Questions about the Multiverse

[aclausen]

Fourthly, the Big Bang created this universe. Chicken and egg. You need 2 universes to make one universe? Over time, you will not have enough universes to make new ones. And you are left with this universe as the last remaining one.

Let’s be pretty clear here. The Big Bang was the origin of the Observable Universe… or at least the point at which there was an expansion. If there was a before (if that even makes sense as a concept, to paraphrase Hawking, its like asking what’s north of the North Pole), then current theory can’t say what that was like.

The other error I think you’re making is assuming that if there is a multiverse (a rather big assumption in my view, and one not at all warranted at this time), that somehow it must follow the rules of causality that rule our universe. What if causality is simply a feature of our universe, and not, in fact, a feature of the multiverse or any other universe? I’m assuming you believe in God, so you already accept infinity, so what if infinity in time and in matter/energy is a feature of this postulated (and completely unevidenced) multiverse?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’m assuming you believe in God, so you already accept infinity, so what if infinity in time and in matter/energy is a feature of this postulated (and completely unevidenced) multiverse?

Infinity as it applies to God reflects His eternal nature.
He exists outside of time in an eternal Now, of which our own finite now is an image.
He is the Creator of time to which he relates as Father.
He became one of us through the incarnation of the Second Person - His Word, by which all came into existence.
And, He communes with us through the Holy Spirit.
It’s something like that; you should check out the Catechism.
Since He is eternal and there is nothing but what He creates, He has Infinite power and knowledge.

 

[aclausen]

Infinity as it applies to God reflects His eternal nature.
He exists outside of time.
He is the Creator of time to which he relates as Father.
He became one of us through the incarnation of the Second Person - His Word.
And, He communes with us through the Holy Spirit.
It’s something like that; you should check out the Catechism.
Since He is eternal and there is nothing but what He creates, He has Infinite power and knowledge.

Which is lovely and all, but really doesn’t answer my question, which is why any Multiverse (if such a thing exists, which I do not claim it does) needs to be bound by any particular attributes to be found in our Universe. What if causality really is just a fundamental aspect of our universe, and not one shared by a larger multiverse or by other hypothesized universes? What if the arrow of time works differently in other universes, or there is no time at all?

Again, I’m not saying the multiverse exists. It’s an aspect of brane theory, which is itself an outgrowth of string theory, and all of these are interesting mathematical models that may or may not have anything to do with reality. Still, if we assume the multiverse exists, I cannot see a reason at this point to declare any potential property as mistaken simply because of someone’s interpretation of what God could have or could not have done.

 

[hu324b]

In theory all possibilities exist until a choice has been made but only one becomes reality on the decision that was made. So yes there are infinite possibilities all through your life and they are all possible dependent on the choices you make. But I believe only one reality exists in the end not multiple realities.

 

[aclausen]

In theory all possibilities exist until a choice has been made but only one becomes reality on the decision that was made. So yes there are infinite possibilities all through your life and they are all possible dependent on the choices you make. But I believe only one reality exists in the end not multiple realities.

I’m not sure “multiple realities” is what the multiverse is about. It’s more about our universe being one of many (perhaps an infinite number of universes) in a larger “container” (though, I would expect this analogy wouldn’t hold very long).

 

[Micosil]

Upgrade25, I wouldn’t worry about this.

Remember, the Nicene Creed tells us God the Father is "maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible." This means that even if a multiverse exists, and we’re just one of bazillions of bubble universes, that whole multiverse too is a part of creation, it would be one of the “visible” things the Creed speaks of.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . why any Multiverse . . . needs to be bound by any particular attributes to be found in our Universe. What if causality really is just a fundamental aspect of our universe, and not one shared by a larger multiverse or by other hypothesized universes? What if the arrow of time works differently in other universes, or there is no time at all? . . . I cannot see a reason at this point to declare any potential property as mistaken simply because of someone’s interpretation of what God could have or could not have done.

What God cannot do is what is irrational.

Simply because we can string a bunch of words together does not make whatever they describe possible.

To dream up a new different universe is sort of like coming up a new colour that is not some variant of the colours of the spectrum.

As to causality, there would have to be an underlying cause to a universe that is just happening and leaving no surface trace, which is how I operationally define your idea of there being no time. Time going forward has to do with the law of thermodynamics. There would be no universe in which a broken glass comes together on its own. While it may seem on the surface when we listen to music or watch a roaring fire, that what is transpiring is just changing in the moment and each note or flame does not cause the next, coming into and out of being individually, beneath there exists a cause.

