How does your believes/views relate to Multiverse theory?

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't think the top guys are stating this, other then a possibility.

Lawrence and Neil would do it for me if they stated it.



It makes sense that if there is one, there is more, but that is still faith based.

Here's the thing I was talking about.

 

[Levite]

I think Multiverse theory is quite interesting, and also a satisfying theory in its own right to explain the "great beyond". The question is, how do you people, holders of various beliefs and views, regard this theory? Do you find it conflicting or do you find it fitting with your views? I.e, how it relates with God(s), do you have some areligious reason to disagree with it (i.e regarding it as flawed theory), etc? I am interested in how other people see it.

I personally see it perfectly fitting with Buddhist faith, and even as being described in certain passages.

I like it very much. If you mean classic multiverse theory, that there are multiple parallel universes in existence, I think it makes sense, as God, who is infinite, has no need to limit Himself to just one universe. If I were God, I would certainly want to see many variations in action.

And if it's multiverse theory as expressed in quantum realities (new "track" universes are created with every choice we make), then not only do I like it, I actually use it theologically.

Part of my theological reconciliation of free will with Divine omniscience is my belief that God voluntarily chooses not to "know" or not to "consciously" be "aware" of the outcome of certain things about our choices. The way I sometimes frame this idea specifically is the analogy that it is as though God "sees" all quantum realities, but chooses not to "know" which quantum realities will become the dominant tracks in "our" universe.

 

[Leftimies]

I do not understand why the Multiverse is highly regarded as proven. It helps with mathematics, sure, that's about it. I do believe in perhaps a side option to this; the belief that there are no other options than what is happening, the only chaotic point in the universe was the beginning of it, and in that smallest fraction of time, there were an infinite number of different things that could've happened, but only one happened, and it caused an order of everything up to this date and beyond, an order that cannot be broken, everything influences everything, all from the beginning.

Just because there are "other possibilities", I see no reason to believe that there is an entire different world, outside of mind, beyond this one. There is no reason to believe that there are various universes of matter.

In fact, some that believe in the multiverse claim that there is one for everything, an infinite number of them for all things to happen. It is flawed in itself, in that case, considering that one possibility is to travel among the other universe, I do not see what physical laws that'd break (then again, that's assuming we uncovered all physical laws, which we haven't). Where then, there'd be one set of universes traveling to this specific universe, this specific earth. There'd be an infinite amount in this set, doing infinitely different things. All universes would be interrupting each other according to that interpretation of the multiverse theory.

Well, Alex Vilenkin had the realization that cosmic inflation didn't stop everywhere at once - and that there is always a region in space where it is still happening. In other words, there have been countless big bangs before ours, and countless afterwards.

Another is the assumed force of reversed gravity - a force so powerful it could make a piece as small as a molecule to expand into a size of milky way galaxy, all in a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a blink of an eye. Rather extraordinary, is it not? Theorised and calculated by Alan Guth, it serves partially to explain the mechanism behind Big Bangs, which can well be completely natural and common phenomena outside our universe.

I think the theory has quite some merit.

 

[oldbadger]

I think Multiverse theory is quite interesting, and also a satisfying theory in its own right to explain the "great beyond". The question is, how do you people, holders of various beliefs and views, regard this theory? Do you find it conflicting or do you find it fitting with your views? I.e, how it relates with God(s), do you have some areligious reason to disagree with it (i.e regarding it as flawed theory), etc? I am interested in how other people see it.

I personally see it perfectly fitting with Buddhist faith, and even as being described in certain passages.

I believe in Universes beyond our own, groups of universes as we have galaxies of stars, and clusters of groups, and on....... unending. This gives me the vaguest perception of what and how big God is. God is very great. And so I am a Deist.

Several leading scientists argue for multiverse now, some because they have observed that certain of our clusters of galaxies are moving 'out of sync' with the rest of our universe, some believe in 'curtains' which produce universes wherever they touch. Some try to explain string theory and some just hold their hands apart and say, 'Of course'!
A lay-person, I have always had difficulty in believing that God is finite...... it just seemed to make 'lay' sense. And since this all makes me so tiny, so miniscule, so 'nothingness', I become calmed and feel that I can be content with the flow of time. I enjoy each moment. I feel very lucky.

