Multiverse or some other physical reality outside the Universe: Why Not?

[catholic1seeks]

I’m no philosopher, but it’s not hard to realize that some “thing” or aspect must have always existed in order for our current Universe to exist: Whether that be the Universe itself, something outside or a necessary BEING.

Why can’t a necessary PHYSICAL reality be the proper explanation?

In other words, why can’t the eternal “necessary” substance be physical - such as something outside the Universe, a multiverse, or our universe itself? What makes an eternal mind a better answer?

 

[Bradski]

We work on the assumption that this is the only universe. However…

That does not preclude the possibility that there were many more in existence before this one or that there may be many more in existence at this time.

Bear in mind that if the expansion of space maintains, then the current universe will eventually disappear. We will be centre of a dark universe with no access to the rest of it.

Seems an odd way to design it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

We work on the assumption that this is the only universe. However…

That does not preclude the possibility that there were many more in existence before this one or that there may be many more in existence at this time.

Bear in mind that if the expansion of space maintains, then the current universe will eventually disappear. We will be centre of a dark universe with no access to the rest of it.

Seems an odd way to design it.

And yet we are here, no? I imagine there are multiple if not infinite ways God (assuming he exists) could have made the world. But nevertheless, conscious creatures we have evolved to be! Also, Christian thought has a core doctrine that the physical universe will ultimately be renewed – just like our bodies in the Resurrection.

Why necessary being - and not necessary physical substance? I assume it is reasonable to say that some “thing” – whether it be God or physical susbtance – has always existed. For it is absurd to say that physical realities popped into existence from nothing:

The issue then becomes, can a physical, mindless reality (whether it be our own universe or not) have always existed, rather than a spiritual being or “existence” itself?

I do not say that many universes could not have existed before ours: that is precisely the point. I accept this possibility. But my question is aimed at God-believers, of which you are not, as to why another universe, multiple universes, some external physical “thing” or our own universe is not adequate to explain the universe’s existence.

That is, the question is to theists and those who accept the cosmological argument: Why does a necessary being/mind/spirit offer a better explanation then some mindless, physical thing?

 

[IWantGod]

Seems an odd way to design it.

Why?

 

[IWantGod]

That is, the question is to theists and those who accept the cosmological argument: Why does a necessary being/mind/spirit offer a better explanation then some mindless, physical thing?

A necessary being has in it the fullness of being. Every aspect of it is necessarily real. Its nature is fully actual. It does not grow, or evolve. Its nature does not change. Its nature is not potentially something else, otherwise some aspect of it would not be necessarily real which would contradict the fact that it is necessary reality.

Therefore it would not make logical sense to think that the ultimate cause of all things is made up of evolving and potentially moving parts. It really does not matter how many universes or parallel universes there are. Physical objects by there very nature do not provide an efficient cause or logical explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing. What sense does it make to say that physical reality created physical reality? The concept is flawed from the moment of conception.

 

[commenter]

The term “universe” - uni - verse -includes all physical reality. So a multiverse, or alternate universe, would not make sense, That would simply be another part of the one universe, farther away or an earlier manifestation of the single universe we know.

Thomas’ argument, borrowing from Aristotle, is that everything we know of has a cause for its existence. Even if you postulate something, “pre-universe” or very different kind of universe, that caused the universe we know today, that preuniverse (part of our universe, really) was caused by something, outside physical reality. That leads us to God, whose existence is not based on time. He is the uncaused cause.

His other argument is motion, which is any kind of change, not just locomotion. His argument is that we observe every kind of motion has something outside itself causing that motion. But that leads us to one unchanging entity that needed no cause for any motion itself, because it doesn’t move, but must have initiated “Motion” in the universe. After initiation of motion, we now have time. But the uncaused cause of existence, and cause of Motion, was there before time, and not limited by it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

A necessary being has in it the fullness of being. Every aspect of it is necessarily real. Its nature is fully actual. It does not grow, or evolve. Its nature does not change. Its nature is not potentially something else, otherwise some aspect of it would not be necessarily real which would contradict the fact that it is necessary reality.

