M Theory

[SavannahL]

There’s this theory where there’s multiple infinite universes, and were in just one. In this infinite universe, the past is happening, future is happening. Marilyn Monroe never died, and Hitler was a saint. I never existed in one, and in another I existed. The ugliest creature exist in one, and the most beautiful exist… In one I could be an athiest prostitute, and another the greatest saint in that universe.

So if all these universes exist where is my soul?? Do you think this is possible?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

 

[Soutane]

New age claptrap.As a Catholic your Faith should tell you this is impossible and contrary to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Silvereel]

I disagree. New age is a philosophy, this is a scientific theory.I’m not saying it’s true, but it is still a scientific theory, credible or not.

 

[Soutane]

Scientific THEORY steeped in New Age Philosophy.Bogus nonsense that contradicts the Teachings of the One True Church.

Please look up THEORY in the dictionary.Too many credulous people automatically give something undue credence when its dressed up as a “Scientific Theory”,which basically means a “guess”,educated or not.Phrenology was a “Scientific Theory” at one time too.

 

[masterjedi747]

There’s this theory where there’s multiple infinite universes, and were in just one. In this infinite universe, the past is happening, future is happening. Marilyn Monroe never died, and Hitler was a saint. I never existed in one, and in another I existed. The ugliest creature exist in one, and the most beautiful exist… In one I could be an athiest prostitute, and another the greatest saint in that universe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

I think you’re confusing M-theory with the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics…
I see nothing in your link that sounds remotely like what you’re talking about here.
Pretty sure M-theory just has to do with higher dimensions, not alternate realities.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_theory

So if all these universes exist where is my soul??

You would still be exactly who you are. Other versions of “you” would simply be their own individual persons, responsible for their own actions – it would just be like you having a ton of identical siblings.

Do you think this is possible?

No, I do not. The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics is a desperate (and absurd) attempt to preserve the philosophy of a deterministic universe, and deny the not-insignificant role of Divine Providence.

Scientific THEORY steeped in New Age Philosophy.

…I fail to see how “New Age” philosophy is related to this in the slightest.

Bogus nonsense that contradicts the Teachings of the One True Church.

If we’re talking about MWI, then I agree completely.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Please look up THEORY in the dictionary.Too many credulous people automatically give something undue credence when its dressed up as a “Scientific Theory”,which basically means a “guess”,educated or not.

I think the theory of gravity is a little more than just a guess. Just because something is a theory doesn’t mean it’s probably true, but there are plenty of theories that are a lot more than mere educated guesses.

 

[wasmit]

There’s this theory where there’s multiple infinite universes, and were in just one. In this infinite universe, the past is happening, future is happening. Marilyn Monroe never died, and Hitler was a saint. I never existed in one, and in another I existed. The ugliest creature exist in one, and the most beautiful exist… In one I could be an athiest prostitute, and another the greatest saint in that universe.

So if all these universes exist where is my soul?? Do you think this is possible?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

The limitation with plebs like us discussing M-theory or the many-worlds-theory, is that you need a theoretical physics degree (or equivalent knowledge) to have an intelligent discussion on these topics. Unfortunately, no one on these forums has such knowledge, afaik.

 

[Ahimsa]

The Church, as far as I know, has not pronounced on the issue of many-worlds theories.

 

[masterjedi747]

The limitation with plebs like us discussing M-theory or the many-worlds-theory, is that you need a theoretical physics degree (or equivalent knowledge) to have an intelligent discussion on these topics.

In a way yes, but the philosophical implications of MWI are pretty clear-cut… it boils down to determinism, and I think we can certainly handle that here.

The Church, as far as I know, has not pronounced on the issue of many-worlds theories.

If by “many-worlds” you are simply suggesting the possibility of other universes, then the question is certainly wide open for speculation.

But the “Many-Worlds Interpretation” of Quantum Mechanics is that there are effectively an infinity of other universes out there… one for every single chain of events that could have conceivably happened. Basically, everything that could have ever happened does happen, just in another universe. There is no Divine Providence, and no free will: there is a universe in which, for every single decision that you have (or could have) possibly made, you made it, and an equal number in you made the opposite decision… and in every universe you’re equally convinced (or not convinced) that your choices are a result of free will. And this is still leaving out all of the philosophical issues related to to the fact that there would be an untold equal number of "you"s from every universe ultimately going to heaven and hell, etc.

And there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate this interpretation; even* in theory* there never can be communication between these different universes, so it can’t be scientifically proven or rejected; it’s just one “possible” interpretation of the data against it, according to which determinism could still hold true. And since the Church HAS spoken out clearly against the philosophical errors of determinism, Catholics can have certainty that the MWInterpretation is not true. Our world has a unique history, shaped by both free will and Divine Providence. Even if there are other universes, there is no actual near-infinity of different histories playing out for this particular universe.

 

[Soutane]

I think the theory of gravity is a little more than just a guess. Just because something is a theory doesn’t mean it’s probably true, but there are plenty of theories that are a lot more than mere educated guesses.