Yes.......... Multiverse..... multiverses... groups of them...... groups of groups..... of course.......

 

[Leftimies]

I believe in Universes beyond our own, groups of universes as we have galaxies of stars, and clusters of groups, and on....... unending. This gives me the vaguest perception of what and how big God is. God is very great. And so I am a Deist.

Several leading scientists argue for multiverse now, some because they have observed that certain of our clusters of galaxies are moving 'out of sync' with the rest of our universe, some believe in 'curtains' which produce universes wherever they touch. Some try to explain string theory and some just hold their hands apart and say, 'Of course'!
A lay-person, I have always had difficulty in believing that God is finite...... it just seemed to make 'lay' sense. And since this all makes me so tiny, so miniscule, so 'nothingness', I become calmed and feel that I can be content with the flow of time. I enjoy each moment. I feel very lucky.

Yes.......... Multiverse..... multiverses... groups of them...... groups of groups..... of course.......

Under these assumptions we may need to rethink what Pantheism is, though...if it proposes that universe is divine. Then, what is multiverse? Is it divine too? If so, why? Is it not divine? If so, why? XD

So many overhauls needed to be done.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well, Alex Vilenkin had the realization that cosmic inflation didn't stop everywhere at once - and that there is always a region in space where it is still happening. In other words, there have been countless big bangs before ours, and countless afterwards.

Another is the assumed force of reversed gravity - a force so powerful it could make a piece as small as a molecule to expand into a size of milky way galaxy, all in a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a blink of an eye. Rather extraordinary, is it not? Theorised and calculated by Alan Guth, it serves partially to explain the mechanism behind Big Bangs, which can well be completely natural and common phenomena outside our universe.

I think the theory has quite some merit.

Did they take place in another area of nonexistent space?

I think, if there were multiple big bangs, there'd have to have existed space before the universe, and therefore the universe would have already existed right? This thing we define as universe wouldn't be the universe, it'd be a smaller offshoot, sort of like a galaxy or a solar system.

 

[Ablaze]

Seems compatible with the Buddhist notion of interdependent "realms" of existence.

 

[idea]

the Multiverse theory ....

It's interesting, I could see it going either way...

Either:
a.) no multiverse, and fine tuning is evidence of God
or
b.) multiverse exists, and everything (including God) exists.

Either way, it's evidence for God.

 

[nazz]

I think Multiverse theory is quite interesting, and also a satisfying theory in its own right to explain the "great beyond". The question is, how do you people, holders of various beliefs and views, regard this theory? Do you find it conflicting or do you find it fitting with your views? I.e, how it relates with God(s), do you have some areligious reason to disagree with it (i.e regarding it as flawed theory), etc? I am interested in how other people see it.

I personally see it perfectly fitting with Buddhist faith, and even as being described in certain passages.

It fits very well with my views actually. I basically understand the multiverse to be an ever expanding expression of the Original Source. Sort of like the concentric rings of waves produced by dropping a pebble into a lake. Each successive wave contains a little less of that original energy within it. Each universe thus created is a little further removed from its divine origin and a little more corrupted.

 

[YmirGF]

I think Multiverse theory is quite interesting, and also a satisfying theory in its own right to explain the "great beyond". The question is, how do you people, holders of various beliefs and views, regard this theory? Do you find it conflicting or do you find it fitting with your views? I.e, how it relates with God(s), do you have some areligious reason to disagree with it (i.e regarding it as flawed theory), etc? I am interested in how other people see it.

I personally see it perfectly fitting with Buddhist faith, and even as being described in certain passages.

I tend to prefer my M-Theory straight up, as it were, and TRY to not draw parallels with my internal view of multidimensional reality. What I mean is that my internal view works without M-Theory. M-Theory works without my internal views needed to support it. That said, I took to M-Theory easily having been a long time String Theory/Chaos Theory armchair enthusiast. M-Theory rounds out the meal, so to speak. I see no reason why M-Theory would support any of the current crop of god concepts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Even though Multiverse is only a theory, there is some pretty convincing indication towards its existence.