 

[aclausen]

What God cannot do is what is irrational.

Simply because we can string a bunch of words together does not make whatever they describe possible.

To dream up a new different universe is sort of like coming up a new colour that is not some variant of the colours of the spectrum.

As to causality, There would have to be an underlying cause to a universe that is just happening and leaving no surface trace; which is how I interpret your idea of there being no time. Time going forward has to do with the law of thermodynamics. There would be no universe in which a broken glass comes together on its own. While it may seem on the surface when we listen to music or watch a roaring fire, that what is transporting is just changing in the moment and each note or flame does not cause the next, coming into and out of being individually, beneath there exists a cause.

Why would you presume that thermodynamics would apply to any other universe, or to a multiverse?

 

[Aloysium]

Why would you presume that thermodynamics would apply to any other universe, or to a multiverse?

So the sand comes together forming shards of glass that are then bound together into a glass, which comes out of an oven and flows as sand into a pile.
I don’t believe it is rational to speak of a universe that has time running backwards.

 

[aclausen]

So the sand comes together forming shards of glass that are then bound together into a glass, which comes out of an oven and flows as sand into a pile.
I don’t believe it is rational to speak of a universe that has time running backwards.

And why not? You can certainly construct a mathematical model of a universe which has significantly different physical properties, including how time behaves, or if it exists at all. There’s nothing irrational about constructing such a model.

Such a universe would, I presume function very differently than ours, and maybe would be a “sterile” universe (incapable of complex forms of matter and energy), but that would hardly preclude its existence. It simply wouldn’t be a very interesting place to go!

 

[Aloysium]

And why not? You can certainly construct a mathematical model of a universe which has significantly different physical properties, including how time behaves, or if it exists at all. There’s nothing irrational about constructing such a model.

Such a universe would, I presume function very differently than ours, and maybe would be a “sterile” universe (incapable of complex forms of matter and energy), but that would hardly preclude its existence. It simply wouldn’t be a very interesting place to go!

You said you can imagine a universe with time going backwards. This is an absurdity if you are talking about matter.

The hypothetical “universes” that you say have different properties than ours are merely mathematical reconstructions of this one using different variables.

That said, Angels probably do enter in and out of time from eternity. And there are sterile realities one would prefer not to visit and in which one would not wish to remain.

 

[aclausen]

You said you can imagine a universe with time going backwards. This is an absurdity if you are talking about matter.

I’m not clear, why is that an absurdity. Some interpretations of the “quantum foam” which may be how even our universe functions at its most basic level, have time becoming a very unsteady arrow indeed, with causation being inversed. The only thing that may be preserved at the quantum foam level would be the conservation laws, but not the order of events in which they occur.

If the last century of physics has taught us anything, it’s that we simply cannot map our every day experiences on to how the universe functions. To take that even further, the way we experience our universe most certainly could not be mapped on to how hypothetical universes with different physical laws may function.

The hypothetical “universes” that you say have different properties than ours are merely mathematical reconstructions of this one using different variables.

They are currently. But that’s not to say that universes, or at least areas of our universe, may exist where physical laws behave differently.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

They are currently. But that’s not to say that universes, or at least areas of our universe, may exist where physical laws behave differently.

It has become abundantly clear to me that atheists have to have a multiverse to get rid of God.

Making it all the more certain that necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[Micosil]

It has become abundantly clear to me that atheists have to have a multiverse to get rid of God.

Making it all the more certain that necessity is the mother of invention.

And even if atheists do get their multiverse, it proves nothing. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem would also apply to a multiverse.

 

[aclausen]

It has become abundantly clear to me that atheists have to have a multiverse to get rid of God.

Making it all the more certain that necessity is the mother of invention.

Multiverse theory is a take on brane theory, which itself grows out of certain solutions to string theory. There’s no conspiracy here, and really, all of it is pure conjecture. Heck, we haven’t even confirmed the existence of gravitons, and there are solutions to the quantum gravity problem (loop quantum gravity, for instance) which do not use strings at all.

