Do you believe in God ?

[TX-Beau]

^Max Tegmark's proposition is regularly dusted down, and cited as the "gospel truth" on behalf of multiverse fans.

That the decisions we make everyday appear a little absurd from the viewpoint of a single vast and eternal universe, it can be argued from the perspective of an infinite ensemble of universes containing infinite copies of ourselves, all making every possible choice, they are absolutely absurd. I am happy that sci fi fans can be entertained with the thought there is a doppelganger out there, resident in another dimension determined to make use of my bank account, even write these words to conceal his real identity.

I am a big fan of sci fi, with Ray Bradbury's works a staple in my daily diet, feeding my brain with fantastical reading matter.

I find it extremely funny that the proponent of "numinous experience," and "first cause," and "divine mystery" is attempting to discount far greater minds by calling their ideas fiction.



Pot meet kettle.

 

[kallipolis]

^I'm not discounting the hypothesis proposed by Max Tegmark, anymore than I'm discounting the idea that we are living in a matrix.

Sci fi theories make for good entertainment value, as I have already stated here.

Physicists regularly publish their opinions, expecting their peers to respond with their thoughts, available on the Internet for your education.

Belief in multiverses, is your entitlement. I recommend viewing Jet Li travel through space, and time to entertain his audiences with the thought that fantastical ideas sells cinema tickets.

 

[TX-Beau]

Oh the irony. Hypocrisy has never been so funny.

Don't pretend to know what I believe in, you've never asked once.

 

[TX-Beau]

Of course you've gone to extreme lengths to brand me with whatever you needed to in order to avoid looking at your own, ahh, shortcomings?

 

[Telstra]

No....it is an hypothesis that has no logical reasoning to support it. Making it popular with sci fi fans who enjoy being entertained by movies where parallel universe produce similar people. Jet Li's movie, The One demonstrates this idea. I enjoyed the film.

It's bizarre to use the multiverse hypothesis to explain only things we don’t understand.

Here's a trailer advertising The One.

Multiverse is not parallel universe.
And that movie is not about multiverse.

 

[kallipolis]

Multiverse is not parallel universe.
And that movie is not about multiverse.

Yes, it is about parallel universes, and Jet Li's adventures transversing those universes.

Watch the film, and learn about frivilous fantasies aka reductio ad absurdum.

Meantime, on a more serious note, I'll quote the words of a well respected scientist:

Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

I quote:

Steinhardt: My concern was that the multiverse is a ‘theory of anything’, a proposal that allows all possible cosmological outcomes (smooth or not smooth, curved or flat, etc.) and, consequently, is not subject to empirical tests. Some claim that superstring theory allows exponentially many (or perhaps infinitely many) possibilities for the fundamental laws (masses of particles, types of forces, etc.) and that there is no guiding principle to determine which set of physical laws is more probable. The sets of laws comprise what is called the “string landscape.”

Combine the inflationary multiverse with the string landscape, and now one has a ‘supertheory of anything’: both the cosmological properties and the microphysical properties of the universe are accidental and unpredictable.

As we understand superstring theory better, I truly hope we find that there are sound reasons why the physical laws we observe are naturally selected. Superstring theory, combined with an improved cosmological picture, may then lead to a powerfully explanatory and predictive theory.

 

[Telstra]

I don't believe there is a parallel universe. So no one is talking about parallel universe.
But multiverse sounds possible.

 

[kallipolis]

I don't believe there is a parallel universe. So no one is talking about parallel universe.
But multiverse sounds possible.

I recommend you educate your self on this topic. I'll make it simple for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of finite or infinite possible universes, including the universe we live in. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that describe them.

The various universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes" or "alternate universes".

 

[jbrown329]

"They [black holes] are not the eternal prisons they were once thought," IFL reports Hawking said. "Things can get out of a black hole both on the outside and possibly come out in another universe."
Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.
The Telegraph

 

[kallipolis]

Speculations make for interesting reading. I particularly enjoy reading the opinions of Stephen Hawking.

