Multiverse or G-d?

Multiverse or G-d?


  • Total voters
    13

lunamoth

Episcopalian
Messages
3,915
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Wild, Wild West
Which explanation do you think better explains the fact of our existence against the odds?

Which has more evidence?


Answer the poll!
 
Which explanation do you think better explains the fact of our existence against the odds?

Which has more evidence?


Answer the poll!
As the "Moore" stated to the English child in 'Robin Hood', "Allah, in his infinite wisdom, loves wonderous variety..."
 
John 14:1-6
1 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.​
 
John 14:1-6
1 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Yes, I always have taken that scriptural saying to indicate Jesus was indeed speaking of a multidimensional nature to existence. I also take the rest of that scripture to indicate he was saying that the surest way for consciousness to traverse the many dimensions to a fuller knowledge of God is through him. earl
 
chaotic system of varying complexity would probably be most accurate possible
 
I don't understand why one eliminates the other.

I suppose they don't, although the multiverse is often offered up as an alternative to the requirement for God to account for the astronomically high odds against our existence.
 
Yes, I always have taken that scriptural saying to indicate Jesus was indeed speaking of a multidimensional nature to existence. I also take the rest of that scripture to indicate he was saying that the surest way for consciousness to traverse the many dimensions to a fuller knowledge of God is through him. earl
And I thought it meant i'd need to start paying rent again even after I was dead!
 
If there are infinite universes, then I think there must be creation in a large portion of them, however I don't think infinite universes by themselves can explain the appearance of life. I do not think that life arises as rarely as we think, because I think the universe is an expression of number itself. Numerical models show self similar behavior, so perhaps the bodies in the universe do, too! We know the universe contains self aware creatures. If they arose (as I think) as a result of the properties of the numberline, then perhaps they have similarity with a much larger expression of number. I'm not sure I would call that greater similarity 'God' as if it were a person and yet I suspect it is likely to be self aware and conscious in a way that we cannot fully understand yet have similarity to. I vote other.

I'm basing this on the discovery Lorentz made: initial conditions wildly change characteristics of mathematical models yet each experiment will be self-similar both at scale and on the larger or smaller scales. Number is eternal and unchangeable and still contains infinite variation and self similarity.
 
If there are infinite universes, then I think there must be creation in a large portion of them, however I don't think infinite universes by themselves can explain the appearance of life. I do not think that life arises as rarely as we think, because I think the universe is an expression of number itself. Numerical models show self similar behavior, so perhaps the bodies in the universe do, too! We know the universe contains self aware creatures. If they arose (as I think) as a result of the properties of the numberline, then perhaps they have similarity with a much larger expression of number. I'm not sure I would call that greater similarity 'God' as if it were a person and yet I suspect it is likely to be self aware and conscious in a way that we cannot fully understand yet have similarity to. I vote other.

I'm basing this on the discovery Lorentz made: initial conditions wildly change characteristics of mathematical models yet each experiment will be self-similar both at scale and on the larger or smaller scales. Number is eternal and unchangeable and still contains infinite variation and self similarity.


Dream, I don't understand more than one word in ten in the above, but I like it!

Just kidding. I really don't understand your numberline model explanation, but I get milage out of the idea that like calls to like, and our consciousness is related to a higher consciousness. :D
 
Luna moth,

I'm sure you probably remember

The power of God is eternal and there have always been beings to manifest it; that is why we say that the worlds of God are infinite — there has never been a time when they did not exist.

- From Abdul-Baha On Divine Philosophy
 
To be frank, I don't know what to think. You're ballancing between Pythagoreans and Oriental occultists. But I must agree with this viewpoint because it's antimaterialistic conception. I agree with it. From point of contemporary science it isn't so enough, but what that science knows? I always repeated to my friends that science of nowadays fits only to collect facts, but not to explain. There exist millions of theories and gypoteses, and your own one has its right to be.

But or I didn't understand correctly, or you'd expressed it with not the best way, - it doesn't matter. Your post volens-nolens becomes a happy father of several question marks.
What do you mean, Dream, when saying that:

If there are infinite universes, then I think there must be creation in a large portion of them, however I don't think infinite universes by themselves can explain the appearance of life.

You think there can be any "infinite universes". If I'd been taught properly, I wonder why had you used the -s ending in your "universes". It means plural. But how, or quomodo - as was pompously said by Romans - how you think several INFINITE universes can exist altogether?! I thought there is place only for ONE infinite one. They couldn't be infinite...
And "the appearance of life". I don't feel competent enough to prove or disprove any theories about that. But I think I have got right to make a draft of my opinion. Everyone, of cause, may prove his own. I believe - and there are proves - that life consists everything in the Universe, the sole Universe, alone. What is life? It's consciousness. It has many degrees and a mineral consciousness is hardly, if at all, visible and felt. If anyone will try to prove his viewpoint, I'll try to mine own. Life's indeed not so "rarely as we think".