Therefore it would not make logical sense to think that the ultimate cause of all things is made up of evolving and potentially moving parts. It really does not matter how many universes or parallel universes there are. Physical objects by there very nature do not provide an efficient cause or logical explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing. What sense does it make to say that physical reality created physical reality? The concept is flawed from the moment of conception.

I see, I see. I need to reflect on this some more. However, how is it any easier by suggesting that an eternal MIND has always existed? I understand that the definition of God suggests simplicity and no parts, but how is it that the eternal principle or substance is an intelligent mind?

 

[catholic1seeks]

The term “universe” - uni - verse -includes all physical reality. So a multiverse, or alternate universe, would not make sense, That would simply be another part of the one universe, farther away or an earlier manifestation of the single universe we know.

Thomas’ argument, borrowing from Aristotle, is that everything we know of has a cause for its existence. Even if you postulate something, “pre-universe” or very different kind of universe, that caused the universe we know today, that preuniverse (part of our universe, really) was caused by something, outside physical reality. That leads us to God, whose existence is not based on time. He is the uncaused cause.

His other argument is motion, which is any kind of change, not just locomotion. His argument is that we observe every kind of motion has something outside itself causing that motion. But that leads us to one unchanging entity that needed no cause for any motion itself, because it doesn’t move, but must have initiated “Motion” in the universe. After initiation of motion, we now have time. But the uncaused cause of existence, and cause of Motion, was there before time, and not limited by it.

Would it be correct to say modern science, and I am think of quantum physics of which I know little, challenges traditional understandings of causality and motion? Or is the argument more fundamental?

What do we mean when we say this uncaused, unchanging First Cause is a mind, or intelligent?

I’m following the arguments so far, but I have difficulty understanding the personal nature of the First Cause – that this first cause in fact has intelligence and will. It is this difficulty that makes me thing that the ultimate, simple necessary substance that is the cause of all physical reality is just that - necessary - but not a being, not a mind.

 

[commenter]

I see, I see. I need to reflect on this some more. However, how is it any easier by suggesting that an eternal MIND has always existed? I understand that the definition of God suggests simplicity and no parts, but how is it that the eternal principle or substance is an intelligent mind?

This is the simplest explanation for the phenomena we see. It is easier to posit one new factor, outside our system, than to posit many different kinds of exceptions to account for physical reality.

If we suggest the cause outside our system is just a blind, unconscious force, like gravity, then it is really part of our universe. We are still stuck with the question, why is that blind, indifferent force existing at all? What gave it the motion it has? Even if the blind “creation force” seems to follow the laws of physics, where did those laws come from? Laws imply a lawgiver. God is the simplest explanation.

 

[brian_custer]

if your question is: could multiverses exist?

my response would be: nothing is beyond the power of god

 

[commenter]

Would it be correct to say modern science, and I am think of quantum physics of which I know little, challenges traditional understandings of causality and motion? Or is the argument more fundamental?

What do we mean when we say this uncaused, unchanging First Cause is a mind, or intelligent?

I’m following the arguments so far, but I have difficulty understanding the personal nature of the First Cause – that this first cause in fact has intelligence and will. It is this difficulty that makes me thing that the ultimate, simple necessary substance that is the cause of all physical reality is just that - necessary - but not a being, not a mind.

The incredible consistency of the physical universe and its laws, seems to point to a single Something with a mind, and will, to make such laws. Even if we posit “necessity” as a cause, something chose to allow physical reality to shape in such a way to make that so. Look at the history of science. Does physical reality suggest what we call intelligence, that our own intelligences are only gradually, and incompletely, grasping?
Would you say science has its intelligence aspects? What does that say about what it studies?

