Jimmy
Veteran Member
According to science the universe is expanding. HahahaSpace(-time) is part of the universe, saying that there is empty space beyond it is nonsensical. So much for your gut.
-
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
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
Jimmy
Veteran Member
There’s only one
According to reality it is expanding, this can be observed and measured.
So some say, others say differently
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
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.
??
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Oh I agree it is reality
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Moon? Nah
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This seems to mean "I have no idea how to challange what you said so I'm just going to ignore it" in Moon-speak.
But you just said you "agree its reality". Got to admit, i confused here
Jimmy
Veteran Member
There’s nothing confusing About our conversation. It’s simple. I’m not going to even attempt getting into it.
The word is "can't"
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
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....
Jimmy
Veteran Member
OkEither 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....
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.
True.Space(-time) is part of the universe, saying that there is empty space beyond it is nonsensical. So much for your gut.
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.
. . . likely only one physical existence . . . possible more than one universe.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Maybe but who cares
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
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".