Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Thomas, Nov 4, 2015.
Yup that one. I try to explain 'aberrant' in the thread.
A title? A link?
I recall one of the fathers of multiverse theory explaining the concept to a layman. "For every choice I have ..." "Yes," cam the answer. They then went to 'my' chocies to that of a dog deciding whether to scratch or not, and the scientist explained it went beyond the dog, it applied the the flea on the dog's back, on and on, to atoms and sub-atomic particles, ad infinitum.
For my part, I find it hard to buy into a thesis that insists that 'right now' Elvis is alive and well and in the building somewhere in a cosmos ...
Or that for every nano possibility, a reality exists. This would mean that after the Big Bang moment, there would be a gazillion squared universes, and each one of that gazillion would, every nano-moment, produce another gazillion, and in the next nano-moment after that, all those gazillions would each produce gazillions of parallel realities ...
Two things then:
One: The mind cannot compute (my mind, anyway) so many realities, and;
Two: So what? It means absolutely nothing as far as this reality is concerned ...
I can buy the theory that in any nano-second an infinite number of possibilities exists, and that in that nanosecond, of all the infinite possibilities, this is the one that actually exists, whereas all the others could have, but don't.
Yes, that would be complete bulls**t.
But to be fair, I think that may be stretching what the multiverse 'theory' is really saying: which is there may be other universes contingent with this one we live in -- perhaps very many other universes.
But not necessarily 'infinite' other universes?
Where I personally battle with the idea, is that it then goes on to justify the impossible coincidences that have gone into creating this universe we live in by stating that if these impossible 'fine-tuning' odds of chance had not occurred, we wouldn't be here to be able to think about it, or discuss it. The Anththropic Principle.
No room to even consider the possibility of an intelligent design.
I don't find this to be at all scientific.
Nor do I think the multiverse theory deserves the title of a 'theory' because its impossible to follow it up in any way. As such its not even a 'principle'. Its a mere conjecture, and a rather desperate one. imo.
I'm going to see if I can google up a list of the 'fine-tuning' coincidences and post them here. But not today.
Thanks for your posts.
Actually intelligent design is the result of the loss of creation science...which has been scientifically dismissed.... Intelligent design was well...um OK...so.things evolve...and the ark is obviously metaphor... So let's hold onto this by blending the two....a.little backward.engineering....which also didn't stand scientific review.
It isn't that we don't know exactly what happened.... But we do know some things we can discount.as surely not likely to have happened
I think that it actually is. There is a universe for every possibility — that's what multiverse theory posits, according to our current understanding of Quantum Physics.
A thesis that there might be n-number of other universes would have to establish the parameters determining that number?
LOL, I know! It's a bit like saying the answer is ... because it is. Which is a bit like saying there's a God, because there is!
Or, a bit like what I feel like saying when kids get the needle stuck in the 'why?' groove.
One God-fearing scientist said the odds of life was a bit like tipping all the constituent elements of a three-storey house out of an aeroplane, and them happening to land in such a way that they build a three-storey house.
On the other hand, whilst people bring up examples of what they see as intelligent design, they ignore what can equally be described as unintelligent design.
Yep. Not for people only. For everything.
Yep. No matter how many bazillions of bazillions of realities there are, it is completely irrelevant as far as this reality is concerned. Unless and until someone can come up with some reason that our reality is connected to these others in ways that may affect our reality. And I have heard no suggestion of that at all.
In principle I prefer this idea. After all it parallels the quantum principle that everything is in an indeterminate state until it is seen at which time it becomes fixed. Even then there are problems though. When every subatomic particle is making decisions, which single one gets precedence?
I believe there are two theories about the multiverse. The one is the infinite number of universes because 'for every decision' that we have been talking about. The other is that there is an infinite number of universes because, well because. They are not dependent on any decision happening in any other dimension. They simply all exist. So, yeah, in either case, infinite. At least that is the thinking at the moment.
Well yes. And no. The infinite universes does posit that if you have enough realities, one of them was going to come together just the way this one did, which led to the creation of life forms like ours. The infinite universes theory is not needed to justify how this one came together though. This reality came together in such a way that it eventually led to carbon based life forms. I'm not clear why so many people have difficulty with this logic. It makes sense to me. If the universe had come together differently, conditions that could be conducive to life might not have happened. No life = no us. That we are here to discuss all of this means that this reality did come together in such a way that life arose eventually becoming us. I think I am missing the piece that is what is troubling other people.
Well no. There is no room within science to consider the possibility of intelligent design any way. ID posits a divinity and science simply does not have the tools to prove or disprove such a possibility.
Ahh! Gotta get to work. More later!
