C
cassini
Guest
Because Pope Pius II (1458-1464)
condemned in the letter ‘Cum sicut,’ Nov 14th, 1459’
that God created another world than this one. (Denz. 717c.)
- Status
condemned in the letter ‘Cum sicut,’ Nov 14th, 1459’
that God created another world than this one. (Denz. 717c.)
J
JackQ
Guest
The Universe is the set of all things. The idea of another universe is incoherent, since if anything exists in that universe, then it exists, and is therefore included in this universe. Now someone might postulate the existence of a region where the physical laws are completely different, and where there is no possibility of interaction between the things of that region and the part of the universe that we know, but that’s not the same as being another universe.
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
First let me say, I am NOT a multiverse fan, most of the people pushing the idea tend to be atheists looking to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe, they’re motivated by agenda more than real science. But the reason they talk about “other universes” is that the other universes wouldn’t just be really far from us, they’d be physically disconnected from us, with their own space-time dimensions and “birthed” separately from the Big Bang that started this one. It would be nice if they had ANY evidence for this stuff before passing it off as a “theory”, (theories are usually inferred from some evidence) but that’s the way it goes when you have guys who hate that the universe looks designed.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
You should practice it also, since there is nothing wrong with my refuting Cantor or anyone else for that matter. I don’t care if they are famous.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Pieman
Increasingly, I’ve been hearing the objection to the fine-tuned Universe argument that not only do multiple universes exist but an infinite number of universes exist, and our universe’s traits are not only probable but repeated an infinite number of times. Now, I obviously don’t believe this, but why can’t there be an infinite amount of universes? What’s a good scientific or philosophical objection to this?
It isn’t that they couldn’t exist. It’s that there no one iota of evidence that they do.
Increasingly, I’ve been hearing the objection to the fine-tuned Universe argument that not only do multiple universes exist but an infinite number of universes exist, and our universe’s traits are not only probable but repeated an infinite number of times. Now, I obviously don’t believe this, but why can’t there be an infinite amount of universes? What’s a good scientific or philosophical objection to this?
It isn’t that they couldn’t exist. It’s that there no one iota of evidence that they do.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
The problem with this is that it is only a conjecture. A very good and plausible conjecture. It can be demonstrated that infinite universes actually does exist because people like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss can and have done it before. I can demonstrate the existence of a unicorn flawlessly and never actually observe it, but people will not believe me because they do not observe it. In this case, people will believe it because the layman has no idea how to observe it. People believe experts who have proven themselves worthy in their respective fields.
An infinite number of universes demands an infinite number of traits, even an infinite number of traits specific to one trait even if some are contrary to another. An infinite number of traits demands them to be in an infinite number of universes, including our own. What are the chances of our universe getting a finite number of traits?
As these advocates continue to say, these infinite number of traits can contain contradictions. For example, gravity does exist and gravity does not exist. The traits involved in gravity existing can be infinite. For example, gravity has to do with mass and gravity does not have to do with mass. Again, the force of gravity has to do with the size of the massive object or not. The force of gravity has to do with the distance from the object or not. You can make traits up and they will be possible in an infinite number of universes according to these guys.
Now, if they say that one of these traits cannot exist… Well, first, how do they know? Second, then if one cannot exist, then an infinite number CAN not exist. (Not necessarily that an infinite number cannot exist, hopefully you get it.) If an infinite number CAN not exist, then how can we make the conjecture that an infinite number of traits (much less universes) CAN exist?
If they say that all these traits CAN exist somewhere, then how is it that we do not have all these traits? “It was by chance.” ok… Fine… If there are universes that have a limited number of traits that are harmonious with each other, then how the heck is it NOT possible that a universe have an infinite number of traits and therefore can contain contradictory traits? That is, according to this universe’s logic… But, according to these guys, they are possible in all universes, but not necessarily contained IN all universes. With an infinite number of traits for the infinite number of universes, then an infinite number of universes will have a finite number of traits and an infinite number of universes will have an infinite number of traits.