Nor did I say what you are saying I said.Please do not put words in my mouth.I did not tar all theories,scientific or not as being bogus.Occasionaly they prove to be correct.I won’t hold my breath on this one though.

 

[LukeS]

A scientist can study scientific issues. It seems to me unlikely that theology will have the most insightful answer. Just as the modern church might accept heliocentrism and evolution, it might accept MWI interpretation of QM. I don’t think (but I am not a physicist) that MWI entails an infinity of universes, just a universal wave function where both momentum and location are played out completely across a range of physical realms instead of being indeterminate in just one. AFAIK physics comes to a standstill when “troublesome infinities” emerge.

I think that part of the joy of being a rational being is that we can (some of us) make intelligent comments not just on Aristotle or Aquinas, but also Heidegger and Einstein, and we can look to learn from tomorrows teachers too.

Catholics value tradition as well as scripture, and to be informed by science as well as faith is potentially a safeguard against the prevailing of the gates of hell (deception and untruth etc). After all the deposit of faith relates to the supernatural and not to micro-particles and DNA.

And since the Church HAS spoken out clearly against the philosophical errors of determinism, Catholics can have certainty that the MWInterpretation is not true.

Can you give me a definition of the freedom of the will, which I suppose determinism opposes, in a positive sense rather than just calling it the absence of determinism? Anyway wouldn’t in MWI there be a quantum indeterminism in this world - from our perspective and for most intents and purposes - but just not in the multiverse as a totality? Ie detrminism and MWI are not contradictory but 2 faces of one coin. Yet, I still can’t see though how quantum events relate to the issue of volition, unless someone has read a entry on neurophysics (maybe Orc-OR?) that has been given the seal of approval.

 

[ricmat]

There’s this theory where there’s multiple infinite universes, and were in just one. In this infinite universe, the past is happening, future is happening. Marilyn Monroe never died, and Hitler was a saint. I never existed in one, and in another I existed. The ugliest creature exist in one, and the most beautiful exist… In one I could be an athiest prostitute, and another the greatest saint in that universe.

So if all these universes exist where is my soul?? Do you think this is possible?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Many theories are based on nothing but math. Essentially they are nothing more than human constructed sci-fi virtual realities in which the math “works out.” The multi-verses which are postulated are like that. There are no observable results, and no way to interact with them. They probably don’t exist. But the math is really neat - so I’ve read.

Don’t worry about it.

 

[masterjedi747]

I don’t think (but I am not a physicist) that MWI entails an infinity of universes, just a universal wave function where both momentum and location are played out completely across a range of physical realms instead of being indeterminate in just one.

My tendency is to think it would be infinite due to the continuous nature of time/motion, but maybe it could work out somehow that it’s not… I’m not exactly sure. But if I may be allowed to quote the all-knowing Wikipedia to at least bring us to a common ground:

“In layman’s terms, this means that there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes and that everything that could possibly happen, or could possibly have happened, in our universe (but doesn’t) does happen in some other universe(s).”

Can you give me a definition of the freedom of the will, which I suppose determinism opposes, in a positive sense rather than just calling it the absence of determinism?

The best short-answer definition I have right now is “the capacity of self-determination”. But I’d also recommend the following article, since it goes into several other important points of consideration:
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: Free Will

Anyway wouldn’t in MWI there be a quantum indeterminism in this world - from our perspective and for most intents and purposes - but just not in the multiverse as a totality?

But that really does boil down to saying that indeterminacy doesn’t actually exist… it just seems to us that it does.

Indeterminism and MWI are not contradictory but 2 faces of one coin.

I think it’s the other way around. MWI is an attempt to make determinism and QM two sides of the same coin.
(…and this is probably a terribly cheap move, but Wikipedia agrees with me. )

Yet, I still can’t see though how quantum events relate to the issue of volition, unless someone has read a entry on neurophysics… that has been given the seal of approval.

I think the more important point is not precisely how it relates, but simply the fact that the universe is not deterministic. I mean, for a modern world that grew up thinking along the lines of Newtonian determinism – where free will, if it could even exist at all, necessarily had to “break the rules” of physics in order to work – that’s huge, because it does, at the very least, at least re-open the door to the possibility of physics not standing in opposition to free will.

Along those lines, an interesting article for those who might be interested:
(does requires a little bit of work, keeping track of what abbreviations stand for)
Quantum Java: The Upwards Percolation Of Indeterminacy (PDF)

 

[LukeS]

Ok, I am a newbie Catholic and have traces of alien philosophy (no, I am not from Mars).
So, Is the free will dogma ex-cathedra, ie thought to be infallible, or is it just something which is generally believed but not essential to the Church?
Also, what about compatiblism?

masterjedi747:

I think the more important point is not precisely how it relates, but simply the fact that the universe is not deterministic. I mean, for a modern world that grew up thinking along the lines of Newtonian determinism – where free will, if it could even exist at all, necessarily had to “break the rules” of physics in order to work – that’s huge, because it does, at the very least, at least re-open the door to the possibility of physics not standing in opposition to free will.

In a compatiblist universe free will and determinism can live side by side and in harmony. So, it would seem that indeterminism is not essential for free will?

