• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
It should be noted that there is more than one idea that leads to some sort of multiverse. It is not a single hypothesis. Just space being infinite leads to a sort of multiverse, and there are certainly reasonable indications that it might well be. Then there is the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics. Then the 'eternal inflation' view and that's before we get to the more outlandish ideas...
There’s only one
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
According to science the universe is expanding. Hahaha
And....? Space-time is still part of the universe and saying that there is empty space beyond it is still nonsensical. Perhaps you don't understand enough to see that but it all has a much better basis (objective evidence) than somebody's gut. If you're going to comment on science it's best to make some attempt to understand it first.

There’s only one
??
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
And....? Space-time is still part of the universe and saying that there is empty space beyond it is still nonsensical. Perhaps you don't understand enough to see that but it all has a much better basis (objective evidence) than somebody's gut. If you're going to comment on science it's best to make some attempt to understand it first.


??
Ok
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There’s nothing confusing About our conversation.
Either you contradicted yourself or you didn't express yourself clearly. Probably comes from making grandiose statements or claims and then trying to responding to questions and challenges with as few words as possible, which seems to be your modus operandi. Not sure what you hope to achieve with it.... :shrug:
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Either you contradicted yourself or you didn't express yourself clearly. Probably comes from making grandiose statements or claims and then trying to responding to questions and challenges with as few words as possible, which seems to be your modus operandi. Not sure what you hope to achieve with it.... :shrug:
Ok
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
One of the problems that I have with the Multiverse is that it is so theoretical, it is impossible to test them.

Is Multiverse “possible”?

The answer would be “yes”, but only theoretically. There have been no evidence, so it hasn’t been demonstrated to be “probable”.

Being “possible” doesn’t mean it would be “probable”.

Yes the existence of a multiverse is theoretical, but also math models as Stephan Hawking's work well supporting the no boundary proposal and the possibility of a multiverse. The indirect support for a multiverse lies with Quantum Mechanics and future better understanding of Black Holes.

One of my arguments for the multiverse is essentially the argument against uniqueness in nature. We have an excellent example of a universe we live in that exists based on our current knowledge of the Laws of Natural and Natural processes with no known boundaries in time, space an Quantum no boundary proposal by Hawking. It is logical that we are not unique.

It is a puzzle that you equate whether a multiverse as possible as whether it is probable. Probability is best used where it belongs with statistics. Actually I do not believe that the probability of a universe can be determined or calculated within the proper use in statistics. This goes along with the problem of using probability in questioning evolution. It just does not compute or work.

There is a basis for support of a multiverse, but it is unlikely that there will be objective verifiable evidence until we detect objects from another universe.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Space(-time) is part of the universe, saying that there is empty space beyond it is nonsensical. So much for your gut. :rolleyes:
True.

It's pretty freaky knowing that there is light out there that hasn’t even reached us yet. It's all in appearances 'pitch black' past the observable horizon.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
The Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics first proposed by Hugh Everett is actually taken seriously by quite a few physicists. For a good, fairly nontechnical discussion of the subject that doesn't require a lot of mathematics, see Sean M Carroll's Something Deeply Hidden. One attraction of that approach is that it supports a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Carroll sees is as the least weird interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, it does not allow for the possibility of information transfer between alternate realities, let alone travel between them.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
. . . likely only one physical existence . . . possible more than one universe.

We define the universe in terms of what we can see of it, but it is possible that there are other universes beyond what we can perceive. The MWI position regarding quantum mechanics is different in that it posits the existence of a near infinite number of alternative realities created by quantum entanglements. Those alternative realities do not exist beyond what we perceive, because our perception is subjectively defined by entanglement. They aren't in any sense "observable".
 
Top