Questions about the Multiverse

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Since God created mathematics, why would he need to overcome it?

The paradox of the great stone is a false paradox that is detected as soon as you admit that God does not need to lift anything the way we would need to lift anything.

 

[aclausen]

Since God created mathematics, why would he need to overcome it?

So you think God could make 2+2=5?

The paradox of the great stone is a false paradox that is detected as soon as you admit that God does not need to lift anything the way we would need to lift anything.

I’m guessing you’re not big on metaphor and analogy.

 

[Aloysium]

So you think God could make 2+2=5?

I’m guessing you’re not big on metaphor and analogy.

You’re not serious are you?

You didn’t understand the point that creating mathematics, logic, rationality for us as the image of His being the truth, there is nothing to overcome.

If you are not trolling, try to grasp what people are trying to communicate.

As to the analogy part, I didn’t understand your point either. This is the internet; repeat it in another way, clarify as you did here.

Bottom line:
God cannot do anything that is irrational.
We are ignorant through our having fallen from grace, having chosen ourselves, our truths over His.
The nonsense that comes out of our minds is not necessarily doable, its actualization, a sign of omnipotence.

But, maybe I have misunderstood you.

 

[aclausen]

You’re not serious are you?

You didn’t understand the point that creating mathematics, logic, rationality for us as the image of His being the truth, there is nothing to overcome.

If you are not trolling, try to grasp what people are trying to communicate.

As to the analogy part, I didn’t understand your point either. This is the internet; repeat it in another way, clarify as you did here.

Bottom line:
God cannot do anything that is irrational.
Just because we are ignorant through our having fallen from grace, having chosen ourselves, our truths over His, does not mean that every bit of nonsense that comes out of our minds is doable and a sign of omnipotence.

But, maybe I have misunderstood you.

No, you rather proved my point. Since even God is, as you say, governed by rationality, it means that the starting conditions for a universe that He creates are still limited to those groupings of variables that allow complex structures to form. God simply cannot make 5+5=14, and neither can He create a universe in which the Fine Structure Constant is too varied from what we observe, because otherwise stellar fusion would be unable to produce carbon, and all the life we observe would not be able to exist.

 

[Bradski]

God simply cannot make 5+5=14, and neither can He create a universe in which the Fine Structure Constant is too varied from what we observe, because otherwise stellar fusion would be unable to produce carbon, and all the life we observe would not be able to exist.

But does hydrogen have to have the composition is does? Do we need to be carbon based? The question is, are the laws of physics such that God had to make the universe the way it was? In which case he had no choice. Or were there multiple choices He could have made to still end up with a logical system that is logically consistent? In which can we say that he was restricted to those choices.

It the mathematical equivalent of the Euthyphro dilemma: Are the physical laws the way they are because God decided that was the way they had to be? In which case they could be anything at all (2 + 2 could equal 5). Or Was He constrained by the physical laws? In which case there were restrictions on what God could do.

 

[aclausen]

But does hydrogen have to have the composition is does? Do we need to be carbon based? The question is, are the laws of physics such that God had to make the universe the way it was? In which case he had no choice. Or were there multiple choices He could have made to still end up with a logical system that is logically consistent? In which can we say that he was restricted to those choices.

It the mathematical equivalent of the Euthyphro dilemma: Are the physical laws the way they are because God decided that was the way they had to be? In which case they could be anything at all (2 + 2 could equal 5). Or Was He constrained by the physical laws? In which case there were restrictions on what God could do.

That’s why I bring up constants like the Fine Structure Constant. This is one of the arguments favored by advocates of the Strong Anthropic Principle, and generally by those arguing for some sort of Prime Mover; that the Universe has the appearance of “fine tuning”; in that if certain basic constants, which appear not to be mathematically derived (in other words, they do not arise logically from physical laws), then it is logical to infer from that the Prime Mover had little choice in which “(name removed by moderator)uts” (if you will) were put into the universe at the beginning.

I rather like my pizza analogy. There are a nearly infinite number of possible toppings one can put on a pizza, but only a small subset would produce a pizza one could eat, and even smaller subset that would produce a pizza one would even want to eat. So while the pizza chef may have a nearly unlimited hypothetical menu, he isn’t going to put kerosene, cyanide capsules or even monkey brains on the pizza.

If indeed a universe capable of producing complex structures and as wide a variety of types of matter is heavily reliant on certain values being within a very narrow range, and further that certain events have to happen to see those structures arise (ie. an Inflationary Period that causes the universe to expand much faster than the speed of light, and creates a much more homogeneous universe), then the Prime Mover, if such a being exists, is indeed heavily constrained, and theoretical omnipotence, like a pizza chef’s theoretically infinite toppings menu, becomes rather limited in practice.

