Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do you believe in a multiverse?
Chimp
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 45 (170663)
12-22-2004 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Wounded King
12-22-2004 5:16 AM


quote:
Since the other thread has just been closed I'll repost my response here.
quote:
the Multiverse is defined to be an unbound infinity of all possible worlds
quote:
You may choose to define it that way, but it is by no means the only possible definition. The set of all possible worlds need not be infinite, and even if it were then the existence of God would still have to be shown to be possible for what you propose to be true. Also, a God who requires an infinite multiverse to allow his existence seems less than omnipotent.
If the probability space of all possible worlds is not infinite then what are your defined "limitations" for the finite space of possible worlds with some worlds that are not possible?
quote:
quote:
hence there is the explanation of randomness and probability distributions, which ultimately lead to absurdities[infinities],
Since you are using infinities as the key stone of your argument for God existing it is perhaps rash of you to dismiss them as absurd. Why should a study of probabilistic phenomena neccessarily run in to problems with infinities, probabilities need only range between 0 and 1, are you trying to apply some form of Xeno's paradox here?
The argument is not that God exists, but that an intelligent factor, not necessarily an infinite one, is the basis for the existence OF the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 5:16 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 5:38 AM Chimp has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 45 (170664)
12-22-2004 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Chimp
12-22-2004 4:59 AM


Hi Chimp - just reposting this since the other thread's been closed.
It becomes clear that there is no real conceptual difference between an infinite multiverse of all possible worlds and an ultimate "intelligent creator". Since by definition all possibilities must exist, therefore God must exist in at least one universe.
I don't think this necessarily holds if we define God to be infinite. What I would agree on is that if the multiverse idea holds then the probability of a super-intelligence with the ability to create universes existing "somewhere out there" is 1. Whether or not we ourselves are in such a Universe goes back to the age-old question of whether or not this notion is testable.
Also, if we define God to be the infinite, then what exactly does this mean. What does it mean to say that infinity is intelligent?
There seems to be a logical contradiction here:
God is defined to be "infinite" (...)
Acausality demands a logical justification, hence there is the explanation of randomness and probability distributions, which ultimately lead to absurdities[infinities]
You seem to be implying that God being infinite, is an absurdity, which I'm sure you didn't mean.
Also, you are invoking a logical justification for acausality, but only asserting that acausality must derive from an intelligence. Can you go into your thought processes for how you arrive at this?
Your argument, it seems to me, boils down to a modified Kalam argument i.e God as the uncaused cause, responsible for our Universe - I don't see the relevance of multiverses at all.
PE
PS I think this did deserve its own topic "Does the existence of multiverses imply the existence of God" or somesuch, but AdminMoose was right to ask you to structure your thoughts more clearly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Chimp, posted 12-22-2004 4:59 AM Chimp has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 33 of 45 (170665)
12-22-2004 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chimp
12-22-2004 5:27 AM


If the probability space of all possible worlds is not infinite then what are your defined "limitations" for the finite space of possible worlds with some worlds that are not possible?
Well what sort of limitations are you thinking of, It would depend a lot on exactly what sort of multiverse you are talking about, I had assumed that you meant something along the lines of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, is this not the case. In terms of the many world interpretation the the limitations would be defined by whatever the probability distribution of the initial start of the universe was. For all I know it may well be that the singularity, as a possible staring point, did have an infinite range of probable outcomes, but there is no reason to just assume that that is the case, which is what you do. Whatever physical laws governed the origin of multiverse would be what sets the limitations for the probability space the multiverse can explore. You may choose to believe that an intelligence organised those laws, but there seems to be no evidence to support that, and certanly none provided by your argument.
The argument is not that God exists, but that an intelligent factor, not necessarily an infinite one, is the basis for the existence OF the universe.
This particular universe? The multiverse? Or just some universe somewhere in the manifold? As the other poster pointed out the thread which was closed, somewhere in the universe there may be entitities with the neccessary technology to produce new universes, does that make them gods? If humankind discovered how to initiate the development of a new universe would that mean that we were gods?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Chimp, posted 12-22-2004 5:27 AM Chimp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chimp, posted 12-22-2004 6:16 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Chimp
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 45 (170669)
12-22-2004 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Wounded King
12-22-2004 5:38 AM


vie
quote:
Well what sort of limitations are you thinking of, It would depend a lot on exactly what sort of multiverse you are talking about, I had assumed that you meant something along the lines of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, is this not the case. In terms of the many world interpretation the the limitations would be defined by whatever the probability distribution of the initial start of the universe was.
Yes, quantum mechanics requires an infinite dimensional "Hilbert space".
General relativity breaks down at the singularity of "infinite" matter density.
If the multiverse is an infinite spacetime then it becomes probable for anything to exist, since in an infinite amount of time, anything that is possible, becomes probable.
Paul Davies explains how a multiverse is no different than the God concept.
http://aca.mq.edu.au/...ultiverse_StanfordUniv_March2003.pdf
http://www.jefallbright.net/node/view/1252
quote:

