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

[IWantGod]

But I think the case could be made then that we think too highly of our own preeminence in the eyes of G-d compared to possibly other intelligent creatures scattered across the universe, or multiverse. Perhaps we have a motivational need to think this way, since otherwise we would have to be content (or discontent) with our very small role in the universe, or at least a role equal to those of other beings but not superior. We may still be loved by G-d, but we are not the only ones and we are not loved any better than the rest of G-d’s creation.

And when we subdivide ourselves even further according to religious faith, that is, the “mine is the truth; yours is not, or only partially so” mentality, I believe you may be able to see the problem.

I know exactly what you mean. But if God used and evolutionary model of creation with us in mind, it could turn out that God did create it for us, but it just so happens that “us” is not in a distinct location but rather we are scattered throughout the cosmos.

 

[GEddie]

But I think the case could be made then that we think too highly of our own preeminence in the eyes of G-d compared to possibly other intelligent creatures scattered across the universe, or multiverse. Perhaps we have a motivational need to think this way, since otherwise we would have to be content (or discontent) with our very small role in the universe, or at least a role equal to those of other beings but not superior. We may still be loved by G-d, but we are not the only ones and we are not loved any better than the rest of G-d’s creation.

And when we subdivide ourselves even further according to religious faith, that is, the “mine is the truth; yours is not, or only partially so” mentality, I believe you may be able to see the problem.

Let’s wait for empirical evidence of “other beings in the (physical) universe” before we build a philosophy around them (or redraw a philosophy to fit around them).

My take is that such beings may well be out there, but the enormous sidereal distances, incompatibility of worlds/bodies/language, or both, will in all likelihood prevent our interaction with them. In which place their position in our experience will remain nonexistent.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bradski]

Is what you are saying, explicitly or implicitly, that the enormous size of the universe means we humans are not really the center of G-d’s creation and purpose, and that the spiritual messages we were given by Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, are too human-centered or have been misinterpreted as applying uniquely to humans?

Yes.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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?

See reasonablefaith.org/is-part-of-the-universe-a-necessary-being

reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not sure how a multiverse would avoid the Five Ways, though. Is there any reason for this hypothetical multiverse to be necessary? That is, that we can’t possibly have had a different multiverse instead? I mean, does the concept of this multiverse go so far as to entail that this multiverse must exist. That the concept of this multiverse and its existence are in fact the same exact thing?

Plus the argument from motion (change), teleology, etc . . . Is the multiverse unintelligible? That is, not just beyond human understanding or indeterminable, or obeying different rules, but completely devoid of any and all “laws” and entirely random? Not even probabilistic? Does it contain all the teleological ends in itself whether or not they exist in actuality)? Is the multiverse immutable and not subject to any change in itself? Is the multiverse goodness, perfection, and other transcendental universals?

 

[IWantGod]

But I think the case could be made then that we think too highly of our own preeminence in the eyes of G-d compared to possibly other intelligent creatures scattered across the universe, or multiverse. Perhaps we have a motivational need to think this way, since otherwise we would have to be content (or discontent) with our very small role in the universe, or at least a role equal to those of other beings but not superior. We may still be loved by G-d, but we are not the only ones and we are not loved any better than the rest of G-d’s creation.

And when we subdivide ourselves even further according to religious faith, that is, the “mine is the truth; yours is not, or only partially so” mentality, I believe you may be able to see the problem.

Think of it like this, Jesus brought the gospel to the Jewish people first. Does this necessitate the idea that Jewish people thought to highly of themselves? Even if some did, it wouldn’t be relevant if it is in fact true that God brought the gospel to them first.

 

[Lucretius]

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.

But, where did we discover this possibility? Just because we can imagine it being possible, doesn’t mean it is possible in reality.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

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?

One of the major problems right now is that I don’t think we have an essential understanding of what is physical. That is, what does it mean to be physical? According to St. Thomas, material things were such because they are changeable/corruptable (it’s a bit more complicated though). Therefore, the unchanging necessary casur cannot be material by definition, period.

However, modern physicists and philosophers don’t consider becoming per se and I’m not sure what exactly they see the essence of the physical to be? Extension? Mass/energy?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

But, where did we discover this possibility?

The newly discovered gravity waves appear to confirm the the universe went through an inflationary period. If that is true, then…

“It’s hard to build models of inflation that don’t lead to a multiverse,” Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. “It’s not impossible, so I think there’s still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously.” - See more at: space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html#sthash.wIfLVbke.dpuf

 

[Lucretius]

The newly discovered gravity waves appear to confirm the the universe went through an inflationary period. If that is true, then…

“It’s hard to build models of inflation that don’t lead to a multiverse,” Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. “It’s not impossible, so I think there’s still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously.” - See more at: space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html#sthash.wIfLVbke.dpuf

I guess that is reasonable. I would like another opinion though. I’m a little skeptical too, as models tend to mislead.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[PRmerger]

I guess that is reasonable. I would like another opinion though. I’m a little skeptical too, as models tend to mislead.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Skeptical is good.

