Questions about the Multiverse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Upgrade25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
No I am not aware of the story and it is not relevant to the discussion whether God could have made other worlds. You have not said anything to refute whether God could have made other worlds or to support the view that God has no other choice or the arbitrary position you touted.

The things we do for our children, don’t we think it through before we select them or were they all arbitrary because we as parents have no choice? No effort is required? Now you have a Supreme Being and do you think He has no choice and just do things arbitrarily?
The effort He put into it? The effort?
Do you think no (name removed by moderator)ut is required to create something? Just thinking about it requires 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?
Why are you asking these questions? These are not relevant to the subject on hand and perhaps smacks of a bit of contempt/sarcasm for the beliefs of others.
 
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.
Not sure what you are getting at here.

Do you think you could have made a better universe than God did?

Go and do it! :D;)
 
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 sounds backwards to me.

God creates what He wills and it comes together with the relationships that define the conponents built in and related back to their Creator, be it angels, light, matter, unicalluar creatures, plant life, animals, mankind.

To create a being who has free will, who can perceive, think, discover the structure that underlies the world and existence itself, a person who can act and love, this all takes a transcendent being of inconceivable power, who is relational in nature, who is Love itself.

There would be no point to the sort of worlds you propose.
But then, without God, one’s relationship to this world is pretty much that.
 
In which case the fine tuning argument!nt is rubbish and physics becomes nothing than applied magic.
You might want to check out Show Me God by Fred Heeren. Especially pages 57-63, where he discusses 12 bottlenecks on the road to the development of intelligence anywhere in the universe. His discussion is related to the likelihood of discovering intelligent civilizations elsewhere in the universe.

amazon.com/Show-Me-God-Message-Telling/dp/1885849532/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455730148&sr=8-1&keywords=fred+heeren
 
You might want to check out Show Me God by Fred Heeren. Especially pages 57-63, where he discusses 12 bottlenecks on the road to the development of intelligence anywhere in the universe. His discussion is related to the likelihood of discovering intelligent civilizations elsewhere in the universe.

amazon.com/Show-Me-God-Message-Telling/dp/1885849532/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455730148&sr=8-1&keywords=fred+heeren
And you might want to explain how you can make statements of probability when you have a sample size of one.
 
Originally Posted by aclausen View Post
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.
CC
You are correct. Aclausen apparently is not familiar with the power of cellular automata; its application can produce amazingly complex structures with relatively simple algorithms. Imagine what God can do. Well, we don’t have to imagine, we need merely to look around at what God has created.

Incidentally, I believe that sometime in the near future the equations of physics will be scrapped and replaced by algorithms.

Yppop
 
And you might want to explain how you can make statements of probability when you have a sample size of one.
When one see a thing that looks like a finely-tuned object, one assign a probability of 1 to the creator. However, if one doesn’t assign that creation to a creator but due to random chance, one has to think very hard to figure out how to fit such a finely-tuned thing as a product of randomness and hence the numbers do reflect the improbability of such an event happening, The calculators will squeeze a number out no matter how improbable. And it is improbable because a 14.5 billion year worth of probability resource is fantastically insufficient for “chance” to operate.

Hence they no longer beat a dead horse and move on to a model not constrained by 14.5 billion years.

However, doing projections based upon a sample of one is another thing altogether. With a sample of one, any direction or trend is possible. Any story/modeling/supposition is fine. Just need to sound good and clever.
 
CC
You are correct. Aclausen apparently is not familiar with the power of cellular automata; its application can produce amazingly complex structures with relatively simple algorithms. Imagine what God can do. Well, we don’t have to imagine, we need merely to look around at what God has created.

Incidentally, I believe that sometime in the near future the equations of physics will be scrapped and replaced by algorithms.

Yppop
All I see is what the natural world can do. Complexity does not require intelligent intervention. A simple solution of table salt and water will form crystals, a significant change in complexity that requires nothing more than normal physical processes.

Complexity is a very poor benchmark of whether something is produced by an intelligence.
 
When one see a thing that looks like a finely-tuned object, one assign a probability of 1 to the creator. However, if one doesn’t assign that creation to a creator but due to random chance, one has to think very hard to figure out how to fit such a finely-tuned thing as a product of randomness and hence the numbers do reflect the improbability of such an event happening, The calculators will squeeze a number out no matter how improbable. And it is improbable because a 14.5 billion year worth of probability resource is fantastically insufficient for “chance” to operate.

Hence they no longer beat a dead horse and move on to a model not constrained by 14.5 billion years.

However, doing projections based upon a sample of one is another thing altogether. With a sample of one, any direction or trend is possible. Any story/modeling/supposition is fine. Just need to sound good and clever.
One may make such an assumption, but as the human brain is wired to find patterns, it can often be very mistaken about whether something “ordered” is something designed.

And again, you cannot make probability assumptions about an object for which you have only one sample. It gets even worse when you nothing of the starting conditions.
 
It’s always worth asking what the world would look like if it was formed by natural processes.

Strangely enough, exactly as it looks now.
Of course, with the proviso that nature was programmed by God to look exactly as it looks now. 😉
 
Of course, with the proviso that nature was programmed by God to look exactly as it looks now. 😉
An important point Charles. And what may be surprising for you, one upon which I agree. That is, if God decided to set up natural laws and let everything unfold according to those laws (with an end point in mind - that end point being us), then everything would look exactly the same whether He instigated those laws or they happened naturally.

Maybe you can work out the implications for ID yourself…
 
One may make such an assumption, but as the human brain is wired to find patterns, it can often be very mistaken about whether something “ordered” is something designed.

