Dante Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 "The Universe" used to be the Earth. Then it used to be solar system. And then it was the galaxy. We then found that there are more galaxies than just our own. Yet we can arbitrarily state that "everything that exists" can not include anything like a multiverse because....? I would not state that. Everything that exists, exists, and thus is part of the universe. The concept of different "bubbles" of space and time is what seems to me to be what the idea of a multiverse is. I would certainly argue that there is no evidence and quite possibly can be no evidence of such objects, but if they existed, they would by definition be a part of the universe. Our knowledge of what exists has indeed grown, but the idea of our knowledge of stuff extending beyond that which exists is nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 I would not state that. Everything that exists, exists, and thus is part of the universe. The concept of different "bubbles" of space and time is what seems to me to be what the idea of a multiverse is. I would certainly argue that there is no evidence and quite possibly can be no evidence of such objects, but if they existed, they would by definition be a part of the universe. No, they would be a part of the Multiverse. "Uni" implies that there is one. Our knowledge of what exists has indeed grown, but the idea of our knowledge of stuff extending beyond that which exists is nonsense. Theoretical Physics. Things can be postulated mathematically that are often later proven. It's called "science." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaroq Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 As to the existence of God; it's an arbitrary assertion with no basis in reality. God can't be true or false because even a falsity is a fact about reality. God is a floating abstraction that can't be reduced to sense perception in any way. God cannot be validated as true or false, and therefore should be dismissed as completely made up. As for multiverses... I don't know anything about physics, but a friend of mine who believes in many worlds made a claim that the laws of physics are the same in every universe. However, this friend is also a physics determinist. Everything that happens in the universe, he believes, can be predicted, down to the last quark, if one knew physics advanced enough and had tools powerful enough. However, the notion of the universe being determined by physics and the notion of "other" universes that play out our alternate choices are two notions that contradict each other, I believe. If we are determined, there can be no alternatives. If there are alternatives, then we are not determined. This paragraph was not an argument for or against determinism or many worlds by themselves, but rather an illumination that, in my opinion, the two clash. I don't know the science required to validate this, but I assert that physics determinism and alternate universes are incompatible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 As for multiverses... I don't know anything about physics, but a friend of mine who believes in many worlds made a claim that the laws of physics are the same in every universe.It does not take any knowledge of physics to understand why "every universe" is a meaningless expression and why there are not multiple universes. There are multiple galaxies. That's because a galaxy is a huge gravitationally-bound system of matter, and there can easily be many of them (which is why we can see them). The universe, on the other hand, is everything that exists; and that is why there cannot be multiple ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) No, they would be a part of the Multiverse. "Uni" implies that there is one. Yep. One set of bubbles, each with their own galaxies, stars, planets, etc. The word multiverse (in your usage) is just an invention that assumes the original word universe only means "our own present spacetime bubble, apart from others that exist separately". If instead you use the definition of universe as "all that exists" - as everyone else here is doing -, then multiverse and universe are synonymous. Theoretical Physics. Things can be postulated mathematically that are often later proven. It's called "science." You can postulate their existence, but until their existence is shown with evidence, they don't exist. You yourself say "that are often later proven" - that implies that some are either not later proven or are later falsified, which implies that the original postulate was false. Whether we know something physical to exist does not hinge on our theoretical understanding of it, but on the evidence of its existence in reality. Edited September 3, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 You can postulate their existence, but until their existence is shown with evidence, they don't exist.I have to disagree, because that implies that existence is dependent on consciousness. We do not make any claim or postulation of existence without proof, but the fact of existence or non-existence is primary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) I have to disagree, because that implies that existence is dependent on consciousness. You're dropping the context of what we were talking about (or maybe that wasn't clear on my part) - I was referring to the postulated things of theoretical physics, not to anything. Obviously, existents exist independent of our knowing about them, but things that we postulate to exist do not automatically exist, and we can't assume that they do. Only evidence of their existence can show our postulates to be correct. In my text that you quoted, though, I shouldn't have said, "they don't exist", but rather "we can't assume they exist". Now whether or not I was accurately responding to whatever it was that Maximus was asserting, that's a different story. Edited September 3, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 In my text that you quoted, though, I shouldn't have said, "they don't exist", but rather "we can't assume they exist".Yes, that is correct, and I wasn't dropping any context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Yes, that is correct, and I wasn't dropping any context. Agreed. Bad wording on my part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllMenAreIslands Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 QUOTE Our knowledge of what exists has indeed grown, but the idea of our knowledge of stuff extending beyond that which exists is nonsense. Theoretical Physics. Things can be postulated mathematically that are often later proven. It's called "science." Postulating theories about things which can exist, but for which there is as yet little or even no evidence, is quite a different activity from postulating theories about the axiomatically impossible. One cannot properly theorize about the origin/beginning of the Universe because such an event cannot exist. *** The meaning of the term "Universe" has gone through a series of reference points- Earth, Solar System, Galaxy, etc. But that does not mean the Universe itself changed. Rather, our knowledge and understanding of it changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthVeritas Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Postulating theories about things which can exist, but for which there is as yet little or even no evidence, is quite a different activity from postulating theories about the axiomatically impossible. One cannot properly theorize about the origin/beginning of the Universe because such an event cannot exist. *** The meaning of the term "Universe" has gone through a series of reference points- Earth, Solar System, Galaxy, etc. But that does not mean the Universe itself changed. Rather, our knowledge and understanding of it changed. How do you view the fact that existance cannot come from non-existance? I ask in terms of considering that, as we know, life comes from life. As Dawkins said, there appears to be a designer but he rules it out by asking who designed the designer? However, he just drops it. Here is a syllogism to look