Actually it isn't. I don't mean it isn't a theory in that some physicists view it as more akin to religion than science, I mean it literally isn't a theory. The multiverse theory I'm most familiar with is that which follows from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is not consistent with a multiverse theory that involves infinitely many "points of origin" for expanding universes, or more specifically infinitely many cosmic horizons. In this multiverse theory, infinite space and evidence of expansion result in infinitely many "universes", but there are not clear boundaries between them. In an inflationary multiverse, there are: each universe is "bounded" in the sense that all universe are discrete universes distinct from any other universe.

Meow Mix would probably be the best to ask, but although an this multiverse of infinitely many infinitely spatially extended multiverse doesn't entail the many-worlds of QM, it is compatible with it. In fact, practically speaking the difference is that one assumes a relative state (no collapse) interpretation of QM and the other has no interpretations of QM. However, it is impossible for a QM multiverse to be compatible with a multiverse of infinitely many universe in one infinite "space".

There are also the truly exotic ones held by e.g., Tegmark. The same guy whose paper is most cited (despite flaws) as providing sufficient evidence against the theory that quantum processes may contribute in non-trivial ways to consciousness also holds that reality doesn't exist, or rather that the only external reality is a mathematical structure. If you give a talk at an APS or Royal Society conference saying this, you may find a less than receptive audience, but if you talk about this during a psychiatric evaluation, you may find yourself committed to an institution and treated for some form of psychosis.

 

[fantome profane]

I like it very much. If you mean classic multiverse theory, that there are multiple parallel universes in existence, I think it makes sense, as God, who is infinite, has no need to limit Himself to just one universe. If I were God, I would certainly want to see many variations in action.

And if it's multiverse theory as expressed in quantum realities (new "track" universes are created with every choice we make), then not only do I like it, I actually use it theologically.

Part of my theological reconciliation of free will with Divine omniscience is my belief that God voluntarily chooses not to "know" or not to "consciously" be "aware" of the outcome of certain things about our choices. The way I sometimes frame this idea specifically is the analogy that it is as though God "sees" all quantum realities, but chooses not to "know" which quantum realities will become the dominant tracks in "our" universe.

Interesting. If I can ask what makes you think that one track is dominant? And if one track is dominant over all the others what is it that makes it dominant? Are we experiencing the dominant track? How would we know?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Did they take place in another area of nonexistent space?

That's a problem that an inflationary multiverse cosmology addresses. In the standard model the universe expands into...? What? There's nothing for it to expand into. Multiverse cosmologies are proposed in part to address such issue. First, you can have infinite expansion in a finite space (all points in space have four coordinates, so a space that extends infinitely need not extend infinitely in all directions). Second, it is not entirely clear if inflationary cosmologies requires a big bang. Third, whether or not there was "a" big bang (rather than an infinite expansion along at least one dimension and spatial expansion and collapse) isn't entirely clear. However, a problem with the big bang is that it expanded to fast (faster than light). One solution is to posit that nothing travelled faster than light but what it travelled in did. That doesn't require an inflationary multiverse, but the same evidence for inflation, uniformity of background radiation, by itself entails perfect uniformity. Irregularities in uniformity combined with the expansion of space itself can be accounted for by irregularities that can also entail tiny fluctuations (as in subatomic tiny) to grow enormously. However, while "space" continues to expand, the fluctuations wouldn't necessarily do so. The fact that space isn't "flat" allows "space-space" to expand while some universe in it does not continue to expand infinitely in all directions.

I'm simplifying enormously here, but not just for the sake of simplification. The way the many-worlds interpretations of QM can tie in as by having universe "pockets" be the realizations of possibilities a wavefunction predicts. Mathematically it is possible to equate an inflationary cosmology and it's geometry with the many-worlds interpretation, which ideally should be a requisite for any cosmology anyway. And although the fields that theoretically cause "bubble" universe in your standard inflationary multiverse are not equivalent to the realization of all possible states of any quantum system, it isn't that hard (on paper) to link the two.

The problem with virtually all of these cosmologies is that they are almost completely mathematical. Normally, that's find. For any physical system we want a formal representation. However, physics starts with the physical system and then describes it mathematically. Here, while certain aspects of all cosmologies are supported, and the standard model in particular is (it may be wrong, but there are only a limited number of ways it can be wrong), for most of these cosmologies we're taking mathematical descriptions of theoretical entities, and relating them together with more mathematics. For those who remember systems of equations in algebra or who took some linear algebra or worked differential equations, you'll recall that a system of equations has either one solution, no solutions, or infinitely many solutions. Here, we are constrained because while some solutions are mathematically possible they aren't physically realizable. The issue is that we don't want to be narrowing down to some limited number of possible solutions that one prefers over another because of its mathematical elegance or for some similar aesthetic or ideological reasons. Also, it seems like the world's biggest cop-out to "solve" the problem of measurement in QM by invoking a model that is a possible solution to a mathematical model motivated by possible explanations to various theoretical problems. It's like explaining consciousness by saying it's caused by the mind.