 

[Bradski]

I guess that is reasonable. I would like another opinion though. I’m a little skeptical too, as models tend to mislead.

I hope you’re not accepting my opinion – all I’m doing is deferring to the guys who know how all this stuff works and referencing them. Such as Andrei Linfe:

In most models, if you have inflation, then you have a multiverse," said Stanford physicist Andrei Linde. Linde, one of cosmological inflation’s inventors, spoke on Monday at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics .

But…even Guth doesn’t claim it it true. It’s just a possibility. But it would explain things that we currently don’t understand.

I’m a fan of the multiverse, but I wouldn’t claim it is true," says Guth. Nevertheless, he adds, a multiverse explains a lot of things that now confuse cosmologists about our universe. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140318-multiverse-inflation-big-bang-science-space/

 

[Lucretius]

I hope you’re not accepting my opinion – all I’m doing is deferring to the guys who know how all this stuff works and referencing them. Such as Andrei Linfe:

In most models, if you have inflation, then you have a multiverse," said Stanford physicist Andrei Linde. Linde, one of cosmological inflation’s inventors, spoke on Monday at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics .

But…even Guth doesn’t claim it it true. It’s just a possibility. But it would explain things that we currently don’t understand.

I’m a fan of the multiverse, but I wouldn’t claim it is true," says Guth. Nevertheless, he adds, a multiverse explains a lot of things that now confuse cosmologists about our universe. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140318-multiverse-inflation-big-bang-science-space/

There could also be a theory, which doesn’t necessitate a multiverse, that contemporary scientists don’t have the insight and creativity to see and create.

Our society needs to generate another Newton or Darwin or Einstein.

Thank you for the articles, btw

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[LethalMouse]

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?

This is the same logic as alien theorists…

If our universe comes from another universe, that doesn’t answer where we came from.the other universe still is in the timeline of things. So where did it come from? It is still bound by physics.

I do not doubt multiple universes… but they alll would be created.

 

[Bradski]

If our universe comes from another universe, that doesn’t answer where we came from.the other universe still is in the timeline of things. So where did it come from? It is still bound by physics.

True. But I think there’s a reaction against it in some people because it completely dismantles the fine-tuning argument.

If there are an infinity of universes (which is what most multiverse models propose), then it becomes a certainty that we’d be in one of them. That we are nothing special. That, in fact, there are countless universes with countless worlds with countless civilisations with belief systems entirely different to anything we have but all equally valid. Or invalid as the case may be.

Kinda hard to get one’s head around and all supposition in any case. Nice to think about late at night around the camp fire sharing a bottle of something but nothing over which to lose any sleep.

 

[Lucretius]

If there are an infinity of universes (which is what most multiverse models propose), then it becomes a certainty that we’d be in one of them. That we are nothing special. That, in fact, there are countless universes with countless worlds with countless civilisations with belief systems entirely different to anything we have but all equally valid. Or invalid as the case may be.

Wouldn’t this be a little bit speculative? Even if we can say that these 'verses exist, can we really say to know anything about what they are like? Aren’t we just WMGing?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[drac16]

An eternal physical being is contrary to Tawheed. Tawheed is the concept that says that God alone possesses attributes of being Eternal and Self-Subsisting. Two of Allah’s 99 names are ‘Al-Hayy’, which means ‘The Ever Living’, and ‘Al-Qayoom’, which means ‘The Self-Subsisting’. Allah alone has those names; matter, which is something other than Him, cannot be eternal or altogether independent.

When you see design, it is natural to conclude that it was designed. Someone or something designed it. This eternal thing would have to take into account spiritual truths. You can’t have matter originating spiritual truths as your model because matter deals with the five senses, whereas spiritual truths are beyond the five senses. When God speaks something into existence, He’s not bound by the properties of matter-- His creative work can go beyond that. That’s what happened when He created Adam and Eve [peace be upon them].

 

[Bradski]

Wouldn’t this be a little bit speculative? Even if we can say that these 'verses exist, can we really say to know anything about what they are like?

It’s down to our old chum infinity. If there is a multiverse, from what Inhave been able to understand, there is an infinity of them. So that if anything is logically possible, then it exists.

Go figure…

 

[Lucretius]

It’s down to our old chum infinity. If there is a multiverse, from what Inhave been able to understand, there is an infinity of them. So that if anything is logically possible, then it exists.

Go figure…

I don’t think it follows that multiverses existing means that all logical things are possible.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

I don’t think it follows that multiverses existing means that all logical things are possible.

It seems that that is one option. But I just can’t get my head around it. It doesn’t seem possible. But then the more we learn, the less sense it makes to those who can’t change the clock on the microwave without help.

To be clear, a truly infinite universe means that anything that is not impossible (no matter how obscure) will happen, must happen and must happen, weirdly, an infinite number of times. An infinite universe goes on forever, not only generating uncountable variations, but also requiring each of the uncountable variations to occur an infinite number of times. That’s the strange nature of a true infinity. - See more at: space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html#sthash.T2yIoRxz.dpuf