Replies

Look, it’s really quite simple. I think the ‘Multi-verse’ conjecture is a bogus exercise as there is NO basis for proliferating ‘Universes’ in order to overcome a purely human inability to comprehend the concept of ‘infinity’. Referring back to @102,

Aw come on, 21stCenturion, do you mean to suggest that you do have the ability to "comprehend the concept of 'infinity'?" On the possibility that you might so comprehend (though that certainly seems doubtful to me), I suspect "infinity" in your sense would just be a stand-in for God.

You wrote:

... the ‘Multi-verse’ addresses the notion that a single Universe is insufficient to contain all the possible components, events, information and whatever other ‘stuff’ CAN POSSIBLY exist. This assumes that every possible event or outcome of the interaction of all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever MUST somehow be permitted to occur, somehow, someplace, sometime.

Just who is it that (seemingly) claims to know future events (at least in general if not in each and every particular) and all the details of what is needed — "all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever" — because they "...MUST somehow be permitted to occur, somehow, someplace, sometime."

That person evidently has a most exalted, God-like view of things. Kinda reminds me of Laplace....

Tell me, why MUST "all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever" be "instantiated?" According to what rule, what purpose? Just because this cite of yours (with whom you state you disagree) insists that they should — i.e., insists that all possibilities eventually must manifest themselves, given enough time?

But of course, infinity doesn't really have so much to do with time as it does with number. It is a mathematical concept; and some physicists have complained that it is "unconstructible" in natural science.

I think what your cite may have in mind is "endless time." If time is endless, then anything that can happen, will happen. And the pièce de résistence is that if time is endless, then randomness might (in all probability) have a chance to "accidentally organize" itself into something actual. This is the thousand-monkeys-with-typewriters-shut-up-in-a-room-trying-to-compose-Shakespeare scenario.

Of course you don't need multiple universes to explain the manifold of the Universe. If there are other "universes," they would be embodied, integrated in some fashion into the ONE, indivisible Universe, the living Universe of God's Logos in the Beginning. JMHO.

You wrote:

Man’s ‘knowledge of God’ is merely the product of faith and the belief in some supernatural power that operates outside the realm of reason or the scope of man’s intelligence. That is NOT ‘knowledge’, that is the denial that ‘knowledge’ is possible.

God is not "supernatural": He is not any kind of "natural." He is absolutely irreducible to your "measurements." He most definitely IS outside the realm of reason, and definitely beyond the scope of man's intelligence, individual, collective, historical.

As Saint Anselm said (in Proslogion):

O Lord, you are not only that than which a greater cannot be conceived, but you are also greater than what can be conceived.

Anselm is thinking and reasoning along a line that perhaps you don't suspect exists:

Speak to my desirous soul what you are, other than what it has seen, that it may clearly see what it desires.

For Anselm, the fides quarens intellectum — the quest of faith seeking understanding, knowledge — is not essentially epistemic; it is volitional. Anselm is drawn by the Love of God, which he fervently and ever faithfully returns.

In the end, I gather we disagree about this: You believe that faith and reason are mutually exclusive; I do not.

Rather I believe they are necessary complementarities. Truthful human knowledge requires the light of both.

But it's late, 21stCenturion, and I've run on long. It's time to say good night — and sleep tight!

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!

Precisely so.

Since the 1960s forward measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation consistently agree that the universe is expanding. This means that space and time do not pre-exist but are created as the universe expands. It also means there was a beginning of real space and real time.

That was the most theological statement to ever come out of modern science (Jastrow) – “In the beginning, God created …” (Gen 1:1)

There is no infinite past. Steady state cosmology is dead as a doornail.

So of course physical cosmologists went into high gear trying to obviate God the Creator evidently because methodological naturalism cannot allow for Creator God.

But none of the theories – cyclic, ekpyrotic, multi-verse, multi-world, imaginary time, etc. – can avoid the problem that space and time do not pre-exist.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Both are required for physical causation.

In other words, there can be no physical causation (energy momentum, wave fluctuation, etc.) without real space and real time.

Also, the singularity of big bang cosmology is not nothing:

Mathematically, the dimension of a space is the minimum number of coordinates (axes) necessary to identify a point within the space. A space of zero dimensions is a point; one dimension, a line, two dimensions, a plane; three, a cube, etc. That is the geometry of it. In zero dimensions, the mathematical point is indivisible.

It is not nothing. It is a spatial point. A singularity is not nothing.

In ex nihilo Creation (beginning of space/time) - the dimensions are not merely zero, they are null, dimensions do not exist at all. There is no space and no time. Period.

