that they too must have a beginning (see Borde, et. al 2003—as above).

The applicability of the single condition of the B-V-G Theorem is so vast that one of its formulators, Alexander Vilenkin (director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University), was compelled to say, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe…. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” (see Vilenkin 2006 Many Worlds in One).

Apparently Vilenkin believed that the B-V-G Theorem in combination with the evidence from entropy constitutes such a “proof.”

---

It may be objected that a multiverse can explain how our universe just happens to have the above exceedingly improbable conditions and constant values at the Big Bang. However, the need for fine-tuning of all known multiverse hypotheses (to avoid collisions of bubble universes, etc.) seems only to move the “fine-tuning” problem back one step—instead of resolving it (see Alabidi, et. al 2005 Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics June 2005 (5), and Gordon 2010 in Spitzer New Proofs pp 75-104). This is discussed in Spitzer New Proofs Chap 2. Inasmuch as multiverse hypotheses cannot explain required fine-tuning in their own initial constants and conditions, they cannot be considered more reasonable and responsible than belief in an intelligent creator.

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/god-and-science-qa-robert-spitzer-sj

In Father Spitzer’s book, “The Soul’s Upward Yearning” (2015), he goes on to say that the possibility of multiverse is unlikely because it, at least, runs contrary to Ockham’s razor.

 

[HelenRose]

Nothing has been revealed in God’s revelation or science that would support such a theory. It’s basically just an fanciful idea or imagination someone had based on the “anythings possible” school of thought.

 

[z_0101]

Father Robert Spitzer S.J. Ph.D. does a good treatment on this subject. In one of the episodes of his show ,“Father Spitzer’s Universe” on EWTN, he mentioned that the idea of parallel existences in a multiverse were far too remote of chance. I couldn’t find which episode it was but you could browse through them here: magiscenter.com/father-spitzers-universe-ewtn/

Here are a couple excerpts from an interview he gave:

In Father Spitzer’s book, “The Soul’s Upward Yearning” (2015), he goes on to say that the possibility of multiverse is unlikely because it, at least, runs contrary to Ockham’s razor.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The whole theory is foolish and defies common sense. The question is not whether it is compatible with Catholicism, but whether it could ever be compatible with reality.

Other universes are like other worlds and would introduce a number of questions to be answered for Christianity, none of which are insurmountable. The idea that there is every possible world and we just happen to be in this possibility and are only one possible version of ourselves would seem to play into the popular atheist’s belief of fatalism, that we have no free will. And, if there was no God then fatalism becomes true. And if it were true then I have no choice but to type what I an typing. Of course this defies common sense. No one is forcing me to type this.

At any rate the multiverse theory is shown to also require a beginning and requires just as much or more fine tuning as our own universe just to keep bubble universes from colliding into one another. In addition we can not observe other universes. So we could never verify the theory. The theory exists really because there are people who do not like the fact that it looks like the universe was designed. So they try to come up with an alternative, but it fails, because it is not reality.

If there was a multiverse with every possible combination of ourselves wouldn’t that inspire the question just why is there such a multiverse? Such a question it seems to me would lead to some intelligence behind it all. For how should such a sophisticated thing as a multiverse spontaneously appear on its own? But, that answer would be too much common sense for some people.

 

[mikekle]

Right.

In many or most cases, where the Church is silent, belief is permissible.

The Church has not ruled on anything involving other universes/realities or intelligent life on other planets (we all know they exist; the proof being they haven’t tried to contact us ) Since there’s nothing contrary to faith or morals on such issues, the only risk is appearing to be a wackjob to some people. But it doesn’t constitute heresy. So I’d say, believe away. It won’t endanger one’s immortal soul and we’ll definitely know once we get to heaven anyway.

Have you ever stopped to think about why it was/is common for people who believed in such things to be viewed as wackjobs, crazy nuts, etc? That alone is very suspect imo. Before we knew the earth was round, everyone who thought it was round instead of the popular flat theory at the time, was also considered to be crazy.

Heck even with smaller theories, this is true, remember in the past when everyone thought smoking was not at all unhealthy or bad in anyway, those that tried to prove it was, were viewed as ‘off their rockers’, at one time people also thought Radium was good for everything…see where Im going?

 

[Tomdstone]

At any rate the multiverse theory is shown to also require a beginning

Cyclical theories of the universe will not require a beginning.

 

[edwest2]

Have you ever stopped to think about why it was/is common for people who believed in such things to be viewed as wackjobs, crazy nuts, etc? That alone is very suspect imo. Before we knew the earth was round, everyone who thought it was round instead of the popular flat theory at the time, was also considered to be crazy.

Heck even with smaller theories, this is true, remember in the past when everyone thought smoking was not at all unhealthy or bad in anyway, those that tried to prove it was, were viewed as ‘off their rockers’, at one time people also thought Radium was good for everything…see where Im going?

This is a matter for historical research. Notable statements were made in the B.C. period that the earth was round. You would have to look at the facts behind how “smoking” became popular and who learned it was harmful, with good data. DDT was thought to be harmless to kids playing in the street.

Never have I read a single word about radium being good for everything. One researchers put a small sample in his pocket and suffered radiation burns. This was not long after discovery.

Speculation usually occurs before any conclusions can be drawn based on research. Popular opinion doesn’t invent things. One only has to read how many different materials Thomas Edison tried as a filament for a light bulb until he hit on the right one.

This isn’t a question of compatibility but of plausibility. I don’t see how any of this is plausible but it happens in comic books all the time.

Ed

 

[Tomdstone]

This isn’t a question of compatibility but of plausibility.

Einstein and others found certain aspects of quantum mechanics or quantum field theory to be implausible, but the predictions have been verified experimentally.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have no expertise in science or mathematics. However, in watching “popularized” shows about this subject, it seems to me the positing of multiple universes is really just a way of “solving” mathematical problems that can’t be solved without it, (yet) not a demonstration of an objectively determined reality. Some physicists who accept the theory admit that.

It is my impression there are a fair number of things like that in astrophysics. There will be a conundrum nobody can solve. Then somebody comes up with a “solution” that works out mathematically (or seems to for a time) but might not actually represent reality.

There might be stranger things in reality than parallel universes, but we don’t know about them because we can’t perceive them or demonstrate them.

 

[porthos11]

Have you ever stopped to think about why it was/is common for people who believed in such things to be viewed as wackjobs, crazy nuts, etc? That alone is very suspect imo. Before we knew the earth was round, everyone who thought it was round instead of the popular flat theory at the time, was also considered to be crazy.

Heck even with smaller theories, this is true, remember in the past when everyone thought smoking was not at all unhealthy or bad in anyway, those that tried to prove it was, were viewed as ‘off their rockers’, at one time people also thought Radium was good for everything…see where Im going?

Care for none of those things. Only stating that the only risk of believing in multiple universes is appearing to be like a wackjob to some people. I don’t need to “stop to think” because I know for a fact that some people consider such beliefs those of wackjobs. Can’t do anything about it.

All I care is that since the Church has not ruled on it, then it’s likely safe for belief from a faith and morals perspective.

It must be the way I write. I don’t seem to be communicating well with people.