 

[IWantGod]

I see, I see. I need to reflect on this some more. However, how is it any easier by suggesting that an eternal MIND has always existed? I understand that the definition of God suggests simplicity and no parts, but how is it that the eternal principle or substance is an intelligent mind?

I am too tired right now to give a full philosophical argument for an intelligent first cause.

But consider this, imagine that only a necessary-reality with the fullness of being exists and nothing else.

Anything else that does not exist could only in principle have the potential to exist and nothing more. This means that physical reality with all its laws, principles, and natures, in this scenario does not exist and cannot exist unless the necessary reality in question brings physical reality with all its laws, principles, and natures into actuality. In effect it would have to share existence with the universe; a universe that never has to exist ever.

How could this possibly be unless the necessary being has intention or an intellect, or a will analogous to that of a creative human mind? If ultimate reality has no moving parts or chemical reactions, then there is no natural reason whatsoever for anything else to exist. The physical laws of nature cannot create themselves. They are not pieces that have somehow fallen off the body of ultimate reality. They are not necessary if physical nature begins to exist. Thus it seems the only plausible explanation is an intelligent first cause, because a creative mind of sorts is the only efficient cause that can craft the laws that bind physical reality into existence.

If it takes an intelligent mind to understand the universe then surely its not coincidence that it takes an intelligent mind to create one.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I am too tired right now to give a full philosophical argument for an intelligent first cause.

But consider this, imagine that only a necessary-reality with the fullness of being exists and nothing else.

Anything else that does not exist could only in principle have the potential to exist and nothing more. This means that physical reality with all its laws, principles, and natures, in this scenario does not exist and cannot exist unless the necessary reality in question brings physical reality with all its laws, principles, and natures into actuality. In effect it would have to share existence with the universe; a universe that never has to exist ever.

How could this possibly be unless the necessary being has intention or an intellect, or a will analogous to that of a creative human mind? If ultimate reality has no moving parts or chemical reactions, then there is no natural reason whatsoever for anything else to exist. The physical laws of nature cannot create themselves. They are not pieces that have somehow fallen off the body of ultimate reality. They are not necessary if physical nature begins to exist. Thus it seems the only plausible explanation is an intelligent first cause, because a creative mind of sorts is the only efficient cause that can craft the laws that bind physical reality into existence.

If it takes an intelligent mind to understand the universe then surely its not coincidence that it takes an intelligent mind to create one.

The logic of this sounds so beautiful! It is just so hard for my finite mind to think of a mind as simple spirit. Perhaps this is because we do not experience mind like this, as our brains which have parts are intricately related to our minds. The nature of spirit seems so other, so different from our experience with space, matter, and time.

Partly why I don’t believe in the common conception of ghosts: true spirits are not in any way physical so do not make “ghostly noises” and do not appear as gaseous or light, which are physical phenomenon, and which is how ghosts are commonly described. Just an aside…

And yet the paradox is that we primarily and most easily experience a world of matter, so it is hard to conceive of spirit admit is traditionally defined.

 

[GEddie]

In time, any purely physical system will run down under entropy.

 

[Bradski]

Why?

The more we learn about the universe, the more incredibly complex it becomes.

We used to think that we were just one planet and a few sparkly lights and things were made up of basic elements and we were brought into existence shortly after everything else. One has to ask why that isn’t actually the case.

That is, why God has deemed it necessary to make the whole shebang as vastly complex as it is. And have almost an infinite amount of creation inaccessible to is. And growing increasingly inaccessible as you are reading this.

It makes zero sense to me whatsoever. It would be like me building you a house so big that you could only access 0.00000000000000000001% of it (there’s actually a LOT more zeros, but you get the point).

Occam’s razor needs to be brought to bear on ocassions like this. As someone a lot brighter than me once said: ‘The stage is too big for the drama’.

The older I get, the more I know about the universe (which prompts me to realise how much I don’t know), the more this fact overrides almost all other reasons why I don’t believe in God.