There is no mathematical point, no volume, no content, no scalar quantities. Ex nihilo doesn’t exist in relationship to anything else; there is no thing.

In an existing physical space, each point (e.g. particle) can be parameterized by a quantity such as mass. The parameter (e.g. a specific quantity within the range of possible quantities) is in effect another descriptor or quasi-dimension that uniquely identifies the point within the space.

Moreover, if the quantity of the parameter changes for a point, then a time dimension is invoked. For example, at one moment the point value is “0” and the next it is “1”.

Wave propagation (e.g. big bang, inflation) cannot occur in null dimensions nor can it occur in zero spatial dimensions, a mathematical point; a dimension of time is required for any fluctuation in a parameter value at a point.

Moreover, wave propagation must also have a spatial/temporal relation from cause point to effect point, i.e. physical causation.

For instance “0” at point n^t causes “1” at point n+1^t+1 which causes "0" at point n+1^t+2 etc..

Obviously, physical wave propagation (e.g. big bang/inflationary model) cannot precede space/time and physical causality.

The wise man asks: Why this instead of nothing at all?

And he realizes that only God, beyond space/time and physical causation, can be the uncaused cause of causation, the first cause, The Creator of the beginning.

Space, time and physical causation are not properties of God the Creator. They are properties of the Creation. Only God is uncaused.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

The origin of space, time and physical causation – although striking - are not the only open questions that vex scientists. There is also no explanation for the origin of information (Shannon, successful communication,) inertia, semiosis, autonomy and so on. And yet the universe is logical – if it were not, we could not understand it at all.

Order cannot arise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. There are always guides to the system whether one is using chaos theory, self-organizing complexity, cellular automata or whatever to analyze complexification, entropy and order.

Indeed, to me, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Wigner) is God’s copyright notice on the cosmos.

Logos is the Greek word which is translated “Word” in the following passage. It is also the root for the word “Logic:”

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4

God’s Name is I AM.

I wrote —

I think the ‘Multi-verse’ conjecture is a bogus exercise as there is NO basis for proliferating ‘Universes’ in order to overcome a purely human inability to comprehend the concept of ‘infinity’.

You replied —

Aw come on, 21stCenturion, do you mean to suggest that you do have the ability to “comprehend the concept of ‘infinity’?” On the possibility that you might so comprehend (though that certainly seems doubtful to me), I suspect “infinity” in your sense would just be a stand-in for God.

Seems I didn’t actually say anything that resembles your conclusions. I DO comprehend the definition of ‘infinity’ — that is no great accomplishment, I think. Whether I can, in my limited mind, grasp the significance or meaning of an expression like ‘an infinite number of Universes’ is questionable. I did NOT assert possession of such an insight.

Further, ‘infinity’ in ‘my’ sense has to do with an exercise in counting, nothing more. Nowhere did I imply some being / existence / personality / whatever that could reasonably be construed as ‘God’. That presumption originates with you.

You wrote —

Just who is it that (seemingly) claims to know future events (at least in general if not in each and every particular) and all the details of what is needed — “all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever” — because they “...MUST somehow be permitted to occur, somehow, someplace, sometime.”

That person evidently has a most exalted, God-like view of things. Kinda reminds me of Laplace....

Laplace ? I assume you refer to “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là” ( I did not need this hypothesis then ) ? I never went there, except, I suppose, to the extent that I made no appeal to the supernatural at any time to justify or explain myself.

I never asserted ‘an exalted God-like view of things’, as you so cheerfully provided me with. I humbly view myself as a bit too modest to claim such an exalted opinion or myself or my ‘notions’ as stated herein.

You conclude —

In the end, I gather we disagree about this: You believe that faith and reason are mutually exclusive; I do not.

Rather I believe they are necessary complementarities. Truthful human knowledge requires the light of both.

NOT my words, you’ll quickly realize —

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1

For once, you nailed me. I absolutely DO believe that faith and reason are absolutely incompatible — mutually exclusive, to use your terms. To that extent, you’re right, our ‘world views’ ARE ‘mutually incompatible’.

In my chosen profession ( engineering ) we would rightfully condemn someone who filters / modifies / corrupts data in order to fit a predetermined conclusion. It’s certainly NOT honest; it doesn’t change the underlying reality; and the results must, inevitably, produce failure. Passing reality through a lens of ‘faith’ and claiming the results are equivalent to the product of ‘reason’ looks a lot like that.

One Man’s Opinion

21stCenturion