Yes there are many theories about multiverse possibilities and the number of dimensions...both were diviswd because when included they make some math work... But not all...
Neither of these, nor the big bang has been sussed out to the level that evolution has.
Well: if the pinnacle of scientific wisdom is to suggest a universe in which Elvis is alive, or where a monkey wrote 'Hamlet' by accident, common sense says that's an absolutely ridiculous idea to put forth as a beyond desperate excuse to reason against intelligent design? Imo
I don't have a problem with evolution. It doesn't exclude intelligent design, imo.
Set the objective and let the details sort themselves as they occur.
It works for Mr Trump. Lol
It is a theory. Just a far fetched one. And I agree it is at the conjecture stage. Whether it will ever go anywhere, I guess time will tell. Like you (I think it was you who said), at the moment it is a theory that is beyond testing. Which means it cannot really go anywhere. Perhaps at some future time we will devise some way to identify other dimensions. Or it may forever be beyond us.
Whoever this 'scientist' is he is a numbskull. Because this is not only a really stupid statement, it is an incredibly ignorant one as well. (I wonder which branch of science he has). Houses are made out of cement, wood, steel, glass, stone, and all sorts of other substances that HAVE NO ABILITY TO COMBINE WITH OTHER OBJECTS! One could attempt this experiment an infinite number of times and you will always get the same result. A pile of rubble.
Life is made up of elements and particles that ARE capable of combining to form more complex elements and particles. Since they are capable of doing so, it is possible that if one mixed them around enough times they could create more and more complex molecules.
Making the leap from complex molecules to living, replicating organisms - now that is the leap we have not been able to jump yet. That process remains a mystery. We may someday finally figure it out. Or we may never achieve that goal. Whether we can or can not figure it out though is irrelevant to whether a deity was involved.
We have been down this path so many times before. Science does not have the tools to make a determination whether there are gods or not. It just cannot be done. It's equivalent to trying to use math to cut down a tree. There is nothing in math that will help us cut down that tree. Math may tell us how the tree will fall, how much energy such a fall releases and so on, but the actual cutting down of that tree is going to require a saw!
Lol...yes that is exactly why the theory came up....(heavy sarcasm) no nothing to do with discounting intelligent design...that happens all by itself...
And that is exactly what happened
....intelligent design is not the result of any science....it is simply an attempt to stay relevant.... With no scientific basis.
Yes, but as I keep saying, the 'Anthropic Principle' multiverse THEORY is really just a desperate patch to cover the fact that -- as even Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins etc, will acknowledge -- the 'fine-tunings' of life, the universe and everything are IMPOSSIBLE without virtually infinite other universes which we will never be able to prove or observe in any way.
This requires a logical response. It's not theory, its not even logical conjecture. It's pure speculation, imo?
For instance the Dark Energy force causes expansion of the universe against the force of gravity. Without dark energy there could be no universe.
Theoretically dark energy could operate at literally almost any fix, of say millimetres or inches, say, on a scale from here to the Sun. In fact it operates at precisely the only figure possible for the existence of the universe -- within a distance of less than an atoms width, at the very start of the scale.
Ok, coincidence. No problem.
But the problem starts when scores of such fine-tuning coincidences need to be added and multiplied upon one another until the odds become quite impossible. All scientists agree. Which is exactly why the multiverse/anthropic 'speculation' is required.
I will google and post more 'fine-tunings' when I can.
Never mind the crazily impossible odds of LIFE occurring. All scientists agree. There is a theory called Abiogenises, which allows a sort-of accumulative process leading up to the moment 'life' became 'alive'. It still produces crazy odds.
Al Capone said: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence -- third time it's 'enemy action!"
So the multiverse THEORY tries desperately to explain away these impossiblities?
So the question, imo, becomes: Why on earth would such a large collection of such brilliant minds embrace such hogwash as the multiverse/anthropic principle, purely to avoid needing to even consider the possibility of some 'divine' force?
Its the Emperor's New Clothes, imo.
Wood, steel, glass, stone, and all sorts of other substances combined to become the universe, against enormous odds. Sigh: fine-tuning again.
Inanimate chemicals combined to BECOME life, against even more enormous odds.
I am not a scientist...
But I sure don't think they are trying to pull wool over our eyes on their work.
What would cause them to decide to give us the big con...noting that a significant percentsge are Jewish, Hindu, Christian...
You and I have very different ideas about the laws of the universe. If we work from the assumption that the universe need to be exactly like it is for anything to be like it is, then yes, then ID might seem more plausible than the current scientific models. But I think most of us assume there are many different forms for existence to take and even with very different laws there might even be forms of life as we define it.
Separate names with a comma.