None of that deals with the fundamental problem that those who invoke the Strong Anthropic Principle to try to prove there is a Prime Mover don’t seem to want to admit that it implies that there starting conditions and physical constants that would lead to a sterile universe. If there are only a small number of versions of the physical constants that can lead to the kind of universe we live in, then how much freedom would God have?

 

[Micosil]

None of that deals with the fundamental problem that those who invoke the Strong Anthropic Principle to try to prove there is a Prime Mover don’t seem to want to admit that it implies that there starting conditions and physical constants that would lead to a sterile universe.

I’ve never heard that before. Where is the proof?

 

[aclausen]

I’ve never heard that before. Where is the proof?

Proof of what, exactly? I don’t advocate the Anthropic Principle at all, other than that it is a truism; in that if the universe’s starting conditions and basic laws did not allow for intelligent life, then none of us would be hearing talking about.

The point of both the Strong and Weak versions of the Anthropic Principle is to try to explain the “fine tuning” of several basic constants, which, if they were different, could make matter impossible at worst, or possibly could exclude most kinds of chemistry, making complex groupings of matter impossible. There are a narrow set of constants that could lead to a universe in which life, or at least life as we know it, exists, and if that is the case, then how much freedom would a Prime Mover have in setting the initial conditions?

 

[ericc]

Let’s be pretty clear here. The Big Bang was the origin of the Observable Universe… or at least the point at which there was an expansion. If there was a before (if that even makes sense as a concept, to paraphrase Hawking, its like asking what’s north of the North Pole), then current theory can’t say what that was like.

And that is the whole point. There is no “before”. Hence trying to imagine prior universes before there is a “before” is just a mental exercise. Trying to imagine existence “before” existence is a truly wasteful mental exercise.

There is no north of the North Pole. It is just an imaginary dot placed on the surface of a sphere by geographers or cartographers to serve as a placeholder. Likewise, there is no existence prior to existence.

The other error I think you’re making is assuming that if there is a multiverse (a rather big assumption in my view, and one not at all warranted at this time), that somehow it must follow the rules of causality that rule our universe. What if causality is simply a feature of our universe, and not, in fact, a feature of the multiverse or any other universe? I’m assuming you believe in God, so you already accept infinity, so what if infinity in time and in matter/energy is a feature of this postulated (and completely unevidenced) multiverse?

Our existing knowledge is based upon what we have learnt and deduced about our universe. Those assumptions are based upon some basis. You have not demonstrated our existing method of assumption making is an error. You have just made a statement declaring error without evidence. So I will KIV that till you provide some sort of evidence.

If one wants to imagine what alternative universes could possibly behave if different from the existing universe we find ourselves in, by all means imagine all we like but all that count for zilch. You can not measure an imaginary universe. Of course one can postulate a Godless imaginary universe where ideas, information, existence, awareness becomes a reality without an (name removed by moderator)ut or cause of some sorts. That imaginary universe doubtless need not operate on logic as we know it. Perhaps an “Alice in Wonderland” universe. A multiverse mindset could certainly conjure an “Alice in Wonderland” universe. Or a universe with God in it. The multiverse does not get rid of God in itself, it is just another theory of universe-making. But without an (name removed by moderator)ut of intelligence for universe-making, it still end up at God’s doorstep. Someone still need to craft out that universe with all its laws and behaviors.

I love "what ifs’. And that is all there is to it. No one know which one of the zillions of what ifs could be true or possible, if at all. Of course one can always root for one’s favorites. I can only root for the one I find myself in. You wouldn’t root for someone’s else football team , would you, other than your home team?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

None of that deals with the fundamental problem that those who invoke the Strong Anthropic Principle to try to prove there is a Prime Mover don’t seem to want to admit that it implies that there starting conditions and physical constants that would lead to a sterile universe. If there are only a small number of versions of the physical constants that can lead to the kind of universe we live in, then how much freedom would God have?

God has all the freedom he needs, and apparently exercises not only his freedom, but also his omniscient power, by dismissing the trillions of physical constants that could have produced an alternate universe.

 

[aclausen]

God has all the freedom he needs, and apparently exercises not only his freedom, but also his omniscient power, by dismissing the trillions of physical constants that could have produced an alternate universe.

That’s no more freedom than being presented with a three plates of poison and one plate of food.

If even God cannot overcome mathematics, then we’ve answered the question as to whether God can create a stone so big even He can’t push it.

For me, at least, it raises the question is to why such a God is even necessary.