Multiverse theory and god(s).

[godnotgod]

 

[godnotgod]

 

[YmirGF]

Alan Watts, such a fine speaker with so little content...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Multiverse theory is false unless repeatable experiments prove otherwise.

Multiverse theories aren't false simply because they aren't supported by repeatable experiments (actually, the earliest multiverse theory has been supported by experiments repeated since before Heisenberg and Schrödinger formulated quantum mechanics). The first several centuries of experiments in modern physics supported various theories (e.g., electromagnetism, classical electrodynamics, analytical mechanics, (modern) classical atomism), etc.) that were fundamentally flawed. You can continue to repeat experiments that "prove" that light is a wave which were undertaken since Young in the early 1800s or that it is a particle as argued by Einstein in 1905, Millikin in 1911, etc. You can repeat these experiments forever, but even though you will get repeatable outcomes, you will never succeed in showing that light is composed of particles or that it is a wave. This is because the entirety of classical physics turns out to be founded upon false assumptions (namely, that either particles or waves exist, as well as the assumption that we as observers can neglected). It is generally impossible to know whether experiments demonstrate that a theory is correct or incorrect, because experimental designs, interpretations, and receptions depend upon currently accepted theories.
The multiverse theory is a perfect example of the problem. Quantum mechanics and cosmology present us with data that challenge deeply held values within the sciences, especially the natural sciences. Namely, quantum mechanics forces the observer back into the picture, while evidence from cosmology suggests that 1) our ability to probe the cosmos may be fundamentally limited and more importantly 2) the standard models of cosmology and particle physics contain numerous parameters which must be extremely finely "tuned" rather than theoretically derived but which also must be so finely tuned in order for us to exist. One of many suggested solutions to the former problem is that we accept the formalisms of quantum mechanics without adopting Born's projection postulate and instead of the probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction/density matrix we take the formalism at face value: all possible outcomes predicted by theory do occur. Thus the multiverse theory in its earliest form quite literally is quantum mechanics. The problem is that, apart from various philosophical and metaphysical issues with reading QM this way, the formalism even in the multiverse approach contains multiple outcomes for singular measurements/events. Thus "splitting branches" or universes are realizations of single outcomes from the infinite set of possible outcomes, and therefore they never encounter any reason to suppose that there exist evidence for multiple outcomes, and therefore no reason to posit a mechanics which requires these (as QM does).
In cosmology, multiverse theories can be considered supported by repeatable experiments, depending upon the nature of the multiverse theory.

 

[Kent856]

I would tentatively add that the big bang obviously does not attempt to explain the creation of the universe.

If the universe wasn't self sustaining and strong/weak nuclear forces unstable than God would have to constantly intervene to keep the universe in tact. Seems like a huge hassle. Much more likely that God created the universe to function without the need for outside intervention. Much like the way the earth shifts and changes, as well as how ecosystems adapt and change.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Alan Watts, such a fine speaker with so little content...

Here we go again, another thread is being hijacked.

 

[YmirGF]

Here we go again, another thread is being hijacked.

I'll grab his box-cutter if you get everyone else to safety before the purple ooze floods the place.

 

[godnotgod]

Alan Watts, such a fine speaker with so little content...

You didn't understand what he is saying about the ceramic and automatic models of the universe? There is a wealth of content in these videos, things you would not otherwise have known. You're just biased against anything 'Alan Watts', because you're just plain ignorant. Pity.

 

[godnotgod]

I'll grab his box-cutter if you get everyone else to safety before the purple ooze floods the place.

Let it be known here and now that you are the second person instigating trouble on this thread, where none existed previously. I post content which you choose to downgrade without any basis whatsoever, and then go on a personal attack with your buddy. That's how gang members work. They're only strong when they get the nod from the peer group. You and your buddy don't really want to have a conversation, but that is because you have nothing of any value to contribute. You just want to jeer because that is the only thing the ignorant have left to do. You see, it's not because of new age pseudo anything or Chopra cloning that you attack the pointing finger, it's because when confronted with something you don't understand and does not jibe with your entrenched parochial views, that you panic and feel threatened, so you attack.

Now if you really think you have some content to criticize Alan Watts with, then let's have it. Otherwise .......

 

[godnotgod]

Alan Watts, such a fine speaker with so little content...

So sorry you missed what he is saying. What did you not understand about the ceramic and automatic models of the universe? Maybe you just need to learn to listen, instead of just hearing the crap you only want to hear. Now, if you disagree with Mr. Watts, why can't you tell us what that is about? After all, what I post I do understand is open to scrutiny and criticism. But just to dismiss it as having no content tells me something about the person making that claim. Some people just don't want to see what is right under their noses because they have already made up their minds the what they see has no value. We usually call such people 'ignorant'.

