Multiple Parallel Universes?

[Punisher1984]

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

If some one could confirm the existence of a "god" without resorting to pleas for faith in any doctrine of any kind, we might be willing to entertain the possibility of such a thing as a "god." But seeing how no such argument has ever been made, we have no reason to take the idea of "god" any more seriously than the idea of a Flying Spaghetti Monster...

 

[chatmaggot]

I don't think anyone has embraced this idea beyond what the facts warrant- as one possible solution to a variety of questions.

That won't stop it from being taught in Public Schools!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0

In Everett's "many worlds" universe, every time a new physical possibility is explored, the universe splits. Given a number of possible alternative outcomes, each one is played out - in its own universe.

A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.

Where are the other universes created?

Start Trek the Next Generation had an episode on this.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

That won't stop it from being taught in Public Schools!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0

I don't know what level of theoretical qunatum physics you think is being taught in today's public schools, but let me soothe your worried mind with the suggestion that it is unlikely that they will be incorporating this idea into the curriculum anytime soon.

 

[death2impiety]

I believe in the invisible pink universe. You don't need any evidence to believe in it! I know it's there because the scientists tell me it is.

 

[Maximeee]

I believe in the invisible pink universe. You don't need any evidence to believe in it! I know it's there because the scientists tell me it is.

Oh! Can it have silver little sparkles?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I believe in the invisible pink universe. You don't need any evidence to believe in it! I know it's there because the scientists tell me it is.

Does this invisible pink universe produce mathematic models that can be applied to complex problems in physics?

 

[Palladius]

Does this invisible pink universe produce mathematic models that can be applied to complex problems in physics?

Yes, it invokes "imaginary" numbers that provide an elegant solution to some baffling aspects of quantum mechanics. However, "imaginary" numbers and mathematical abstractions do not really qualify as reified objects.

Physicalism entails the claim that everything everyone has observed or claimed to observe is in actual fact the product of fundamentally mindless arrangements or interactions of matter-energy in space-time, and therefore it is unreasonable to believe anything else exists. Pluralism (which includes dualism) adds to this the existence of fundamentally mindless things besides matter-energy in space-time (such as reified abstract objects). (source: Wikipedia "Metaphysical Naturalism")

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Yes, it invokes "imaginary" numbers that provide an elegant solution to some baffling aspects of quantum mechanics. However, "imaginary" numbers and mathematical abstractions do not really qualify as reified objects.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy? Where does the color pink fit into that? What nagging cosmological or qunatum questions does that address?

 

[Palladius]

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy? Where does the color pink fit into that? What nagging cosmological or qunatum questions does that address?

The paradoxes associated with quantum theory.

The many-worlds interpretation or MWI (also known as relative state formulation, theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, Oxford interpretation or many worlds), is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many-worlds denies the objective reality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds then explains the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse with the mechanism of quantum decoherence. Consequently, many-worlds claims this resolves all the "paradoxes" of quantum theory since every possible outcome to every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". (source: Wikipedia "Many-worlds interpretation")

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The paradoxes associated with quantum theory.

These paradoxes are addressed by, among other ideas, the multiple universes idea- I've not heard anyone proposing pink universes or indeed, any explaination of what a "pink" universe would be. Multiple universes is a theory in that they are not ruled out by our current understanding of physics and they would answer some questions. Black holes were once considered an equally fruit loop idea, but have been well verified since. While it is far from obvious that multiple universes will be similarly vindicated it is at least possible.

 

[bob b]

These paradoxes are addressed by, among other ideas, the multiple universes idea- I've not heard anyone proposing pink universes or indeed, any explaination of what a "pink" universe would be. Multiple universes is a theory in that they are not ruled out by our current understanding of physics and they would answer some questions. Black holes were once considered an equally fruit loop idea, but have been well verified since. While it is far from obvious that multiple universes will be similarly vindicated it is at least possible.

Many people entertain liberal fuzzy thinking about what is "possible".