 

[IWantGod]

The more we learn about the universe, the more incredibly complex it becomes.

We used to think that we were just one planet and a few sparkly lights and things were made up of basic elements and we were brought into existence shortly after everything else. One has to ask why that isn’t actually the case.

That is, why God has deemed it necessary to make the whole shebang as vastly complex as it is. And have almost an infinite amount of creation inaccessible to is. And growing increasingly inaccessible as you are reading this.

It makes zero sense to me whatsoever. It would be like me building you a house so big that you could only access 0.00000000000000000001% of it (there’s actually a LOT more zeros, but you get the point).

Occam’s razor needs to be brought to bear on ocassions like this. As someone a lot brighter than me once said: ‘The stage is too big for the drama’.

The older I get, the more I know about the universe (which prompts me to realise how much I don’t know), the more this fact overrides almost all other reasons why I don’t believe in God.

I understand what your saying, but the vastness of the universe really doesn’t say much unless you know exactly what it is that you are studying. You are assuming that God created the universe just to provide us a home to live in. To say the universe is so vast that its not worth creating or doesn’t make sense to create it because we can’t access it, makes zero sense as well. “The stage is to big for the drama” makes a very huge assumption. I don’t see how you can get from “the universe is too big” to “the universe is pointless”.

 

[Porknpie]

That is, why God has deemed it necessary to make the whole shebang as vastly complex as it is. And have almost an infinite amount of creation inaccessible to is.

The universe IS vast and complex. But this is said and viewed, only from our perspective.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

**The HISTORICALLY CONSISTENT HYPOTHESIS holds that when Jesus’ corpse disappeared from His tomb, it vanished into an alternate dimension. **

amazon.com/Test-Shroud-Mark-Antonacci/dp/0996430016

 

[Peter_Plato]

The more we learn about the universe, the more incredibly complex it becomes.

We used to think that we were just one planet and a few sparkly lights and things were made up of basic elements and we were brought into existence shortly after everything else. One has to ask why that isn’t actually the case.

That is, why God has deemed it necessary to make the whole shebang as vastly complex as it is. And have almost an infinite amount of creation inaccessible to is. And growing increasingly inaccessible as you are reading this.

It makes zero sense to me whatsoever. It would be like me building you a house so big that you could only access 0.00000000000000000001% of it (there’s actually a LOT more zeros, but you get the point).

This point stands or falls on the question of purpose. In other words, if building the “house” positively requires the precise “materials” which require billions of years in an ever expanding universe to be formed, then whether or not we can access 100% or 0.00000000000000000001% of it is irrelevant. In order to get the carbon and other elements necessary to building complex biological bodies, the expansion of time and space and entropy are required, given all of the laws of physics currently in place. Or do you want to allow that young earth creationists have the right idea in claiming that the universe is just a few thousand years old but made to look to our eyes as if it is much older?

Besides that, the whole expanding universe thing keeps those precocious humans occupied and somewhat out of trouble trying to figure out the complex mechanism behind it. A definite indication that we ought to show more humility than siding immediately with the proclivity to insist that we humans are so smart about such things as the reason or purpose behind it all.

Furthermore, if the universe, in its current configuration, is intended purely as a temporary “house,” then what will eventually happen to it is irrelevant, once it will have served its purpose, at some point or other – whatever that purpose happens to have been. Your point, here requires a kind of willful ignorance about purpose to have any cogency at all.

The planned obsolescence we observe in the law of entropy would be a puzzlement to our limited knowledge, but completely sensible to the Designer of it all, depending upon what the plan for the design ultimately is. Merely because we only have vague clues about that plan does not amount to an argument against all plans merely because we cannot fathom the largesse involved.

The universe does have the appearance of vastness and incomprehensible duration TO US. To God, from the point of view of eternality, immateriality and transcendence, the universe may be nothing more than a dust speck such as the one Horton encountered in the Dr. Seuss classic – a little bit of nothing, really, in terms of the demands upon him to design and create. This says more about the possible attributes of God which ought to make us far more humble than we are than to force the conclusion that size and space are as we view it and our perspective on them is the last word. At least be a reasonable rat about that.