At the same time, the multiverse theory also explains too much. Appealing to everything in general to explain something in particular is really no explanation at all. To a scientist, it is just as unsatisfying as simply declaring, "God made it that way!"

quote:
For all I know it may well be that the singularity, as a possible staring point, did have an infinite range of probable outcomes, but there is no reason to just assume that that is the case, which is what you do. Whatever physical laws governed the origin of multiverse would be what sets the limitations for the probability space the multiverse can explore. You may choose to believe that an intelligence organised those laws, but there seems to be no evidence to support that, and certanly none provided by your argument.
It appears that spontaneous symmetry breaking in the early universe, only works for infinite spaces; basically because in a finite space, there exists a finite probability for the multiplicity of differently oriented would-be vacua to tunnel into one another and thus, the true vacuum is actually a linear superposition of them all. More specifically, any observable transforming a non-trivial entity - under the symmetry, retains a zero vacuum expectation value.
For example, take the gauge boson mass generation via the Higgs mechanism.
So there is a compact space where the Higgs vacuum expectation value
vanishes, and hence, the gauge boson mass must apparently vanish also.
Ergo, it is abundantly clear that for a local theory, the compact space should be the harder to distinguish from infinite space, the larger and larger it gets with the caveat of empirical restriction to experiments for some fixed-finite volume of space. Much to our chagrin, the gauge bosons should acquire, or appear to acquire, mass, only at the infinite limit. Alas, the escape route, out of this dilemma would be to realize the true nonlinear aspect of the symmetry breaking process, which is inevitably a higher level of symmetry. Not necessarily being an infinite space
Spontaneous symmetry breaking entails randomness which itself is guided by the symmetry of a probability distribution.
Therefore we see that symmetry breaking itself is beholden to another [higher level of] symmetry.
Information in the Holographic Universe:
ILTE : Indiana University Southeast
The Universe is beholden TO the uncertainty principle, which is merely a form of the Cauchy Schwartz inequality, thus connected to the "triangle inequality", which is a property of the Riemannian metric, which is also perceived by the mind itself, since the metric properties of space can only be observed/described via perception.
If spontaneity is considered to be a characteristic feature of the
mind, then naturalism may consider it to be most problematical when
spontaneity is taken to be both intentional and acausal. We hope
against all hope that this apparently inevitable false dichotomy just cannot be. Yet quantum physics might still apply when indeterminism is taken into account. Indeterminism becomes a property of nature, which is a self referential logical loophole for the intervention of a nonphysical MIND.
quote:
This particular universe? The multiverse? Or just some universe somewhere in the manifold? As the other poster pointed out the thread which was closed, somewhere in the universe there may be entitities with the neccessary technology to produce new universes, does that make them gods? If humankind discovered how to initiate the development of a new universe would that mean that we were gods?
The hypothesis is for intelligent design, not for imaginary "gods".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 5:38 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 7:04 AM Chimp has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 35 of 45 (170676)
12-22-2004 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chimp
12-22-2004 6:16 AM


It appears that spontaneous symmetry breaking in the early universe, only works for infinite space
At this point you make a lot of claims whose veracity I am not able to evaluate immediately, could you perhaps provide some references to the relevant scientific papers so I could evaluate the evidence?
The hypothesis is for intelligent design, not for imaginary "gods"
Well then perhaps you shouldn't have started off by talking about God, if that wasn't what you were wanting to discuss.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chimp, posted 12-22-2004 6:16 AM Chimp has not replied

  
person7
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 45 (233326)
08-15-2005 4:11 AM


I don't beleive there is a multiverse, but I think the universe is alot bigger than what we can see. Gravity travels at the speed of light according to an expermint I do not understand. Space can expand faster than the speed of light, so this could mean a larger universe, because the light from a star farther than 14 billion years away would never reach us.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 45 (233517)
08-15-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mike Holland
02-04-2004 5:21 AM


One version of the multiverse hypothesis is that every possibility split creates separate universes. For example, if you spin a coin, then the universe splits into one where it lands heads and one where it lands tails.
I think of it in the opposite way.
When you spin a coin, 2 verses exist (in the future) and when the coin lands (the event) the side it lands on is in the universe that exists and the other verse is now impossible/nonexistant.
The future holds and infinite number of possible verses (a multiverse) but when the events happen, all of the options/verses are eliminated, leaving the one universe that we are aware of.
The way you put seems backwards to me, that after the event happens we are left with a multiverse in which all of the possible events have taken place in multiple verses.
I think it doesn't matter how improbable something was that did happen, because it had an infinte amount of chances to happen(the multiverse), it is now a part of out universe because it did happen, and it's improbability doesn't matter/ceases to exist. This last part doesn't really fit in but I was just thinking how people say that the probability of all this order happening from random events is so impossible that it suggests ID, but I always think about this multiverse when that comes up and that it DID happen however improbable it was doesn't matter. There were infinite chances for it to happen, we're just left with the one event that did happen, no matter how improbable it was.
what I ramble I just typed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mike Holland, posted 02-04-2004 5:21 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 38 of 45 (233553)
08-15-2005 11:48 PM


A thought just occurred to me.
The multiverse concept is where an infinite number of universes exist in which everything is possible, right?
So, if the multiverse existed and everything is possible, it would mean there is at least one universe in which the multiverse does not exist. Therefore, for that to actually be true in that universe, then there cannot be any other universes. So, the multiverse would not exist. It could be said thus, if it existed it would not exist.
Paradox?

