Multiple Parallel Universes?

[bob b]

I have doing a bit of checking around at university websites and am beginning to suspect that "multiple parallel universes" has become part of the dogma of their astronomy departments.

Just like Eugene Koonin explained that multiple universes explains how the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated system could have come about, even though in a single universe it would appear to be impossible, in an infinite cosmos anything is possible no matter how far fetched it might ordinarily appear to be.

In the case of astronomy it is known that the basic constants of the universe are "fine tuned" for life to exsist in this universe. Isn't that strange?

Not really, we are told. With multiple universes only ones where the constants are fine tuned for life to exist will be populated with creatures who then will marvel at such fine tuning. So what would ordinarily seem to be highly improbable really is inevitable if the universe is populated with an almost infinite number of parallel universes.

 

[Palladius]

In the case of astronomy it is known that the basic constants of the universe are "fine tuned" for life to exsist in this universe. Isn't that strange?

Not really, we are told. With multiple universes only ones where the constants are fine tuned for life to exist will be populated with creatures who then will marvel at such fine tuning. So what would ordinarily seem to be highly improbable really is inevitable if the universe is populated with an almost infinite number of parallel universes.

Buffalo Bob, I basically agree with you on this one. In order to maintain their worldview, materialists have to entertain the idea of some kind of multiverse (or parallel universes) in order to account for quantum mechanics. Belief in the multiverse or prarallel universe is just that - a belief....a belief not unlike a religious belief in God.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Parallel universes? Is this some new idea? I've never heard it put forth until now.
That sounds way too speculative to really be taken seriously. How would you even go about testing that sort of thing? Should I continue to look for my remote even after I've found it?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I have doing a bit of checking around at university websites and am beginning to suspect that "multiple parallel universes" has become part of the dogma of their astronomy departments.

Just like Eugene Koonin explained that multiple universes explains how the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated system could have come about, even though in a single universe it would appear to be impossible, in an infinite cosmos anything is possible no matter how far fetched it might ordinarily appear to be.

In the case of astronomy it is known that the basic constants of the universe are "fine tuned" for life to exsist in this universe. Isn't that strange?

Not really, we are told. With multiple universes only ones where the constants are fine tuned for life to exist will be populated with creatures who then will marvel at such fine tuning. So what would ordinarily seem to be highly improbable really is inevitable if the universe is populated with an almost infinite number of parallel universes.

The idea of multiple universes is no harder to swallow than an omnipotent creator who stuck the star of his creation in a an average solar system nowhere in particular in a universe full of billions and billions of other (I guess) empty systems.

 

[Math-E-Matics]

Ideas are only "far fetched" to us because we limit our minds with logic. Think about this for a second... Anything and everything "logical", is man-made. What makes sense to us only seems that way because we have created this idea of what's possible and what's impossible in our minds that we think we know how to determine true from false. If you take any idea that you have naturally deemed, "far fetched", and cast away your thoughts of trying to make sense with the things you supposedly "know", and just imagine it as truth, it is very possible. Conspiracy theories, religious concepts, scientific theories, etc... Anything is possible, and who are you to say otherwise?

 

[bob b]

So much for "scientific evidence".

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

 

[Granite]

Multiverse theory is by no means a "dogmatic" concept in academia.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

So much for "scientific evidence".

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I don't think anyone has embraced this idea beyond what the facts warrant- as one possible solution to a variety of questions. It is ironic that you seem fixated on it's lack of scientific support (which no one here is denying, anyways- this is primarily a mathematical model) while pushing your crackpot theories- which make even less sense given the existing data. What's with the double-standard, bob? Could it possibly be that your scorn stems from over-compensation?

 

[Nick M]

Show me the multiverse, and I will believe in it.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Show me the multiverse, and I will believe in it.

Nobody's asking you to believe it- it's just one model that explains some of the things we don't understand right now. It's not doctrine.

 

[Palladius]

Nobody's asking you to believe it- it's just one model that explains some of the things we don't understand right now. It's not doctrine.

The point is that there are many atheists who would argue that there is no evidence for God but would not hesitate to express a belief in parallel universes.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The point is that there are many atheists who would argue that there is no evidence for God but would not hesitate to express a belief in parallel universes.

Which atheists? I've never met any who believe in parallel universes, only that acknowledge that as one possible answer to the "goldilocks" universe problem.

 

[Nick M]

Nobody's asking you to believe it- it's just one model that explains some of the things we don't understand right now. It's not doctrine.

And there in lies the biggest problem in science. Instead of following where the evidence leads, it was decided to make up a hypothesis, then try and make the evidence fit it.

Not all do it, but to many do it.

 

[Granite]

Parallel universes cannot be "proven," at least as of yet, but it's a fascinating field of study.

 

[Palladius]

Which atheists? I've never met any who believe in parallel universes, only that acknowledge that as one possible answer to the "goldilocks" universe problem.

I have.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

And there in lies the biggest problem in science. Instead of following where the evidence leads, it was decided to make up a hypothesis, then try and make the evidence fit it.

Not all do it, but to many do it.

I think you're misreading the situation. There is no "evidence" at this point. What we have is a set of conditions that exist (I guess that could be evidence, but it's not really evidence for anything, it's information that needs explaining) and what these guys do is try to find a model that explains what we know the "best", the most economically and efficiently if you will. Parallel universes is one possible model, just as "Goddidit" is one and the quantum flux foam or whatever seems to be another. The model's desirablility springs from its ability to explain multiple things and hopefully, its ability to actually be tested sometime in the future.

 

[Real Sorceror]

I have.

Not a problem. Its just that some Christians will be shocked to think that there is dissension even among atheists. They seem to have this idea that we all think exactly the same and follow some official atheist doctrine.

 

[P8ntrDan]

Parallel universes? Is this some new idea? I've never heard it put forth until now.
That sounds way too speculative to really be taken seriously. How would you even go about testing that sort of thing? Should I continue to look for my remote even after I've found it?

Read Timeline by Micheal Chrichton. Great novel, even though somebody showed me how his experiment couldn't work, it was still a great story.

 

[rexlunae]

I think multiple universes are a compelling possability for two reasons:

1. Our universe had an origin. It is hard for me to believe that this origin is a unique occurrence that can only happen once.

2. It might help us explain the apparent non-determinism at the quantum level.

I wouldn't call these beliefs, just lines of conjecture, and I remain skeptical of them even as I find them compelling. I think this represents a big difference from the normal mode of religious thinking. Religions offer unquestionable certainty, which is not appropriate to a lot of questions.

 

[bob b]

Not a problem. Its just that some Christians will be shocked to think that there is dissension even among atheists. They seem to have this idea that we all think exactly the same and follow some official atheist doctrine.

The official atheist doctrine seems to be "anything but God".