How does nature do the splitting? By chance? What is an infinite number of traits divided by an infinite number of universes, when those traits can be used an infinite number of times? Can we even use the word “random” when it comes to infinite possibilities?
An infinite number of universes would be infinitely old and infinitely large. There are universes that would be infinitely old, but not even infinitessimally large. There are universes that are infinitely large, but not even infinitessimally old. A infinite number of universes would over lap each other with contradictory laws. An infinite number would destroy each other. These are just the infinite number of universes that would have our dimensions of space and time. What are the chances that ours would even exist? ZERO!
Ok… Let us say that perhaps there is a finite number of traits in an infinite number of universes? We know that at least our universe’s traits exist in that finite number of traits. Well, we can say that an infinite number of universes have our exact traits, without change. We can also say that the infinite number of univese’s traits are so exactly the same that they are all our exact universe without change. If these infinite number of universe ARE this universe, then it is meaningless. I can say I have an infinite number of Greggs in my same exact position doing the same exact thing, but it would mean that it is just me. What about the universes that are NOT even like our universe? Well, there are some traits that are alike because they HAVE to be alike. They exist. (If they do not exist, then it is not even a universe.) Things exist within that universe. (By definition, a universe cannot have nothing.) They obeys the laws within that universe. (I will assume that no universe can disobeys its own laws.) Things interact according to those laws. (A static universe would have to have a beginning and therefore not be static. Or how did it become static in the first place? An infinite number of these static universes would cease to exist. It is a pointless circle or argument.) They move according to the dimensions given. The universe sustains itself. (I am not even going to use God in this objection.) These are general things but they are still traits. Who is to say that all these infinite number of universes are even different? Who is to say that all these infinite number of universes are NOT our universe without change? How many different traits are there that are possible, if any?
It is very imaginative, but unfortunately, it is also very imaginary.
I could elaborate on some stuff if needed. I imagine there will be a lot of questions to this. I do assume a lot but those assumptions are justified and justifiable.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Atheists would rather believe there are an infinity of universes that they can’t begin to prove exist than that there is just one God they would be horrified to admit might exist. 
J
JDaniel
Guest
Chauncy:
The idea of infinity is, I suppose, always going to be a problem for finite souls to understand, even in a vague way. The problem with admitting an infinity of universes is twofold: (1) where would they exist? and, (2) an infinite quantum number of universes would occupy an infinite duration. It would, therefore, take an infinity of time for us to be here. Thus, we wouldn’t be here at all, as an infinity of time is still transpiring.
As to (1): an infinity of universes would have to stack up on each other, sort of like points might stack up if they were the principles of a line. An infinity of universes could not exist side-by-side. That would presume a greater infinity: Space. How can one actual infinity be greater than another? It can’t - except in the “minds” of some atheist mathematicians!
God bless,
jd
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
If I can jump in. First, let me say, I do not believe in an infinity of universes, one, because there’s no evidence for it, and two, because I don’t think that’s the way God would do things. That said, these objections to the possibility of an infinity (or just a whole bunch) of universes don’t work with what we now know from modern physics, especially General Relativity and what we do know about the Big Bang. Both space and time itself are NOT absolute, they are both created parts of this universe, neither space nor time existed “before” the Big Bang. Time is intimately related to Mass, it will run slower in a higher gravitational field, a clock will run slower on the surface of Jupiter than on Earth, and the clock and time itself will stop running altogether in a black hole. The singularity that was at the beginning of the Big Bang start of our universe was like a greatest black hole ever, no time, no space, then an explosion of energy with the expansion of space and the beginning of time. This “time” is just a function of “our” universe, angels would not be subject to this flow of time, it only relates to all the matter and energy created in this created universe. Now if there were other universes, birthed in their own Big Bang style creations, they would have their own matter and energy, along with a space-time that was intimately connected to that universe but completely disconnected from “our” universe and our space-time and mass-energy.Chauncy:
The idea of infinity is, I suppose, always going to be a problem for finite souls to understand, even in a vague way. The problem with admitting an infinity of universes is twofold: (1) where would they exist? and, (2) an infinite quantum number of universes would occupy an infinite duration. It would, therefore, take an infinity of time for us to be here. Thus, we wouldn’t be here at all, as an infinity of time is still transpiring.