 

[godnotgod]

The term "universe" also interests me. As far as I know, it means everything ever. So multiple universes on the same sheet of paper? Nope. What about two sheets of paper separated by "something"? We would just classify the sheets and then include them in our one universe. (sheets of paper as in planes of existence/spacetime

Yes, that is how I see it as well. The totality of Everything is The Universe, which includes all possible multiverses, and intergalactic space as well.

 

[godnotgod]

I'd agree with much of this, the functional structure of our universe; galaxies, solar systems, great fusion reactors creating complex elements needed for life.. did not self assemble from a handful of simple superficial laws and clumsy mass as once believed under classical physics. It is underwritten by much deeper highly specific detailed instructions describing exactly how to do these things.

So yes, it is the origins of the information, rather than what appears superficially as the physical 'stuff' of the universe, that is so difficult to account for by chance.

This information, or coding: wouldn't it come from the Unified Field, at the ground floor of all possibilities? It has been suggested by some that this Unified Field is Pure Abstract Intelligence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

An artefact, such as a watch, is a man-made object. It requires thought to design and create, and construction/assembly proceeds in a systematically linear fashion. It requires a maker/designer for its existence. The idea that the universe was 'made' in a similar manner was taken from Judeo-Christianity. We see this in some of the old religious art, for example:

credit where it is due, yes! and that's why there was so much resistance from atheists, to the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory- called it 'religious psuedoscience' and labeling it 'the big bang' in mockery.
They preferred static, eternal, steady state, non-created models. (no creation = no creator)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This information, or coding: wouldn't it come from the Unified Field, at the ground floor of all possibilities? It has been suggested by some that this Unified Field is Pure Abstract Intelligence.

Well that highlights just how staggeringly improbable these instructions are to come by through a chance roll of the dice. That you literally need to invoke an infinite probability machine to produce them without ID.
Just as you would have to do to account for a watch, if ID were strictly verboten- though a mere watch is selling the universe pretty short!

So it's a matter of which is more probable, when in truth we can't rule out either.

again if a gambler plays 5 royal flushes in a row, is chance or design more probable?

 

[godnotgod]

credit where it is due, yes! and that's why there was so much resistance from atheists, to the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory- called it 'religious psuedoscience' and labeling it 'the big bang' in mockery.
They preferred static, eternal, steady state, non-created models. (no creation = no creator)

Well, in either case, can we really call it a 'creation' in light of the Quantum Physics observation that the mass of the atom is the product of fluctuations in the Unified Field? All of this mass is virtual mass, so where is the 'matter' that is being 'created'? If we see none, then we cannot refer to the world we see as having been 'created', but instead perhaps 'manifested' or 'projected', which, of course, leads to other questions.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, in either case, can we really call it a 'creation' in light of the Quantum Physics observation that the mass of the atom is the product of fluctuations in the Unified Field? All of this mass is virtual mass, so where is the 'matter' that is being 'created'? If we see none, then we cannot refer to the world we see as having been 'created', but instead perhaps 'manifested' or 'projected', which, of course, leads to other questions.

I take your point, though by that rationale we are mistaken to talk about the 'creation' of computer software also right?

But in a sense is it not inevitable that matter is not made of matter?, just as 1s and 0s are not made of 1's and 0's. But semantics aside, the information came to be somehow yes?- a self extracting archive composed in such a way, as to ultimately develop the capacity to contemplate it's own existence! That's a pretty sophisticated piece of coding! Certainly not something we can acheive

 

[YmirGF]

Well, in either case, can we really call it a 'creation' in light of the Quantum Physics observation that the mass of the atom is the product of fluctuations in the Unified Field? All of this mass is virtual mass, so where is the 'matter' that is being 'created'? If we see none, then we cannot refer to the world we see as having been 'created', but instead perhaps 'manifested' or 'projected', which, of course, leads to other questions.

You do realize that not a lot of progress has been made to validate the illusive Unified Field Theory, right?

 

[Kent856]

We are simply unraveling the processes which cause our universe to function. These processes are just as likely to be created as anything else is. Doesn't really change anything in terms of creationism. As you said, it could open up new possibilities though.

 

[godnotgod]

You do realize that not a lot of progress has been made to validate the illusive Unified Field Theory, right?

It does'nt matter in terms of the topic, which is whether something we call 'matter' was 'created', because we DO know that ALL of the mass of the atom is made up via fluctuations in both the Higgs and Quantum Fields.

Ultimately, there can be no separation in the Uni-verse, so the Higgs, Quantum, electromagnetic, gravity, and all other fields must be aspects of a greater whole. Science is calling that 'The Unified Field', while it has been called 'the ground of all being' in the East.

 

[godnotgod]

We are simply unraveling the processes which cause our universe to function. These processes are just as likely to be created as anything else is. Doesn't really change anything in terms of creationism. As you said, it could open up new possibilities though.

But what is there that can be 'created'? Matter is virtual.