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 08-16-2005 12:29 AM Thor has not replied
 Message 41 by Parasomnium, posted 08-16-2005 5:31 AM Thor has not replied
 Message 45 by sidelined, posted 08-17-2005 10:48 AM Thor has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 39 of 45 (233563)
08-16-2005 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Thor
08-15-2005 11:48 PM


paradox
Paradoxes sometimes are the rule of God, imho.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Thor, posted 08-15-2005 11:48 PM Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 08-16-2005 12:46 AM randman has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 40 of 45 (233572)
08-16-2005 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
08-16-2005 12:29 AM


Re: paradox
I started a thread recently about Julian Barbour who believes that time is just a series of nows. He contends that each now is an individual universe that is eternal. Other scientists say that is credible. Here is a link to the thread.
http://EvC Forum: Julian Barbour on Time

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 08-16-2005 12:29 AM randman has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 41 of 45 (233605)
08-16-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Thor
08-15-2005 11:48 PM


Existential versus logical impossibility
Thor writes:
The multiverse concept is where an infinite number of universes exist in which everything is possible, right?
I don't think so. The term 'multiverse' is usually interpreted as "the set of all possible universes".
If the multiverse exists, then a universe that precludes the existence of the multiverse is an impossible universe and does not exist.
If, on the other hand, the multiverse does not exist, then the only remaining universe is obviously not one of the many universes in a multiverse. So one cannot reason that the multiverse does not exist because the universe is precisely the one universe - out of many possible universes - that precludes the existence of the multiverse. Whatever the reason for the non-existence of a multiverse, it's clearly not that.
But it's a curious thought to ponder: does something not exist because its existence would preclude its existence - let's call that the 'existential impossibility' - or because that very fact is a logical impossibility? In both cases it would not exist. So if it doesn't exist, then for which reason of the two?

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Thor, posted 08-15-2005 11:48 PM Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 08-16-2005 9:39 PM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 08-17-2005 6:47 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 45 (233868)
08-16-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Parasomnium
08-16-2005 5:31 AM


Re: Existential versus logical impossibility
You existenial impossibility does not necessarily if fact necessitate it's own logical denial. There is an assymetry to somatic nuclear transfer that seems to go unnoticed politically and there would then also be an existential possibility of the impossibility you queried of natural kinds should statistical inference yield life in two galaxys in truth in the same directum not present in policy on Earth at the moment if only because infinite divisibilty can find the nesting of molecular free paths in the free parameters of the analysis should said existentialism NOT be a transifinte rip off of Halle Germany taugt philosophhy by Husserl.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Parasomnium, posted 08-16-2005 5:31 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2005 3:48 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 43 of 45 (233928)
08-17-2005 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Brad McFall
08-16-2005 9:39 PM


Ik begrijp er geen snars van.
Up front, let me state that I am truly interested in what you have to say about my post. But sadly I am unable to make heads or tails of it. You post two sentences, the second of which contains no less than ninety words without any punctuation whatsoever, apart from a closing period. It's completely incomprehensible verbal diarrhea.
Brad, I really don't want to take half an hour staring at your sentences, just to try and parse them until they make sense. If you want to talk to me, please use normal language and do not try to cram so many ideas into one sentence. I am not stupid, so you can use difficult words and concepts, but please, state them in a clear manner. I know you can do it.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 08-16-2005 9:39 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 45 (233941)
08-17-2005 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Parasomnium
08-16-2005 5:31 AM


Re: Existential versus logical impossibility
But it's a curious thought to ponder: does something not exist because its existence would preclude its existence - let's call that the 'existential impossibility' - or because that very fact is a logical impossibility? In both cases it would not exist. So if it doesn't exist, then for which reason of the two?
It's rather like the set of all sets that aren't members of themselves... which sounds logically reasonable but its existence creates an insurmountable paradox: does it contain itself? If it does, then it shouldn't, and if it doesn't then it should!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Parasomnium, posted 08-16-2005 5:31 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 45 of 45 (234058)
08-17-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Thor
08-15-2005 11:48 PM


Thor
So, if the multiverse existed and everything is possible, it would mean there is at least one universe in which the multiverse does not exist
That would not be paradoxical since the universe in which the multiverse did not exist would also,itself, not exist as it is part of that multiverse.It could therefore fill the definition posed but not occupy an existence which would violate itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Thor, posted 08-15-2005 11:48 PM Thor has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024