You've got an interesting numerical theory, as I see:
the universe is an expression of number itself. Numerical models show self similar behavior, so perhaps the bodies in the universe do, too!

Yes, they do. Bodies and not only heaven ones act according to mathematical laws. It's usually called sattva in some countries. Every body, they say, has three things in their nature - tamas, rajas and sattva. Tamas stands for their material part, taughness. Rajas - an energy of theirs. And sattva is a phisical law being used by the concrete body. The three have a lot of other senses, so I'm ready to critics.
 
Luna said:
I get mileage out of the idea that like calls to like, and our consciousness is related to a higher consciousness.
Watch one of those 'fly through' videos of the Mandelbrot set. Looks beautiful and complex but is a very simple operation repeated quickly by a computer.

Quick explanation of Mandlebrot set exploration:
The Mandelbrot image is drawn with repeated arithmetic using imaginary numbers. There is no human-added information or gimmick. The first, overall Mandelbrot image is always the same and is based on properties of number (see Julia sets). As a computer zooms in to the image, it explores the decimal part of numbers further and further to the right. That is where the picture detail is coming from. You start with an x-y map of size 1 x 1 (so that all coordinates are fractions), and then each coordinate (x,y) is called an imaginary number. Find its square root to get the next z --- have the computer do this for every point and you can zoom in forever seeing infinite complexity. That's a rough idea, but the point is that infinite self similarity, order and incomprehensibility exists in number itself.
 
Watch one of those 'fly through' videos of the Mandelbrot set. Looks beautiful and complex but is a very simple operation repeated quickly by a computer.

Quick explanation of Mandlebrot set exploration:
The Mandelbrot image is drawn with repeated arithmetic using imaginary numbers. There is no human-added information or gimmick. The first, overall Mandelbrot image is always the same and is based on properties of number (see Julia sets). As a computer zooms in to the image, it explores the decimal part of numbers further and further to the right. That is where the picture detail is coming from. You start with an x-y map of size 1 x 1 (so that all coordinates are fractions), and then each coordinate (x,y) is called an imaginary number. Find its square root to get the next z --- have the computer do this for every point and you can zoom in forever seeing infinite complexity. That's a rough idea, but the point is that infinite self similarity, order and incomprehensibility exists in number itself.
OK, down to the nitty-gritty: will quantum fluctuations allow the infinite quality of a fractal to exist in nature? {In other words: is an infinite multiverse actually feasible in a physical way, given the (uncertain) nature of quantum fluctuations?}?
 
Luna moth,

I'm sure you probably remember

The power of God is eternal and there have always been beings to manifest it; that is why we say that the worlds of God are infinite — there has never been a time when they did not exist.

- From Abdul-Baha On Divine Philosophy


Indeed I do remember.
 
Here's one I found today which is a saying attributed to Prophet Muhammad:

"Paradise has a hundred levels and each level is vast enough for the population of the whole universe."

- Nahj Al-Fasahah
 
OK, down to the nitty-gritty: will quantum fluctuations allow the infinite quality of a fractal to exist in nature? {In other words: is an infinite multiverse actually feasible in a physical way, given the (uncertain) nature of quantum fluctuations?}?

What an excellent question. I have been recently pondering on what the relationship between chaos theory and quantum field physics would produce that would be evident on our "our scale" reality. My mind jumps straight to so called dark matter and the behaviour of galaxies themselves. What if a substantial portion of the "missing stuff" is just dimensionally folded out of sight. We are only seeing about 10% of what must be out there according to some of the securest measurements ever made. A fractal imagery of just what folding is is a very helpful to way to conceptualise the whole idea. On what is quantum scale to us may well be other dimensional folds that have a replicated yet unique version of our space time...and they go on infinitely.

I simply cannot imagine reality being finite. The implications of that are huge. God could not exist in the infinite except as a local event. But its illusion is easily drawn in our complex need to make some sense of it all.

Gives me a great idea for a painting!!



tao
 
Here's one I found today which is a saying attributed to Prophet Muhammad:

"Paradise has a hundred levels and each level is vast enough for the population of the whole universe."

- Nahj QAl-Fasahah


A bit lame isnt it. I know of far greater poets.


tao
 
Back
Top