Multiple Parallel Universes?

[The Berean]

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

What makes a concept dogmatic? :idunno: "Dogmatic" seems to connote an idea that a concept is accepted uncritically. At least the jist I get from atheists attacking religious faith.

 

[The Berean]

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.

So you and jackasschan don't hang out and listen to metal music in the local atheist tree house? :guitar: :drum: :singer:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

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

:duh: It not being "God" is kind of central to the atheists' position wouldn't you say? "Something other than God" would probably be a bit more accurate.

 

[Palladius]

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.

The multiverse (or parallel universes) is one interpretation of quantum events. There are others - a couple which imply some form of "God-concept." In my thread entitled "The God Theory," I discuss Bernard Haisch's (physicist) interpretation of the quantum level.

 

[rexlunae]

The multiverse (or parallel universes) is one interpretation of quantum events. There are others - a couple which imply some form of "God-concept." In my thread entitled "The God Theory" I discuss Bernard Haisch's (physicist) interpretation of the quantum level.

That's another possible interpretation. I've heard of it, but I don't find it very compelling because it seems to add a lot of unnecessary complexity. That doesn't mean its wrong, it just increases my skepticism. As I understand it, Haisch is motivated by a desire to unite science with traditional religion, which I think is a particularly good way to go astray.

 

[Palladius]

That's another possible interpretation. I've heard of it, but I don't find it very compelling because it seems to add a lot of unnecessary complexity.

Actually, one of the objections to the "Many-worlds" (multiverse or parallel universes)
interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it violates Occam's Razaor.

Perhaps more significantly, Peres seems to suggest that positing the existence of an infinite number of non-communicating parallel universes is highly suspect as it violates those interpretations of Occam's Razor that seek to minimize the number of hypothesized entities (source: Wikipedia "Many-worlds interpretation")

That doesn't mean its wrong, it just increases my skepticism. As I understand it, Haisch is motivated by a desire to unite science with traditional religion, which I think is a particularly good way to go astray.

This depends on how you define traditional religion. Haisch's conception of God is a pantheistic one.

 

[rexlunae]

Actually, one of the objections to the "Many-worlds" (multiverse or parallel universes)
interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it violates Occam's Razaor.

I know, I just don't see it that way. When I see one thing, I am inclined to suspect that there may be more things like it. I see one universe...

I do, however, understand the objection.

This depends on how you define traditional religion. Haisch's conception of God is a pantheistic one.

I would have guessed panentheistic, but I haven't read his book yet, just his wikipedia article (of which he seems to be specifically critical). I'm not as opposed to pantheism as to theism, but generally I prefer to treat universes like universes, and deities like deities, and not try to mingle the two terms unless we have a good reason to believe that they refer to the same things. I hope that makes some degree of sense.

 

[eveningsky339]

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?

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.

 

[Palladius]

I know, I just don't see it that way. When I see one thing, I am inclined to suspect that there may be more things like it. I see one universe...

I do, however, understand the objection.

Okay. Actually, I believe in the existence of parallel worlds. However, this is tantamount to saying that I believe in other spiritual dimensions. To me, there is no way to ground such a belief unless one assumes that consciousness constitutes the basis of reality.

I would have guessed panentheistic, but I haven't read his book yet, just his wikipedia article (of which he seems to be specifically critical).

I may be inclined to characterized his theology as panentheistic. (I used the term pantheistic only because it is a more familiar one.)

I did read that Haisch is critical of Wikipedia. However, I thought the Wikipedia article on him was very fair.

I'm not as opposed to pantheism as to theism, but generally I prefer to treat universes like universes, and deities like deities, and not try to mingle the two terms unless we have a good reason to believe that they refer to the same things. I hope that makes some degree of sense.

I understand. Pantheism and/or panentheism is incompatible with materialism. Both assume some form of panpsychism (all is mind or consciousness). That being said, there is a form of pantheism being promoted which is just atheistic materialism in disguise.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

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.

I think its inclusion in hypothetical cosmology is pretty recent, though.

 

[rexlunae]

Okay. Actually, I believe in the existence of parallel worlds. However, this is tantamount to saying that I believe in other spiritual dimensions. To me, there is no way to ground such a belief unless one assumes that consciousness constitutes the basis of reality.

Like I said, I don't believe in other universes, I just consider it an interesting line of thinking with some real potential. I don't think a solid conclusion is possible right now.

As for this being tantamount to belief in other spiritual dimensions, I don't see that. Mostly, I don't know quite what you mean by "spiritual" in this context. Can you elaborate?

 

[mighty_duck]

I understand. Pantheism and/or panentheism is incompatible with materialism. Both assume some form of panpsychism (all is mind or consciousness). That being said, there is a form of pantheism being promoted which is just atheistic materialism in disguise.

I don't think that is necessarily true. What if the whole universe functioned as a very large physical brain? Wouldn't that be compatible both with pantheism and physicalism?

 

[Palladius]

I don't think that is necessarily true. What if the whole universe functioned as a very large physical brain? Wouldn't that be compatible both with pantheism and physicalism?

Yes, I guess it would. Technically, process theology portrays God with both a mental and physical pole.

 

[Palladius]

Like I said, I don't believe in other universes, I just consider it an interesting line of thinking with some real potential. I don't think a solid conclusion is possible right now.

As for this being tantamount to belief in other spiritual dimensions, I don't see that. Mostly, I don't know quite what you mean by "spiritual" in this context. Can you elaborate?

There is no difference in the sense that both are metaphysical beliefs.

 

[bob b]

There is no difference in the sense that both are metaphysical beliefs.

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?

 

[rexlunae]

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?

If you go back and read the two points which I mentioned that make multiple universes an interesting idea, you will see that the existence of a god does not speak to either.

 

[bob b]

If you go back and read the two points which I mentioned that make multiple universes an interesting idea, you will see that the existence of a god does not speak to either.

Too bad. The existence of God solves all your metaphysical dilemmas.

 

[rexlunae]

Too bad. The existence of God solves all your metaphysical dilemmas.

No it doesn't, and the fact that you think that it does demonstrates that you do not understand them.

 

[Johnny]

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?

I don't think avoiding God had anything to do with it, actually.

 

[Palladius]

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?

Well, I think many (not all) scientists hypothesize a "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics in order to maintain a materialistic worldview.