As to (1): an infinity of universes would have to stack up on each other, sort of like points might stack up if they were the principles of a line. An infinity of universes could not exist side-by-side. That would presume a greater infinity: Space. How can one actual infinity be greater than another? It can’t - except in the “minds” of some atheist mathematicians!
God bless,
jd
S
sidbrown
Guest
How do you know how God would do things?
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
huh? are you seeing things I ain’t seeing?
where did I say I ***know ***how God would do things?
I can see where I say I do not believe in an infinity of universes, one, because there’s no evidence for it, and two, because I don’t ***think ***that’s the way God would do things. You know, think. as in a gut feeling.
So do you believe in an infinity of universes?
and if not, why?
J
JDaniel
Guest
Sorry, Ronnie, are you sure you want to say that? First, neither you nor I could possibly “see” evidence for an infinity of universes. Second, neither you nor I could possibly know “how God would do things.” I am a bit amazed that you start out to refute my arguments by using these two completely unprovable ideas. But,
Here, Ronnie, you equivocate infinity (of universes) with just a whole bunch of universes. Are you sure you really want to do that, too?
I doubt modern physics would agree that time and space are “created”. Although there surely are some modern physicists that are Christian.
Do you have any proof for these naked assertions? How is time “intimately related to mass”?
Do you have any proof for these naked assertions?
This is something on which we agree. However, Angels may not be subject to the laws of time, but they have a duration measure of their own.
You seem to be saying that this is necessarily so. Why is that? How do you know? What proof do you have?
God bless,
jd
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
If you think the verified facts of General Relativity and the inferred facts of the Standard Big Bang model are “naked assertions” then we’re going to have a tough time communicating. You seen unaware that according to General Relativity (and Special Relativity) time is not absolute and that according to the Standard Big Bang model as we run the clock backwards (like running a movie backwards) towards the initial Big Bang, the currently expanding universe is instead getting compressed (again running the clock backward), all the galaxies get closer and closer together, and then all the mass in the entire universe is packed on top of each other, this mass is conpressed more and more (running the clock backward) and the density of matter becomes greater and greater, just like in a black hole, with the curvature of space-time becoming greater and greater. Finally at the first instant we call the Big Bang, all the matter in the entire universe is compressed into a dimensionless point with an infinite desity of matter and an infinite space-time curvature (often called a singularity), at that point there is no “flow” of time, time stops, hence we can say time “started” at the Big Bang. This is standard modern physics here, if you think it’s “naked assertions” I guess we’ll have trouble having a debate.
S
sidbrown
Guest
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
Since you refused to answer my question, and from what little you’ve actually said to add to the discussion, I’m going to assume you’re one of those Internet beings who only like to annoy people. good bye
S
sidbrown
Guest
Ad hominem arugment. Does not respond to how anyone knows in which way God does things.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Be that as it may, Ronnie, when you assert certain inferences from GR and BB, you are asserting conjectures. Right? I mean, how can we possibly know that the point out of which the energy/matter poured was, in fact, a “black hole”? Assumption, guess, conjecture perhaps?
When did astronomers or star ship scientists prove that? That’s what is called a dialectical construct. We can get the math to work, but, we can’t leave behind the dialectical presupposition(s).
Your ideas are very interesting, to say the least, Ronnie. But, I haven’t seen any empirical proofs for any of it. Of course, I am not a student of physics, or mathematics, any more. I do try to follow the science of astronomy as much as possible. I guess I must have missed those missions where our astronauts probed black holes. Recently I have read much concerning how some scientists are trying to dislodge the big bang theory. I have also read several articles about dark matter and the traction problems its having. There always seems to be someone on the horizon desiring to overturn the current models of things.
God bless,
jd
- Status