Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MULTIVERSE OR UNIVERSE?
ashley_criminalnpink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 14 (64633)
11-05-2003 9:07 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-05-2003 9:13 PM ashley_criminalnpink has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 14 (64635)
11-05-2003 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ashley_criminalnpink
11-05-2003 9:07 PM


Did you have something specific to discuss in that paper?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ashley_criminalnpink, posted 11-05-2003 9:07 PM ashley_criminalnpink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ashley_criminalnpink, posted 11-05-2003 9:27 PM NosyNed has replied

ashley_criminalnpink
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 14 (64639)
11-05-2003 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
11-05-2003 9:13 PM


no i dont

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-05-2003 9:13 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 11-05-2003 10:44 PM ashley_criminalnpink has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 14 (64652)
11-05-2003 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ashley_criminalnpink
11-05-2003 9:27 PM


Then why did you post that link?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ashley_criminalnpink, posted 11-05-2003 9:27 PM ashley_criminalnpink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ashley_criminalnpink, posted 11-07-2003 6:41 PM NosyNed has replied

ashley_criminalnpink
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 14 (65021)
11-07-2003 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
11-05-2003 10:44 PM


GET OFF MY NUTSSSS JUST PLAYIN
bc it was interesting and i wanted others to see it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 11-05-2003 10:44 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2003 8:22 PM ashley_criminalnpink has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 14 (65054)
11-07-2003 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ashley_criminalnpink
11-07-2003 6:41 PM


Interesting
Well thank you, it is interesting. Next time just add such a comment to the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ashley_criminalnpink, posted 11-07-2003 6:41 PM ashley_criminalnpink has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 7 of 14 (66276)
11-13-2003 1:42 PM


By definition of universe, the totality of any such multiverses would be a universe, i.e. being all that exists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by :æ:, posted 11-13-2003 1:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 12-19-2003 6:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 8 of 14 (66279)
11-13-2003 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
11-13-2003 1:42 PM


I agree with Buzsaw. I think that the structure of the universe is very accurately described by the multiverse hypothesis, however, definitionally each of the many worlds is still part of the whole unity or universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 11-13-2003 1:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 11-14-2003 7:37 AM :æ: has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 9 of 14 (66456)
11-14-2003 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by :æ:
11-13-2003 1:47 PM


We just need a lower level definition for an individual aspect of multiverse type Universe to help clarify things. I think that 'Verse' would be a nicely poetic term for individual 'universes' within the multiverse type Universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by :æ:, posted 11-13-2003 1:47 PM :æ: has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 10 of 14 (74224)
12-19-2003 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
11-13-2003 1:42 PM


I thought mulitverse was used for two basic reasons:
1) To replace the term universe to indicate multiple facets
2) 'Cause that's what sci-fi authors have named the idea since
at least the mid-1950's

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 11-13-2003 1:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Chimp
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 14 (170650)
12-22-2004 4:48 AM


God is defined to be "infinite" and the Multiverse is defined to be an unbound infinity of all possible worlds
It becomes clear that there is no real conceptual difference between an infinite multiverse of all possible worlds and an ultimate "intelligent creator". Since by definition all possibilities must exist, therefore God must exist in at least one universe.
Thus it becomes necessary to eliminate the infinities, in order to ensure that parsimony is well served.
Spontaneous events happen. They cannot be truly accidental but must be connected with an overarching purpose[intent] IF spontaneity is not due to acausality.
Acausality demands a logical justification, hence there is the explanation of randomness and probability distributions, which ultimately lead to absurdities[infinities], therefore the universe cannot be acausal.
The only logical choice is the factor of *intelligence* as the basis of ultimate reality.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Wounded King, posted 12-22-2004 5:00 AM Chimp has not replied
 Message 13 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-22-2004 5:08 AM Chimp has not replied
 Message 14 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-22-2004 5:13 AM Chimp has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 12 of 14 (170655)
12-22-2004 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chimp
12-22-2004 4:48 AM


the Multiverse is defined to be an unbound infinity of all possible worlds
You may choose to define it that way, but it is by no means the only possible definition. The set of all possible worlds need not be infinite, and even if it were then the existence of God would still have to be shown to be possible for what you propose to be true. Also, a God who requires an infinite multiverse to allow his existence seems less than omnipotent.
hence there is the explanation of randomness and probability distributions, which ultimately lead to absurdities[infinities],
Since you are using infinities as the key stone of your argument for God existing it is perhaps rash of you to dismiss them as absurd. Why should a study of probabilistic phenomena neccessarily run in to problems with infinities, probabilities need only range between 0 and 1, are you trying to apply some form of Xeno's paradox here?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chimp, posted 12-22-2004 4:48 AM Chimp has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 14 (170659)
12-22-2004 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chimp
12-22-2004 4:48 AM


Hi Chimp
It becomes clear that there is no real conceptual difference between an infinite multiverse of all possible worlds and an ultimate "intelligent creator". Since by definition all possibilities must exist, therefore God must exist in at least one universe.
I don't think this necessarily holds if we define God to be infinite. What I would agree on is that if the multiverse idea holds then the probability of a super-intelligence with the ability to create universes existing "somewhere out there" is 1. Whether or not we ourselves are in such a Universe goes back to the age-old question of whether or not this notion is testable.
Also, if we define God to be the infinite, then what exactly does this mean. What does it mean to say that infinity is intelligent?
There seems to be a logical contradiction here:
God is defined to be "infinite" (...)
Acausality demands a logical justification, hence there is the explanation of randomness and probability distributions, which ultimately lead to absurdities[infinities]
You seem to be implying that God being infinite, is an absurdity, which I'm sure you didn't mean.
Also, you are invoking a logical justification for acausality, but only asserting that acausality must derive from an intelligence. Can you go into your thought processes for how you arrive at this?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chimp, posted 12-22-2004 4:48 AM Chimp has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 14 of 14 (170660)
12-22-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chimp
12-22-2004 4:48 AM


Closing time
Premise:
1) You also just posted the message at another topic.
2) The other topic seems to overall be more substantial.
3) This topic is in the retiring "Free For All".
Logical conclusion:
This topic closing down.
Perversly amused Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chimp, posted 12-22-2004 4:48 AM Chimp has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024