 

[Jacquemar]

I find it extremely funny that the proponent of "numinous experience," and "first cause," and "divine mystery" is attempting to discount far greater minds by calling their ideas fiction.



Pot meet kettle.

Yes Yes Yes! My thoughts exactly!

 

[zoltanspawn]

So much lather about such mild propositions.

 

[TX-Beau]

So much lather about such mild propositions.

I believe that is the function of internet chat boards - to steal a phrase, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[FirmaFan]

For time to begin, as human life understands time, there had to have been a causation for that beginning.

That human life also measures time with the aid of a clock, it can be argued that in terms of time, homo sapiens emerged at five minutes to midnight, leading one to understand that the preceding fifty five minutes is beyond the scope of human appreciation. I've allowed for the dinosaur factor by embracing the thought that prior to the emergence of human life, time was ticking sufficiently for me not to speculate.

Talking about a "cause" for the existence of time is nonsensical since there would need to be the "cause" before there was time, but since there can not be a "before" without time, the very concept breaks apart. Again, "cause" is temporal in nature. It REQUIRES the existence of time.

 

[opinterph]

"cause" ... REQUIRES the existence of time.

What is the basis of time? (i.e. How is it measured?)

 

[Telstra]

What is the basis of time? (i.e. How is it measured?)

It measured it seconds, minutes ... etc
Before the big bang, time doesn't exist.

 

[jbrown329]

Speculations make for interesting reading. I particularly enjoy reading the opinions of Stephen Hawking.

I trust the 'opinions' of Stephen Hawking over any myth filled religious book. A book that a whole lot use to claim that the Earth is only 6000yrs old. And that modern man and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

 

[kallipolis]

I trust the 'opinions' of Stephen Hawking over any myth filled religious book. A book that a whole lot use to claim that the Earth is only 6000yrs old. And that modern man and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

The current discussion is not about comparing any myth filled religious book, with the opinions of Stephen Hawking. Nor has any one here suggested that dinosaurs, and human life walked this earth at the same time. You may well be confused by those who propagate Creationist theories.

 

[kallipolis]

Talking about a "cause" for the existence of time is nonsensical since there would need to be the "cause" before there was time, but since there can not be a "before" without time, the very concept breaks apart. Again, "cause" is temporal in nature. It REQUIRES the existence of time.

Time is duration. We measure the passage of time with clocks, and calendars. The Seasons are also evidence of change in the natural environment. Our ageing bodies represent change, measured in years. Human life is finite.

The divine mystery is also known as The Eternal One/The timeless One. The word eternity expresses the concept of something that has no end and/or no beginning. That which is beyond the parameters that we associate with the passage of time. The eternity of the divine mystery is contrasted with the temporality of man who fades into dust.

Celebrity cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking (recently cited on this thread) believe the beginning of the Big Bang was time t = 0, but other cosmologists (including Sean Carroll, Jennifer Chen, and Julian Barbour) believe our universe had a Big Bang event but that the universe did not begin with this event, and that our universe may be eternal in the past and future. Here you may appreciate that there are many conflicting understandings among scientists, when attempting to understand the beginning of time per the reference point of the Big Bang, as an indicator/mile stone marking the "birth" of physical matter.

We can conclude that there was a beginning to life, as we human beings, understand existence...for our scientists tell us so...returning us to the original question...what was responsible for the...beginning of existence?

Were we to conclude that the emergence of physical matter i.e. The Big Bang, came out of nothingness...we are obliged to accept this idea in "faith."

It can be argued, and theists so argue...that the marking of time is irrelevant to the divine mystery, because it transcends time.

I deliberately choose to use the term, divine mystery for the properties of the creator, are beyond human understanding. We may understand the attributes of the divine mystery such as love, forgiveness, and understanding when living in relationship with its nurturing nature...as a parent loves, and shepherds its children.

“From everlasting to everlasting You are God” ~Psalm 90-2

 

[Jacquemar]

The problem with this argument is that the claim "something can not come from nothing" has yet to be demonstrated as true, and thus, can not be used as reason or evidence in the argument for god.

On the other hand, the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

Not a theory as yet, but a fascinating proposal.