And again, you cannot make probability assumptions about an object for which you have only one sample. It gets even worse when you nothing of the starting conditions.
Of course you can. You look at the existing sample. Understand how it works, how the basic processes work, work out how much time required to get there based upon those knowledge. And that was where the problem lies because there was enough time to get there if based upon random chance events. Hence the conclusion is either some kind of intelligence made it or kick the bucket further down the road and claim future progress will get the answers. Obviously without any time constraint to get those answers. Surprisingly, some will readily admit alien intelligence could be a candidate for their answers. And surprisingly, those aliens may be allowed to possess vast knowledge, are non-contactable etc. Somehow the Supreme Being has been discriminated but ETs are ok.

Based upon zero samples, multiverse will never be a candidate for evaluation. Because there is zero probability associated with it.
 
An important point Charles. And what may be surprising for you, one upon which I agree. That is, if God decided to set up natural laws and let everything unfold according to those laws (with an end point in mind - that end point being us), then everything would look exactly the same whether He instigated those laws or they happened naturally.

Maybe you can work out the implications for ID yourself…
This is something I don’t understand, by the way, and it isn’t the first time I’ve seen it being proposed. How precisely can the laws of nature even exist because they came about naturally? 🤷 For something to come about naturally, you need laws of nature in the first place. And if the laws of nature are what you’re aiming to get …
 
. . . That is, if God decided to set up natural laws and let everything unfold according to those laws (with an end point in mind - that end point being us), then everything would look exactly the same whether He instigated those laws or they happened naturally.

Maybe you can work out the implications for ID yourself…
:twocents:

God does not exist in time. So, rather than, “He decided”, a better way of saying it is that “He decides”. (We’ve been through this before.) The end point, like the beginning exists in His eternal now.

He brings about the natural laws within the actual creation. It seems to amazingly fit because they are created as they are. God is not a programmer figuring out a code and running it. Creation, as a coming into being, happens in every moment.

For us, surfers, on a crest of a wave of time, everything is in dealing with the moment and it’s all about the ride.

(Close your ears; you don’t like these sort of “irrational” statements) God as existence which is relational in nature, is at the Centre of all that comes into being. As such He is Love and Father to creation. Science remains rather primitive in its current state, in spite of its ability to get things done, It is pretty useless in describing the world as it is in itself. ID isn’t a term I use; I don’t think it of the universe as having been designed way back when and while the intelligence is demonstrated in the structure, more importantly, it is done as an act of love.
 
Please don’t try to shake my faith. It’s weak enough already.

I’m a young teenage guy. Please don’t try to shake my faith.
To the OP, in particular,

I would not Ever seek to attempt to undermine your faith. As Christ states, even if it’s as small as a mustard seed… hold onto that thought, and lean into His understandings, if you feel shaken.

So I responded with some of my own return questions and “thought processes” in italics in response to yours, as my faith can be a bit shaky at times, myself, and this is how I ask my own self, keeping the Whole of God in mind while I ask, The Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who was here before time began, and will be here after time “ends”, if there ever was such an “end” =)

A) Can it possibly be eternal

Can you ever stop counting to a higher(positive) or lower(negative) number?

B) Is it possible that God didn’t reveal Himself to other worlds

*We can Imagine other worlds… I can imagine there have been other worlds, even other Universes, before this one… or perhaps in conjunction with this one, as God is said to transcend all time and space… and I say this in mind of not being an absolutist, but in the sense that God is Above and Beyond all things, to the extent, as stated, can even count all the individual hairs on each individual persons head, ostensibly, at the same time…

With God, Nothing is Impossible. A statement that I take to heart.*

C) Is our behavior dependent on that of those in other worlds
*
Is our behavior dependent on others behaviors? Are Others behaviors dependent on ours? In the case of Children born new to this world, I would say, yes, to a certain degree. Our actions, rather than our words, have the greatest impact on how they learn to relate to themselves, and the rest of the world, but at what point does a person become responsible for their Own actions, words and thoughts?

There’s enough to deal with in this world, alone, that I would say that the behavior of the populations of other worlds is on Them, not on Us. We have to start where we are, in our own homes, neighborhoods, etc…*

D) Is there any way that this is illogical
*
I think logic is overrated at times, if you exclude all else. Feelings may not always be “true” in the literal sense that one can easily make a logical equation out of them, whether with words or, as easier to express, with simple math (1+1=2) … however, if one has a deeper understanding of how feelings can become misguided, and how to follow ones own feelings to the roots, what and how we learned as children, ourselves, then reflecting on the behaviors that result from them, in “good” or “bad” ways, and how they effect our own lives, and the lives of others, then one can start “calculating” emotional math/reason/logic into the sort of “black and white” of what many consider to be “logical” vs “irrational” and perhaps come up with something clearer and more Rational, than either one, alone.*

I’m in my 40’s, but I’ve been thinking about these things since I was a teen, also. I don’t want to just “give you MY answers” because I expect I’m coming from a different place in my life, than you are, in yours. Your own answers will, I expect, be a better guide for you, than mine will 😉

Kyrie Eleison
 
Having said that ^

I would like to add that, One of the important things to remember about children, is “they just came from there” they are “from God” and they, more than us who have been here awhile, are simply In this world, and not Of it, so it’s important to take care how we say things, to those trying to “return to God” in the Child like state Jesus told us we should.
 
And that was where the problem lies because there was enough time to get there if based upon random chance events.
I meant to say there was NOT enough time. Mind and finger disconnect. Sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top