 

[Bradski]

If indeed a universe capable of producing complex structures and as wide a variety of types of matter is heavily reliant on certain values being within a very narrow range, and further that certain events have to happen to see those structures arise (ie. an Inflationary Period that causes the universe to expand much faster than the speed of light, and creates a much more homogeneous universe), then the Prime Mover, if such a being exists, is indeed heavily constrained, and theoretical omnipotence, like a pizza chef’s theoretically infinite toppings menu, becomes rather limited in practice.

I agree. The Fine Tuning Argument states that God set things up very specifically indeed so that we can exist. Meaning that it HAD to be just so otherwise we wouldn’t be here. That is, in effect the argument itself. But what is actually being said is that God didn’t have a choice in how to set things up.

But God is not restricted! He does have a choice. He could have made the universe with any set of laws at all. In which case they are arbitrary and not fine-tuned.

So…which is it? A fine-tuned universe and a God with no choice? Or arbitrary laws?

 

[aclausen]

I agree. The Fine Tuning Argument states that God set things up very specifically indeed so that we can exist. Meaning that it HAD to be just so otherwise we wouldn’t be here. That is, in effect the argument itself. But what is actually being said is that God didn’t have a choice in how to set things up.

But God is not restricted! He does have a choice. He could have made the universe with any set of laws at all. In which case they are arbitrary and not fine-tuned.

So…which is it? A fine-tuned universe and a God with no choice? Or arbitrary laws?

Can you define arbitrary in this context? To me, arbitrary could mean making the Fine Structure Constant 111.23427 as opposed to our universe’s value of 137.03597.

The question then becomes what happens if God makes the Fine Structure 111.23427, will He still be able to create a universe capable of supporting complex structures like life? In other words, does the Fine Structure Constant mean anything at all? Or is indeed God constrained, in that He can create any number of universes with differing Fine Structure Constants, but only those that fall within the 4% of 137.03597 that appears to allow for complex elements like carbon to be produced?

 

[Bradski]

The question then becomes what happens if God makes the Fine Structure 111.23427, will He still be able to create a universe capable of supporting complex structures like life? In other words, does the Fine Structure Constant mean anything at all? Or is indeed God constrained, in that He can create any number of universes with differing Fine Structure Constants, but only those that fall within the 4% of 137.03597 that appears to allow for complex elements like carbon to be produced?

Exactly.

There’s the old argument that God cannot do anything that is illogical (making a rock that He can’t lift etc). But does that include, for example, making water with one hydrogen atom as opposed to two? Surely God can decide if water comprises HO or H2O. There is no reason why it’s the latter. It just is. Why can’t God decide that a substance that has the chemical composition of HO (or H99O) have the properties that we associate with water?

If He can’t, then He is constrained by the laws that govern chemistry. If so, then the number of hydrogen atoms that make up the molecule that gives us water is an arbitrary number. Meaning that it can literally be anything that God decides.

That said, the universe cannot be fine-tuned. It is meaningless to say that something is fine-tuned if the figures that make-up the very definition of that fine-tuning can be anything at all. Incidentally, before anyone argues that God could have created the rules in the first instance and is then simply following his own laws, the problem still remains. The laws that He made up are arbitrary (in which case no fine tuning) or He was limited in the ways that the laws could be set up. In which case God is not omnipotent.

You can’t argue fine-tuning without placing a limit on God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So you think God could make 2+2=5?

I’m guessing you’re not big on metaphor and analogy.

Again, why would God make 2=2=5?

It’s clear that God wills by his power a certain type of logic to which we are bound. Why would God will to change that logic? It’s not a sign of God’s limitation, but a sign of God’s will, that you nor I nor will will make 2=2=5.

Actually, I’m big on metaphors and analogies properly offered.

 

[Bradski]

Again, why would God make 2=2=5?

It’s clear that God wills by his power a certain type of logic to which we are bound.

So did God arbitrarily decide the physical laws which govern existence? Or do they need to be fixed? In which case, he had no choice.

Let’s face it, we don’t have to be carbon based pieces of wet meat. We could be anything that God decides. We could exist in any number of forms in a variety of universes. In which case…it’s all arbitrary.

 

[ericc]

But God is not restricted! He does have a choice. He could have made the universe with any set of laws at all. In which case they are arbitrary and not fine-tuned.

So…which is it? A fine-tuned universe and a God with no choice? Or arbitrary laws?

Another possibility is that God could make other universes with other also fine-tuned constants. In other words, there could be many other finely tuned possible worlds and the one we find ourselves in is one of those worlds. Perhaps life forms in other possible worlds are non-carbon based and so on.

 

[ericc]

So did God arbitrarily decide the physical laws which govern existence? Or do they need to be fixed? In which case, he had no choice.

Let’s face it, we don’t have to be carbon based pieces of wet meat. We could be anything that God decides. We could exist in any number of forms in a variety of universes. In which case…it’s all arbitrary.

