This is tedious. You can chip away at 'the multiverse' all you like to create a gap to fill with your god putty, the 'truth' is almost certainly more bizarre and incomprehensible than either of us can imagine...By the way, if anyone wants to talk about how an infinite number of universes requires that sets of laws of physics must be contained within a boundary, and these boundaries must exist within a larger space-time. if we wanted to talk about that, we could get into hyper-drive physics.
This is tedious. You can chip away at 'the multiverse' all you like to create a gap to fill with your god putty, the 'truth' is almost certainly more bizarre and incomprehensible than either of us can imagine...
You still aren't acknowledging your reasoning is motivated.I disagree. I am only following the non-God explanation to it's logical conclusion. An infinite set of universes means an infinite set of laws of physics. Besides the fact that it strains our minds with things that are beyond our experience, it also risks infinite messiness.
Yeah, but God-putty will get you further than agnosti-glue.This is tedious. You can chip away at 'the multiverse' all you like to create a gap to fill with your god putty, the 'truth' is almost certainly more bizarre and incomprehensible than either of us can imagine...
What's wrong with being motivated? Like I told malf, agnosti-glue doesn't get things done, it doesn't get anything accomplished.You still aren't acknowledging your reasoning is motivated.
Depends what you need to get done I suppose. (That's the 'needy' part of having to choose an option.)What's wrong with being motivated? Like I told malf, agnosti-glue doesn't get things done, it doesn't get anything accomplished.
I'm just an average Joe, an electronics technician. But even I can see the implications of God versus multiverse.Depends what you need to get done I suppose. (That's the 'needy' part of having to choose an option.)
I'm not sure why you have the balls to speculate this.Yes I do have a law that prevents it. If other universes exist, then they must exist here, all around us. But that would cause an infinitely cluttered multiverse which would either be detectable or would be too cluttered to support life.
Perhaps the universes are entirely independent.However, if the universes were separated by distances, then that would imply that our space-time exists within another space-time, and could in fact be several layers deep, space-time within other space-times.
Huh?We would be able to detect that as well. You are overlooking the fact that randomness has a cost in chaos and messiness; yet we see orderliness all around us.
I am completely shocked that you could say such a thing. I am completely speechless.I'm not sure why you have the balls to speculate this.
I don't see how they could be independent. How many universe generators are there in existence?Perhaps the universes are entirely independent.
Allow me to elaborate. The laws of physics, like the standard model/GR/QM/Thermodynamics tell us how particles interact in space and time. These are laws that must be obeyed. But if there are an infinite number of laws from an infinite number of universes, then suddenly particles are too constrained to do anything.Huh?
You seem quite sure of yourself when you say "Yes I do have a law that prevents it. If other universes exist, then they must exist here, all around us. But that would cause an infinitely cluttered multiverse which would either be detectable or would be too cluttered to support life."I am completely shocked that you could say such a thing. I am completely speechless.
Anywhere from zero to infinity.I don't see how they could be independent. How many universe generators are there in existence?
Why are particles in one universe constrained by another universe?Allow me to elaborate. The laws of physics, like the standard model/GR/QM/Thermodynamics tell us how particles interact in space and time. These are laws that must be obeyed. But if there are an infinite number of laws from an infinite number of universes, then suddenly particles are too constrained to do anything.
Why does there have to be only one "universe generator"?As for the independence of universes in a multiverse, I don't see how they could be indpendent. But remember, we only know of one universe, one space-time. If you want to envision an infinite number of universe (so that we get lucky enough to get one with humans), then all of those universes have to come from the same universe generator. Therefore, all of those universes have to be linked or connected somehow. To use an analogy, it's like the billions of McDonalds hambergers; they are all linked somehow. They are linked by the materials that are used, by the wrapping, by the hamburger ingredients which will often come from the same slaughter house, etc, etc.
Why?So if you want to argue that there are an infinite number of unlucky universes that do not produce human life, then you really can't get away from the fact that the universes must be tied together somehow, they can't be isolated but are all related to each other.
Unless they are spaced out or separated. But then that implies another space-time that contains all of those universes.You seem quite sure of yourself when you say "Yes I do have a law that prevents it. If other universes exist, then they must exist here, all around us. But that would cause an infinitely cluttered multiverse which would either be detectable or would be too cluttered to support life."
Where does an infinity of universe generators come from? What generates an infinite number of universe generator?Anywhere from zero to infinity.
The particles of each universe are not constrained. However, two universes (two space-times) would be connected by their position within a third, larger spacae-time.Why are particles in one universe constrained by another universe?
Where do universe generators come from? What generates the universe generator?Why does there have to be only one "universe generator"?
A universe generator has to imprint laws of physics for that universe upon something, something that can carry out the instructions of the laws of physics. That something is what interconnects everything.Why?
I don't think so.Unless they are spaced out or separated. But then that implies another space-time that contains all of those universes.
I don't even know what a "universe generator" is. We are both talking out of our arses.Where does an infinity of universe generators come from? What generates an infinite number of universe generator?
The universes need not be at some position in a meta-universe. You're paying too much homage to Descartes.The particles of each universe are not constrained. However, two universes (two space-times) would be connected by their position within a third, larger spacae-time.
Doesn't really matter. It makes more sense for there to be a Creator with a plan. A lot of us have seen strange things, beings, angels, all that stuff. Aliens have come out of nowhere and abducted humans and then let them go. Near death experiences are quite common. Science can't explain consciousness in terms of materialism. The writing is on the wall.I don't think so.
This is the kind of wacko stuff that you have to consider if you want to argue that there is no Creator.I don't even know what a "universe generator" is. We are both talking out of our arses.
Never heard of him. Anyway it just makes more sense to believe in God, in the Holy Spirit.The universes need not be at some position in a meta-universe. You're paying too much homage to Descartes. ~~ Paul
While admittedly no gods or a Supreme God have been proven to exist in a scientific absolute way, it is clear that the powers of creation would manifest in a far more orderly way if govered by conscious and intelligent beings. It is a far more explainable mystery that we have not witnessed any gods or the Creator just to say that when they did appear and demonstrate their powers of creation, that religions inevitably sprang into existence.
The interesting thing about this argument (and the various forms of it we see, especially when it comes to idealism arguments) is that if we can say that our experience about consciousness and mind comes from our own minds then the one thing that our consciousness seems not to be is orderly and consistent.
Our minds are all over the place. Our memories are inconsistent. Our attention spans are short. We make mistakes regularly. We change our minds. We change directions and focus. I'm not criticising - this is just how we are.
For more reliable consistency we tend to look to machines.
Compare that to what would have to be case of a universal consciousness: absolute focus for 14 billion years, keeping the laws of physics going without error (or at least not a big enough error to destabilise the system). Somehow knowing how to do all of this. Etc.
Now, I'm not saying that such a mind can't exist - but I think we should recognise how unlike our minds it would really have to be. Given that arguments in favour of such a being are often made by invoking similarities to our minds, I don't think this is a trivial point.