Skip to comments.God or a multiverse?
Posted on 12/08/2008 11:56:24 AM PST by Soliton
Is there a God or a multiverse? Does modern cosmology force us to choose? Is it the case that the apparent fine-tuning of constants and forces to make the universe just right for life means there is either a need for a "tuner" or else a cosmos in which every possible variation of these constants and forces exists somewhere?
This choice has provoked anxious comment in the pages of this week's New Scientist. It follows an article in Discover magazine, in which science writer Tim Folger quoted cosmologist Bernard Carr: "If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse."
Even strongly atheistic physicists seem to believe the choice is unavoidable. Steven Weinberg, the closest physics comes to a Richard Dawkins, told the eminent biologist: "If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse."
The anxiety in the New Scientist stems in part from the way this apparent choice has been leapt upon by the intelligent design people. Scientists don't like that since it seems to suggest that ID offers a theory that cosmologists are taking seriously. It doesn't of course: ID wasn't science before the multiverse hypothesis gained prominence, just a few years ago; and it hasn't become science since.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
The silliness begins with the assumption that God and a multiverse is an exclusive “or”. It smacks of denying God because platypuses exist, and they are just too weird to have been created except randomly. Bad logic.
Let’s define terms. Say you take a coin from your pocket, and for no particular reason, you flip it. It is a “heads”, but it could just as likely have been a “tails”. In addition to what it was, the possible other outcome was created, an energetic possibility, a “microverse” in which “tails” was the outcome. But then you put the coin back in your pocket, and the two possibilities collapse back together.
So the term possibility, in this case, means a temporary division of reality.
Later that day, however, you decide to select your career from two choices: either the US Marine Corps, or to become a ballet dancer. Again, whichever one you choose, the other one is also chosen, but the divergence is so great, it transcends a “possibility” and becomes a true “alternative” reality. You essentially create an identical twin in a parallel reality, so you can experience both alternatives. And the alternate reality doesn’t collapse back together with this reality until you are both dead.
Possibilities and alternatives lend themselves to the “bubble membrane” theory of reality, in which events are contained in reality bubbles, that behave a little bit like bubbles in soda. Each bubble defines its own “microverse”, which contains event variables, but is in turn defined by the larger bubbles it is inside. Physical objects continually pass between bubbles with no loss of continuity, as they, along with events, actually make the bubbles in the first place.
I vote for God AND multiverse.
They are in no way mutually exclusive.
And a right to vote! Scary, isn't it?
Read “Star Maker” by Olaf Stapledon. Written in 1937, before the modern age of cosmology, he posits an ultimate creative force that creates cosmos after cosmos.
Did you really read my post or the article itself? I pointed out that your belief in a multiverse is not anything but wordy "sh*t happens". The article itself says as much and in fact has a rather intriguing conclusion.
The idea of multiple universes is generally driven by a notion of how many universes and how many life-spans of universes you’d have to have for even the simplest animals to evolve, i.e. by the basic probabilistic impossibility of macro-evolution. Dealing with reality as it lies is simpler.
The multiverse has serious problems. Check out ‘Reasonable Faith’ by William Lane Craig, a philosophy who is renowned for consistently winning debates with atheists. Or if you prefer a mildly heretical atheist, check out ‘The Road to Reality’ by Roger Penrose. He has penetrating criticisms of both major theories of the multiverse (eternal inflation and cosmological natural selection).
It’s something called “putting God in a box” and somehow it forces and limits all of His wonders! Did I also say it was pure rubbish. Spoken out of satan’s mouth. Jesus was very clear on that point “you either belong to Me, or to your father the devil” Sorta limits the fashionable baloney and ambiguity of the intelligent designer set. It’s thankfully not my job to judge the sinners, nor glorify the saints. Give Jesus Christ the credit, give Him all of the glory!
"The world is full of fools; and he who would not wish to see one, must not only shut himself up alone, butmust also break his looking-glass." --Boileau
Asimov had one too. It ends with a super computer saying “let there be light”.
I don't know
I must be in one of the other universes where Occam’s Razor doesn’t exist. The idea of the multiverse, in my opinion, gives the phrase “mental masterbation” it’s definition.
Why not both? If God is supernatural, by definition, he exists beyond our understanding of space/time. For God, it cold be that all options exist and He is not constrained human view of the progression of time (ie, past, present, future, and all probable outcomes exist to Him at the same moment.)
No not really. It just says that variety is necessary for natural selection to operate. Recently it has been suggested that we have detected gravitational effects FROM OUTSIDE THE BOUNDaRY OF OUR UNIVERSE
Does modern cosmology force us to choose?
Uh. False choice.
The multiverse theory is absurd. Talk to me when you can test it.
Is it the case that the apparent fine-tuning of constants
Not that sh-t, again.
That is the point of the article
Intelligent- in order to have designed and created such a complex and orderly universe.
Well, Sollie, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So the challenge goes to you, as well. Can you describe what characteristics a "multiverse" would have?
And since you're being all materialistic on us, can you describe how the multiverse came into existence in the first place?
We await your authoritative response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.