 

[masterjedi747]

So, Is the free will dogma ex-cathedra, ie thought to be infallible, or is it just something which is generally believed but not essential to the Church?

It is included under infallible Church doctrine, and essential to the faith.
(…but not “ex cathedra”, since that only applies to very certain circumstances)

Also, what about compatiblism?
In a compatiblist universe free will and determinism can live side by side and in harmony. So, it would seem that indeterminism is not essential for free will?

“A compatibilist, or soft determinist, in contrast, will define a free act in a way that does not hinge on the presence or absence of prior causes. For example, one could define a free act as one that involves no compulsion by another person. Since the physical universe and the laws of nature are not persons, actions which are caused by the laws of nature, would still be free acts, and therefore it is wrong to conclude that universal determinism would mean we are never free.”

Looks to me like it’s just redefining the terms, so they can keep using the term “free will”… but it no longer means the same thing. For example, I would dispute that my will is free if I truly have no choice in the matter. I can continue typing this post, or I could walk away and eat breakfast… but if the outcome is wholly predetermined ahead of time by the physical makeup of my brain, then I really have no choice in the matter. Redefining free will to ignore influence from the laws of nature doesn’t solve the problem… it just ignores it, and hides the problem behind new definitions.

For more detail, I would recommend both the previous article that I posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding Free Will, as well as Question 83, Article 1 (“Does man have free choice?”) in the Summa.

 

[promethius]

Basically, everything that could have ever happened does happen, just in another universe. There is no Divine Providence, and no free will: there is a universe in which, for every single decision that you have (or could have) possibly made, you made it, and an equal number in you made the opposite decision…

Actually that’s a gross misinterpretation of what the many world theory states.

And since the Church HAS spoken out clearly against the philosophical errors of determinism, Catholics can have certainty that the MWInterpretation is not true. Our world has a unique history, shaped by both free will and Divine Providence. Even if there are other universes, there is no actual near-infinity of different histories playing out for this particular universe.

This becomes irrelevant when you consider that what the many world theory states has nothing to do with the way you’ve portrayed it.

 

[masterjedi747]

Actually that’s a gross misinterpretation of what the many world theory states.

…well then, please correct me. How is this wrong, and what does the name then mean?
Because everything I’ve read as explained that, in practical terms, that’s what it reduces to.

To take one example: “Many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox, since every possible outcome to every event defines or exists in its own “history” or “world.” In layman’s terms, this means that there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes and that everything that could possibly happen, or could possibly have happened, in our universe (but doesn’t) does happen in some other universe(s). …Prior to many worlds this had been viewed as a single “world-line”. Many-worlds rather views it as a many-branched tree where every possible quantum event is realized.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There’s this theory where there’s multiple infinite universes, and were in just one. In this infinite universe, the past is happening, future is happening. Marilyn Monroe never died, and Hitler was a saint. I never existed in one, and in another I existed. The ugliest creature exist in one, and the most beautiful exist… In one I could be an athiest prostitute, and another the greatest saint in that universe.

So if all these universes exist where is my soul?? Do you think this is possible?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

i wouldnt take it too seriously. m-theory s jsut another in along string of permutations of string theory, they have been changing their minds every few years now for a decades.

when somebody tells you that there is a natural physical process that explains the existence of the universe, be unafraid.
because…

no physical can cause itself, if something does not exist it cannot act, it therefore cannot act to cause itself.

what does that mean?

it means there there is not and can never be under any circumstances, a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.

science only deals with physical things, physical things cannot cause themselves ergo, science cannot explain how we got here…

 

[promethius]

…well then, please correct me. How is this wrong, and what does the name then mean?
Because everything I’ve read as explained that, in practical terms, that’s what it reduces to.

To take one example: “Many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox, since every possible outcome to every event defines or exists in its own “history” or “world.” In layman’s terms, this means that there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes and that everything that could possibly happen, or could possibly have happened, in our universe (but doesn’t) does happen in some other universe(s). …Prior to many worlds this had been viewed as a single “world-line”. Many-worlds rather views it as a many-branched tree where every possible quantum event is realized.”

I hate wikipedia as a source. Many world theory does not state that there are infinite existing universes. What it states is that possible futures for our universe “exist” in a superposition. They’re not real, they’re not really there. It also doesn’t state that what we don’t choose in our existance we DO choose in another existance. Just as a superposition is collapsed in wave-partical duality, when a choice is made it collapses the wave function, eliminating the quasi-superposition existance of the potential futures and collapsing the wave function into a single existance. None of the other possible futures come into being or survive afterwards.

Wiki has an incredibly over-simplified explanation of the situation. It’s no surprise it utterly fails to discuss superpositions properly.

 

[mardukm]

I think the theory of gravity is a little more than just a guess. Just because something is a theory doesn’t mean it’s probably true, but there are plenty of theories that are a lot more than mere educated guesses.

Ummm… Actually, Gravity has graduated for some time now from a theory to a Law of physics. So it is called the LAW of gravity, not the theory of gravity.

In any case, scientific THEORIES are very often the basis for what’s known as science FICTION. The other basis for science fiction is human imagination.

Blessings