|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Multiverses possible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps far out might be more correct than rule out. I can attach no meaning to this sentence.
It's when we start hearing other universe descriptions presented as an alternative to the anthropic that we start seeing science getting edgy about religion. Au contraire. The combination of multiple universes with the weak anthropic principle is one of the zillion instances in which we see religion getting edgy about science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hsweet Junior Member (Idle past 620 days) Posts: 30 Joined: |
Far out? That's olde hippie talk meaning way beyond the normal scope of things. Dictionary: marked by a considerable departure from the conventional or traditional
See my response in message # 15 for a few words on science and religion. But the subject there is far to alien for those few words to be of any meaning to anyone not previously exposed. Just consider it to be a referential statement. BTW, I an not a theist. Neither am I a materialist nor an agnostic. The vectors into this morass I've found relevant are mythological, historical, psychological, logical and experiential. But that's for another forum!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
No, there's a lot that isn't... ...infinite dimensional vector spaces Well, other than the entirety of quantum mechanics
p-adic number system Go chat to Alain Connes and he'll explain how p-adics explain the whole of physics. I couldn't really follow him 18 years ago, so I'm not even going to try now!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
nwr writes: No, there's a lot that isn't... cavediver writes:
There's a difference between saying that the mathematics is useful in physics, and saying that the mathematics is derived from what is observed in the physical world.Well, other than the entirety of quantum mechanics Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are Multiverses Possible? I'd say they're possible, but it depends on what you mean... In one sense, by the nature of the word UNIverse, its talking about everything that is, so even if there was another -verse, it would still be a part of the UNI-verse. On the other hand, if we talking about our universe as the bubble we live in, then I don't see any reason why there couldn't be another bubble (that we don't live in), or even a whole sea of foam with each bubble being its own "uni"-verse. (In the former sense the whole foam would be called the universe and each bubble would be a somethingelse-verse). So what do you mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hsweet Junior Member (Idle past 620 days) Posts: 30 Joined: |
Hello Catholic Scientist. For a moment there I thought that I read 'Catholic Saint'. Now there would be a real authoritative source!
I agree with your etymology. Thus far, I've been pursuing what, IMHO, is the errant logic of projecting the contents of creation (the known universe) to the Source of Creation. Some have argued that other universes could have come from that same source but, if so, they are way out of our ballpark maybe conceivable through advanced mathematics. Anyone thinking of taking a trip there, at today's level of knowledge, reminds me of those in ancient times whose view of space travel required the use of bird like wings!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Thus far, I've been pursuing what, IMHO, is the errant logic of projecting the contents of creation (the known universe) to the Source of Creation. What is being referred to with "the Source of Creation"?
Some have argued that other universes could have come from that same source but, if so, they are way out of our ballpark maybe conceivable through advanced mathematics. If the Source generated one universe, why couldn't it do another? It couldn't if the Source was the contents, themselves, but you're arguing against that... So, what's another reason? In the OP (opening post), you wrote:
quote: The fields are sota like the "places" where those other things exist. If you make the fields analogous to the surface of the ocean, then the matter and energy of our universe would be the ripples and waves on that surface. Everything is the field(s) and things don't exist independently of it/them. But that doesn't preclude some other -verse exiting somewhere else. I'm not entirely following your argument. How are the contents being projected to the Source and why does that eliminate multiverses as possibilities? Oh, and I've found a minor quibble:
quote: Matter didn't exist until some amount of time after the Big Bang, so there was that little bit of time without matter. And time is another dimension, its not just a denotation of movement. ABE (added by edit): I forgot to say: Killer 'stache! Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hsweet Junior Member (Idle past 620 days) Posts: 30 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist, This is going to be a hard, if not impossible, one for a Catholic to grasp. "Source of Creation" would be a non personified creator deity which seems to be an oxymoron. Another way of looking at it would be as god, impersonal.
I agree that the Source of Creation could have spurned off another universe. My argument is that it is illogical to argue that the Source of Creation, in any way, resembles the creation. It is interesting that you mentioned the ocean and wave metaphor. That is a common Indian (India) metaphor relating the ocean of Consciousness to us, the individual waves that merely come and go. If the Source of Creation generated other universes, they are absolutely beyond us in any way imaginable. At this point, such is merely hypothesis with no substantiation. I won't argue about the chronology of the events following the Big Bang -- beyond my level of competence. Time has been called a dimension but that dimension is within the universe and is relative to motion of particles and energy. Without that motion what would time be measuring? (I do manage to keep the 'stache under control. I had a friend, once, whose beard grew by the minute but the poor guy couldn't grow a decent mustache. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist, This is going to be a hard, if not impossible, one for a Catholic to grasp. Excuse me? There's no need to be presumptuous and condescending. Catholicism has no impedence on my ability to grasp. And you shouldn't judge people by their names.
"Source of Creation" would be a non personified creator deity which seems to be an oxymoron. Another way of looking at it would be as god, impersonal. When we're in the Science Forum (see near the top of the page for the forum descriptions), claims are expected to be supported by evidence, so we don't really talk about god. I was under the impression we were discussing this from a cosmological perspective, but I don't care if you wanna get all philisophical on me.