We certainly may not know what criteria did God decide on in creating a universe fit for us. God could have a plethora of possible worlds, all crafted beautifully. If he thinks we would like this world more than the other worlds, I am ok to go with His choice. ( That brings images of parents selecting the best gifts [in their opinion] for their children during Christmas and birthdays)

Suggesting world creation is all arbitrary to God sounds God was too nonchalant about it but that doesn’t jive with the efforts he put into it. It would be easier to not create it in the first place. He wouldn’t need to deal with rebellious angels and man( which he has been hand-holding ever since).

 

[aclausen]

Again, why would God make 2=2=5?

It’s clear that God wills by his power a certain type of logic to which we are bound. Why would God will to change that logic? It’s not a sign of God’s limitation, but a sign of God’s will, that you nor I nor will will make 2=2=5.

Actually, I’m big on metaphors and analogies properly offered.

The question is whether or not God could make 2+2=5, not whether he just doesn’t want to. Or to put this more to the point, could God make the Fine Structure Constant some other arbitrary value and make a universe where anything more complex than hydrogen forms? This isn’t a question of aesthetics, it is a question as to whether God can make the mathematically inconsistent consistent.

If he cannot then he is like my hypothetical pizza chef who, despite millions of possible toppings from uranium through smouldering vulcanized rubber is only going to make pizzas that aren’t toxic and actually taste good.

 

[ccmnxc]

So did God arbitrarily decide the physical laws which govern existence? Or do they need to be fixed? In which case, he had no choice.

Let’s face it, we don’t have to be carbon based pieces of wet meat. We could be anything that God decides. We could exist in any number of forms in a variety of universes. In which case…it’s all arbitrary.

God chose which physical laws governed the universe (setting aside for a moment the problematic state of these laws in figuring out what the heck they actually are).
And I would agree, we could be something else or subject to different (or no) laws of physics. It does not follow, however, that it is arbitrary regarding what we are. To say there is a large set of ways in which this world could be doesn’t entail the way the world actually is is completely arbitrary any more than (to pick up aclausen’s example) having a large set of possible toppings makes my particular choice arbitrary.

 

[aclausen]

For complex matter to form requires a fairly narrow set of values for some physical properties. This is why a posit that even if the Universe requires a Prime Mover, that Prime Mover has very little leeway in the kinds of universes be creates, with the bulk either being still born, sterile or too short lived to ever produce complex structures.

 

[Bradski]

We certainly may not know what criteria did God decide on in creating a universe fit for us. God could have a plethora of possible worlds, all crafted beautifully. If he thinks we would like this world more than the other worlds, I am ok to go with His choice.

You probably wouldn’t be aware of the story that the late Christopher Hitchens became used to tell about his first inklings that people had the wrong idea about God. It was when his doddery old English teacher took his class out for some nature study when he was about 9 or ten. She remarked that wasn’t it wonderful that God had made all the countryside so green because He knew that green was such a pleasing colour to us.

I had a feeling that he might have made that up as a good story. But now here you are repeating the exact same thing. My apologies Hitch, wherever you are at this moment. It seems there people who believe such things.

Suggesting world creation is all arbitrary to God sounds God was too nonchalant about it but that doesn’t jive with the efforts he put into it.

The effort He put into it? The effort? Is that why He needed to rest on the seventh day? Because of all the effort that He’s put in during the first six?

 

[ccmnxc]

For complex matter to form requires a fairly narrow set of values for some physical properties. This is why a posit that even if the Universe requires a Prime Mover, that Prime Mover has very little leeway in the kinds of universes be creates, with the bulk either being still born, sterile or too short lived to ever produce complex structures.

This seems to already assume that God is bound by the laws of physics (or at least some proto-law). For what it is worth, I don’t see why someone cannot opt for an occasionalistic model where God creates and conserves all matter in being without any physical laws governing it but where everything is subject utterly and directly to God’s will.
There is, so far as I can see, no reason why matter must come about in the way you described in terms of broad metaphysical necessity. Given our models and what we know about the world now, sure, there is only a short range of constants that could produce life, but there is nothing necessitating the truth of those models or the facts we try to explain them with as far as God is concerned.

 

[aclausen]

This seems to already assume that God is bound by the laws of physics (or at least some proto-law). For what it is worth, I don’t see why someone cannot opt for an occasionalistic model where God creates and conserves all matter in being without any physical laws governing it but where everything is subject utterly and directly to God’s will.
There is, so far as I can see, no reason why matter must come about in the way you described in terms of broad metaphysical necessity. Given our models and what we know about the world now, sure, there is only a short range of constants that could produce life, but there is nothing necessitating the truth of those models or the facts we try to explain them with as far as God is concerned.

In which case the fine tuning argument!nt is rubbish and physics becomes nothing than applied magic.

 

[ccmnxc]

In which case the fine tuning argument!nt is rubbish and physics becomes nothing than applied magic.

I don’t follow. If it were the case that we took the occasionalistic view, then physics would probably not be the most worthwhile of endeavors. But I think we can agree that the occasionalistic view is false. It could be true (which is why God is not constrained), but the fact that it is not seems to leave both the argument and the discipline of physics intact.