 

[Memento Mori]

Many people entertain liberal fuzzy thinking about what is "possible".

Oh sure, blame the fuzzys. :chuckle:

 

[Palladius]

These paradoxes are addressed by, among other ideas, the multiple universes idea- I've not heard anyone proposing pink universes or indeed, any explaination of what a "pink" universe would be.

The color of pink is not at issue here. (I am certain you are aware of this.) I simply addressed your question: "What nagging cosmological or quantum questions does that (multiple parallel universes) address?"

Multiple universes is a theory in that they are not ruled out by our current understanding of physics and they would answer some questions.

The many-worlds (multiple universes) interpretation is simply one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics. The "consciousness collaspses the wave function" and the "many minds" interpretations are equally valid interpretations - interpretations which undermine a materialistic worldview.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The color of pink is not at issue here. (I am certain you are aware of this.) I simply addressed your question: "What nagging cosmological or quantum questions does that (multiple parallel universes) address?"

I see. It seems we are talking past each other. My question was going back to D2I's post about imaginary pink universes.

The many-worlds (multiple universes) interpretation is simply one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics. The "consciousness collaspses the wave function" and the "many minds" interpretations are equally valid interpretations - interpretations which undermine a materialistic worldview.

Indeed they are. I think we just had some crossed wires.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Many people entertain liberal fuzzy thinking about what is "possible".

Likewise there are those who hold neolithic conservative ideas about what is impossible.

 

[Palladius]

Indeed they are. I think we just had some crossed wires.

Okay, fair enough.

 

[Mr Jack]

I'm learning Quantum Mechanics right now in a Christian school, and the concept of parallel universes does theoretically play a role in the workings of very, very, very small things. I didn't think it was a new idea, since quantum theory has been around for over half a century.

It's not a new idea; but it's one that's growing in popularity with Quantum physicists.

 

[Mr Jack]

The many-worlds (multiple universes) interpretation is simply one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics. The "consciousness collaspses the wave function" and the "many minds" interpretations are equally valid interpretations - interpretations which undermine a materialistic worldview.

No, the Consciousness collapses idea is wrong. Observer collapses is a valid interpretation; but understanding 'observer' as implying consciousness is to misunderstand the theory.

 

[Sealeaf]

Isn't it sad that scientists have to hypothesize multiple parallel universes in both cosmology and biology in order to avoid the obvious truth that there is a God who created these things?

Cart before the horse.

Science does not stuggle to find explanations that avoid God. It is forbidden to accept any explanation that in effect says, "god done it", because such an answer invalidates the scientific method. Science is inherently and necessarily atheistic. Science will never say "God done it". The closest science will come is, "We don't know." There is nothing "sad" about this. This is just science being what science is. You might as well say, "Isn't it sad that an apple tree is not an airplane."

Its not just God. If you postulate that the invisible and untestable, FSM who can do anything he wants to do, did something or other, science will be equally uncooperative. That which is insencible, untestible, self willed and omnipotent can't be used as a scientific explanation.

 

[bob b]

Cart before the horse.

Science does not stuggle to find explanations that avoid God. It is forbidden to accept any explanation that in effect says, "god done it", because such an answer invalidates the scientific method. Science is inherently and necessarily atheistic. Science will never say "God done it". The closest science will come is, "We don't know." There is nothing "sad" about this. This is just science being what science is. You might as well say, "Isn't it sad that an apple tree is not an airplane."

Its not just God. If you postulate that the invisible and untestable, FSM who can do anything he wants to do, did something or other, science will be equally uncooperative. That which is insencible, untestible, self willed and omnipotent can't be used as a scientific explanation.

I think you restrict Science unnecessarily.

Evolution assumes that all life descended from some undefined first life such as a bacterium.

A better assumption would be that all life has descended from first life that existed in multiple forms and had the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated complex already in place.

The fact that most scientists would reject this as miraculous should be immaterial in a search for the truth.

And we are continually told that evolution does not include abiogenesis.

So does it or doesn't it?