I agree that the Source of Creation could have spurned off another universe. So multiverses are possible.
My argument is that it is illogical to argue that the Source of Creation, in any way, resembles the creation. Okay, where has that been argued? And what do you mean be "resemble"? And what if there is no source outside of the universe itself? The universe has existed at all points in time, so I'm not even sure "source" is a good word here. I would say that if the universe sourced itself, then the source would resemble the creation.... but it would have been a helluva lot different in the ealiest parts so maybe 'resemble' isn't a good word either.
If the Source of Creation generated other universes, they are absolutely beyond us in any way imaginable. And how would you know that? Maybe they're just like ours... just "over there". I don't see any reason why they have to be different.
At this point, such is merely hypothesis with no substantiation. Kinda like the existence of the Source of Creation...
I won't argue about the chronology of the events following the Big Bang -- beyond my level of competence. Hear and now is the place and time to ask.
Time has been called a dimension but that dimension is within the universe and is relative to motion of particles and energy. Without that motion what would time be measuring? Well, you could measure the duration of a stasis, or just entropy, or heat transference, or maybe something else... The spatial dimensions, too, are within the univers and relative. Just don't get caught in the trap that time isn't a real thing but only something used to measure movement. That's a big step in understanding Big Bang cosmology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Far out? That's olde hippie talk meaning way beyond the normal scope of things. Well then, it's not a concept that you can usefully apply, since "the normal scope of things" is something we learn from experience. You can, for example, use your experience of how the world works to see that the following statements graduate from inevitable to normal to "far out": * I have a head.* I have a pair of shoes. * I have a tennis racket. * I have a tennis court. * I have an elephant. * I have a unicorn. But you have to use your experience, there is nothing a priori about my not having a unicorn. So when it comes to the origin of the universe, you have no basis of experience to say whether it would be more "far out" for there to be one universe, or seventeen, or aleph-zero.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hsweet Junior Member (Idle past 620 days) Posts: 30 Joined: |
Well, Catholic Scientist, you have given me a lot to think about.
I am not attempting to be condescending but, instead, respectful of other views. The title. "Catholic" implies what it says -- especially when it is a self chosen pseudonym. When you are discussing the origins of the universe, you are entering a netherworld where science and non-science collide. So, even in a science forum, some tolerance of non-science is needed. I have heard arguments that postulate some baseline 'energy field' or unintentionally treats space and time as stand alone infinite entities. The logic that I have presented is that these are but constituents of the universe. By resembling the creation, I mean that it would be illogical to perceive the Source of Creation in terms of the creation. It would be neither matter, nor energy nor space nor time. To choose energy as baseline, for example, would be saying that the energy source of creation manifested a universe in which it was but a component. Illogical. According th Big Bang theory, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. This would mean that it has existed for that length of time and not 'all points in time' -- unless you meant something different by that term than what I am understanding. I agree that 'Source of Creation' is a term that could be improved on. We are into a region where words, whose task is to symbolize what is within creation, lose their strength. Other descriptions that I have heard include 'underlies manifest relative reality'. We are at the limits of science here. Examining space, time, matter and energy is going to confine us to this side of the Big Bang. We can hypothesize that other universes may exist and what they may look like but will never be able to go any further. In addition, that speculation will consist entirely of some combination of space, time matter and energy. Anything else is beyond imagination. Try it. The Source of Creation is transcendent and experiential but that is probably too much for discussion in a conventional scientific forum. I am not claiming that time is not real -- just that it is relative to the other elements and, as such, does not exist independently as, for all practical purposes, such is true in the here and now. Stasis? In the deepest sense, I would have to ask a physicist whether permanent stasis was a reality. Entropy and heat transference do involve change which is motion. There, I think I have covered it all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
h writes: According th Big Bang theory, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. This would mean that it has existed for that length of time and not 'all points in time' -- unless you meant something different by that term than what I am understanding. Given that time began with the Big Bang can you give an example of a "point in time" that is not included in that description?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hsweet Junior Member (Idle past 620 days) Posts: 30 Joined: |
Well, I don't want to get into a deep discussion on the meaning of the term 'far out'. Suffice it to say that discussions on the nature of other universes are in the realm of guesses that have no hope of ever being substantiated. We are all happy to apply the scientific method to understanding the relationship between space, time, matter and energy but that is as far as science will take us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hsweet Junior Member (Idle past 620 days) Posts: 30 Joined: |
Straggler, My question was to Catholic Scientist wondering if, by point in time', he was referring to something outside of the 13.7 billion years that is under our lens. My view is coincident with your's -- that time is a constituent of the universe and not a stand alone infinite entity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, I don't want to get into a deep discussion on the meaning of the term 'far out'. Suffice it to say that discussions on the nature of other universes are in the realm of guesses that have no hope of ever being substantiated. I wouldn't say that there was "no hope"; and whatever can be said on this subject could also be applied to the remarkable proposition that there is only one universe. How "far out" would that be? At present that too is a wild unsubstantiated guess.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024