|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MULTIVERSE OR UNIVERSE? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ashley_criminalnpink Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Did you have something specific to discuss in that paper?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ashley_criminalnpink Inactive Member |
no i dont
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Then why did you post that link?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ashley_criminalnpink Inactive Member |
bc it was interesting and i wanted others to see it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Well thank you, it is interesting. Next time just add such a comment to the post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
By definition of universe, the totality of any such multiverses would be a universe, i.e. being all that exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I thought mulitverse was used for two basic reasons:
1) To replace the term universe to indicate multiple facets2) 'Cause that's what sci-fi authors have named the idea since at least the mid-1950's
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chimp Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024