 

[Katzpur]

I think Multiverse theory is quite interesting, and also a satisfying theory in its own right to explain the "great beyond". The question is, how do you people, holders of various beliefs and views, regard this theory? Do you find it conflicting or do you find it fitting with your views? I.e, how it relates with God(s), do you have some areligious reason to disagree with it (i.e regarding it as flawed theory), etc? I am interested in how other people see it.

I personally see it perfectly fitting with Buddhist faith, and even as being described in certain passages.

Would you mind elaborating on this theory a little bit. From the tiny bit I know about it, it seems to actually fit into Mormonism quite well. But before I comment further, I'd like some more information, if you wouldn't mind.

 

[Leftimies]

Would you mind elaborating on this theory a little bit. From the tiny bit I know about it, it seems to actually fit into Mormonism quite well. But before I comment further, I'd like some more information, if you wouldn't mind.

Well, there are some variations of it, but basically the one I was talking about speaks of a space outside our universe, an infinite space, where infinite amount of universes are born and dying. It also means that there are uncounted number of "you" living in those other worlds, and uncounted number of worlds without you. Its really crazy idea, which I embrace - I kind of regard it as a "forge of worlds". From which big bangs are provoked.
These worlds and everything they contain can further be considered a manifestation of possibility.

Ahhh! This topic gets me going every time XD

 

[Levite]

Interesting. If I can ask what makes you think that one track is dominant? And if one track is dominant over all the others what is it that makes it dominant? Are we experiencing the dominant track? How would we know?

I suppose that's a fair question, or set of questions. I guess I have always presumed that there would be, if not one, than at most a few, "dominant" tracks, in that there are literally millions of choices being made in every second-- and that's just on this one planet-- but even with the millions of alternate tracks being created all the time, we seem to share as a collective in progressing down the same general track, or a sheaf of interwoven tracks which, if not precisely the same, are at least so incredibly close that it would be well-nigh impossible to distinguish.

For example, we all share the same consciousness that Obama is president, that World War II ended in 1945, that the American Revolution began in 1776, etc. To me, that seems to indicate a dominance, unless you propose that every individual being actually lives its entire life in a universe or quantum reality entirely of its own making-- which, to me, seems unlikely in its extremely unwieldy complexity.

It would seem to me that we are at least experiencing a dominant track, if not the dominant track. Minor alternates don't concern me much-- the sort where some kid in North Dakota decided to wear the blue mittens instead of the red mittens, that sort of thing. I am more interested in significant alternates-- Kennedy was never killed, Martin Luther King Jr was never born, the United States never revolted and became independent, Muhammad became a Christian, stuff of that sort.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, there are some variations of it, but basically the one I was talking about speaks of a space outside our universe, an infinite space, where infinite amount of universes are born and dying. It also means that there are uncounted number of "you" living in those other worlds, and uncounted number of worlds without you. Its really crazy idea, which I embrace - I kind of regard it as a "forge of worlds". From which big bangs are provoked.
These worlds and everything they contain can further be considered a manifestation of possibility.

Ahhh! This topic gets me going every time XD

Yup, that is totally in line with Mormonism (except that we believe that there is a God involved, which probably makes it different in a lot of ways). I'd say that we totally believe in other universes, other worlds, other people living there, worlds past, worlds yet to come.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I just realized there are two "multiverses" when referring to this idea: the idea of a world containing all possible worlds (kind of like evolution) and the idea of a world of unrelated one-track worlds (kind of like creationism).

Or perhaps a third: the "orchard model".

We're all going by the first one, right?

 

[Father Heathen]

It just goes to show that it's silly for us to make presumptions regarding just how many layers this cosmic onion has. We should, however, continue to peel them back.

 

[Philomath]

It fits perfectly with Hinduism.