Occam’s razor needs to be brought to bear on ocassions like this. As someone a lot brighter than me once said: ‘The stage is too big for the drama’.

It would take more than someone a lot brighter than you to be able to conclude such a thing. It requires someone with insight into the ultimate purpose for the “drama” and, therefore, the requirements with regard to the “stage” to draw such conclusions relative to the universe.

Trotting out something as sharp and unwieldy as Occam’s Razor on occasions such as this could be dangerous. The farmer’s wife hacking the tails off of the three blind mice with -]a carving knife/-] Occam’s Razor might serve as an object lesson for rational rats, as well.

The older I get, the more I know about the universe (which prompts me to realise how much I don’t know), the more this fact overrides almost all other reasons why I don’t believe in God.

Seems self-contradictory. What you proclaim with increasingly certainty that you don’t know serves as a reason to conclude God does not exist with increasing certainty? How does that work? Increasing certainty that you don’t know very much at all leads to assurance that you do know with increasing certainty that God does not exist?

I never will understand the rational processes of rats, no matter how “reasonable” they purport to be.

 

[IWantGod]

This point stands or falls on the question of purpose. In other words, if building the “house” positively requires the precise “materials” which require billions of years in an ever expanding universe to be formed, then whether or not we can access 100% or 0.00000000000000000001% of it is irrelevant. In order to get the carbon and other elements necessary to building complex biological bodies, the expansion of time and space and entropy are required, given all of the laws of physics currently in place. Or do you want to allow that young earth creationists have the right idea in claiming that the universe is just a few thousand years old but made to look to our eyes as if it is much older?

Besides that, the whole expanding universe thing keeps those precocious humans occupied and somewhat out of trouble trying to figure out the complex mechanism behind it. A definite indication that we ought to show more humility than siding immediately with the proclivity to insist that we humans are so smart about such things as the reason or purpose behind it all.

Furthermore, if the universe, in its current configuration, is intended purely as a temporary “house,” then what will eventually happen to it is irrelevant, once it will have served its purpose, at some point or other – whatever that purpose happens to have been. Your point, here requires a kind of willful ignorance about purpose to have any cogency at all.

The planned obsolescence we observe in the law of entropy would be a puzzlement to our limited knowledge, but completely sensible to the Designer of it all, depending upon what the plan for the design ultimately is. Merely because we only have vague clues about that plan does not amount to an argument against all plans merely because we cannot fathom the largesse involved.

The universe does have the appearance of vastness and incomprehensible duration TO US. To God, from the point of view of eternality, immateriality and transcendence, the universe may be nothing more than a dust speck such as the one Horton encountered in the Dr. Seuss classic – a little bit of nothing, really, in terms of the demands upon him to design and create. This says more about the possible attributes of God which ought to make us far more humble than we are than to force the conclusion that size and space are as we view it and our perspective on them is the last word. At least be a reasonable rat about that.

It would take more than someone a lot brighter than you to be able to conclude such a thing. It requires someone with insight into the ultimate purpose for the “drama” and, therefore, the requirements with regard to the “stage” to draw such conclusions relative to the universe.

Trotting out something as sharp and unwieldy as Occam’s Razor on occasions such as this could be dangerous. The farmer’s wife hacking the tails off of the three blind mice with -]a carving knife/-] Occam’s Razor might serve as an object lesson for rational rats, as well.

Seems self-contradictory. What you proclaim with increasingly certainty that you don’t know serves as a reason to conclude God does not exist with increasing certainty? How does that work? Increasing certainty that you don’t know very much at all leads to assurance that you do know with increasing certainty that God does not exist?

I never will understand the rational processes of rats, no matter how “reasonable” they purport to be.