at regarding existance. http://pepperedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2009/...ponder-and.html What is your response? Also, this is dealt with in a discussion with Ben Stein and RC Sproul. http://pepperedwithsalt.blogspot.com/ (videos at top of page. It discusses chance as having no power). This seems to say that there has to be an eternal being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 I haven't watched the linked video yet, but so far I don't see how you come to your proposed conclusion that "there has to be an eternal being" if by "being" you mean a conscious thing. The linked syllogism is good for saying there can never have been nothing at all, true. As for there not being true randomness since things act in accordance with their natures, that's not the same thing as stuff being "designed," which is begging the question on a "designer" existing by presupposing there was one. As for how there can be so much complexity that works together so well these days without a conscious plan guiding it if that is bugging you, have you ever heard the thing about the puddle which looks at the hole it is in as says to itself, "Wow! This is amazing! Look at this hole! It's just perfect for me down to every last nook and cranny! Surely this hole must have been designed just for me,"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 How do you view the fact that existance cannot come from non-existance?As entirely consistent with the fact that the universe was not created, and that it did not come from anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllMenAreIslands Posted September 5, 2009 Report Share Posted September 5, 2009 How do you view the fact that existance cannot come from non-existance? I ask in terms of considering that, as we know, life comes from life. As Dawkins said, there appears to be a designer but he rules it out by asking who designed the designer? However, he just drops it. Here is a syllogism to look at regarding existance. http://pepperedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2009/...ponder-and.html What is your response? Also, this is dealt with in a discussion with Ben Stein and RC Sproul. http://pepperedwithsalt.blogspot.com/ (videos at top of page. It discusses chance as having no power). This seems to say that there has to be an eternal being. Did you misunderstand my post? The syllogism at that link is a good way of putting it into simpler language. *If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now. *Something exists now. *Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed. Since there never could be a time that absolutely nothing existed, "when did the Universe begin" or "how did it begin" are improper questions to ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthVeritas Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Did you misunderstand my post? The syllogism at that link is a good way of putting it into simpler language. *If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now. *Something exists now. *Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed. Since there never could be a time that absolutely nothing existed, "when did the Universe begin" or "how did it begin" are improper questions to ask. Then you are at odds, I assume, with evolutionists who constantly talk about how they wonder how the universe began. This is Dawkins question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 (edited) Then you are at odds, I assume, with evolutionists who constantly talk about how they wonder how the universe began. This is Dawkins question. Not only does biological evolution not speak to the origin of life, it certainly doesn't speak to the origin of the universe. Dawkins should stick to biology - he gets the philosophy and ethics wrong, as do many atheists. In their effort to not entirely alienate themselves from the mainstream, they presume there is some value in altruism. Edited September 14, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Then you are at odds, I assume, with evolutionists who constantly talk about how they wonder how the universe began. This is Dawkins question. Scientists are just as capable of asking the wrong questions as anyone, and they frequently do ask the wrong questions as you can see. Also, most scientists are not good philosophers. Because time is a feature of existence, it makes no sense to ask about a time when there wasn't anything. So existence has always "been". If you find the idea of an eternal God more plausible than an idea of an eternal existence (i.e. universe, when universe is taken to mean everything that exists), you are probably operating from a primacy of consciousness viewpoint. But don't forget, consciousness can't exist without something to be conscious OF. It ALWAYS comes second, and existence comes first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 If you find the idea of an eternal God more plausible than an idea of an eternal existence So God did what eternally, if he didn't exist? It makes no sense to talk of an eternal God that existed before existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Not only does biological evolution not speak to the origin of life, it certainly doesn't speak to the origin of the universe. Dawkins should stick to biology - he gets the philosophy and ethics wrong, as do many atheists. In their effort to not entirely alienate themselves from the mainstream, they presume there is some value in altruism. This is so dead right. It's very disappointing to read a high-calibre scientist like Dawkins get things half right, and half wrong. His take on morality is sophomoric. Makes one recognize how much philosophy is the ultimate science, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 I read Dawkin's The God Delusion and found it quite informative. The part which has affected me the 2nd most profoundly (the one on evolutionary altruism is #1) is the last chapter. In it he discusses how our consciousness has evolved within a very narrow band of existence. He used the electromagnetic spectrum as a good example. What we can see is only a tiny fraction of the spectrum. The same goes for reality in general. We need to use tools to examine the very large and very small. This lead me to ask, what's the origin of our reasoning capacities? It's based on our evolutionary experience within that narrow band of reality. So while it feels very normal and natural to assume that existence can't have a beginning, that's under the assumption made by a nervous system which has evolved on a little planet in a small corner of the universe. Under what authority can anyone say that such a nervous system can decree absolutely that existence cannot have an origin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) our evolutionary experience within that narrow band of reality We have invented equipment which can measure the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, as well as sounds at frequencies that are outside our capabilities, and lengths/speeds that are too small for us discern. We have found that in those areas, the universe acts in the same predictable, understandable way. More generally, everything in the universe acts and interacts in a causal way according to the natures of the things, which we can empirically determine. Despite the heavy scientific tone of your post, though, yours is a philosophical question. For "everything which exists" to have had an origin would require that something existed before, thus becoming part of the "everything which exists". Edited September 15, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonrobt Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Then you are at odds, I assume, with evolutionists who constantly talk about how they wonder how the universe began. This is Dawkins question. But evolution, properly considered, is much more than just about life - it is the concept of concerted change, which would involve all aspects of the universe itself, and which could be said to be cyclic, so that there is no real 'beginning' or 'end'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.