Author Topic: The Multiverse  (Read 5938 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xariskai

  • юродивый/yurodivy
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
  • יהוה עזי ומגני
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Multiverse
« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2014, 09:07:37 PM »
Augustine's cosmological theodicy of pleroma posited all possible varieties and ranges of entities might actually exist. If a scientifically unobservable infinite number of alternate universes actually existed I don't imagine it would represent a defeater for Christianity even if it could make for one heck of a poker game (youtube)
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 09:10:55 PM by xariskai »

Offline JamesR

  • The Second Coming of Jason
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,924
  • Remember me?
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Multiverse
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2014, 09:52:55 PM »
Perhaps, but your deck of cards analogy fails. When pulling from a deck of cards, you have a 1 in 13 chance of getting an Ace. You know they exist within the deck. Even if you put together 1 million decks of cards and took out all the Aces but one, there is still a defined chance that an Ace can be pulled. That is probability.

And that's exactly why I don't think our universe is necessarily unique. The order of our universe is just one card out of a deck of many. Probability would dictate that we just as likely could have been non-existent or in a universe where everybody was purple, opposed to the way our universe is. The value is solely a manmade concept that we ascribe to the way of the universe--like beauty or ugliness. But our universe is neither beautiful, ugly, or unique. It just is. Science doesn't tell you those things. Thus, looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, we are just one card of many. If we choose to ascribe value to our card--like we do with the Ace card--that's fine and all, but it doesn't mean anything objectively or scientifically. It's just our subjective feelings.

Quote
In the universe, you have a distinct, incomprehensibly ordered universe that consistently abides by rules and mathematical constants.

And it just as easily could have been entirely different. You are ultimately ascribing your own value to something that is intrinsically valueless in an attempt to make it seem unique when it is just one card out of many. I'm not denying the way our universe is; it's amazing. I'm just saying that from an objective standpoint, it's no more special, unique, or great than the other potential ways it could have been--the other cards we could have drawn. I think we need to be careful about our feelings and subjective manmade concepts like beauty or uniqueness clouding the objectivity of things when it really comes down to it.

Quote
It doesn't need to do that; if things were different, we wouldn't be saying that it is "perfect or unique", we wouldn't be saying anything because we wouldn't exist.

This isn't necessarily relevant because there isn't anything objectively "unique" or "special" about our existence. Our existence is just one possible outcome--and the outcome that did in fact happen out of many potential ones. Again, the value we ascribe to our existence is merely manmade, not objective or scientific. Just like the value ascribed to different cards.

Quote
There are thousands of factors with literally infinite number of variables that would cause not just the world to be different, but the very fabric of the universe to be different and cause nonexistence.

See above

Quote
The solution put forward to understand why this is the case is to posit that there are an infinite number of universes. That is like owning the Ace of Spades and postulating an infinite number of different cards in the deck. I'm not a believer in the intelligent design movement, but if you think that it is any more "scientific" than postulating an infinite number of universes, I've got a quantum bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

I'm not necessarily sure I believe in the multiverse either. AFAIK it's still just a hypothesis, not even a theory yet. It seems like an example of the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy hidden under a scientific veil, and it begs the question of how we define the universe. If several universes exist--which seems semantically impossible given the *uni*--one could still philosophically argue that it is all just part of one universe that is larger than we ever imagined, NOT separate universes. Furthermore, it also seems like a knee-jerk reaction by the nihilistic-minded irreligious community to sense of sanctity and value that Christianity ascribes to the world. The irreligious lately seem to be having a field day trying to prove that we are less valuable than religion makes us think, and that to see ourselves as unique is selfish. Maybe they're right. Who knows? Regardless, I'm agnostic about the multiverse and I'm just saying that I think the intelligent design/unique universe is also fallacious and not very logically grounded.

If in a truly random system you picked the Ace one million times in a row, that would suggest that although the system has the potential to be random, something is tinkering with it.

Not necessarily. Hume dealt with this. You can't objectively conclude a miracle or outside intervention UNLESS all internal and natural possibilities have been objectively ruled out. If there is still that ten billionth or whatever of a chance that mere probability caused you to pick the Ace card a million times in a row, you can't logically start looking for an external "outside" solution. In fact, Occam's Razor would determine that the simpler solution is more likely to be true--which, in this case, is that probability gave you a million Aces in a row, since it involves less variables than the notion that an outside or external force is intervening.

Quote
The fact that in a universe that is intrinsically chaotic there are laws of physics and mathematics is the first big hint that it is not just a matter of us being a particular state of chaos analysing other forms of chaos in a biased way.

"Chaos" and "law" are just human, manmade ways of looking at things that have no real objective basis in science or logic. All we objectively know is that things happen--sometimes in certain ways and sometimes in others. If we choose to ascribe value or to personify those things via terms like "chaos" or "law" then we can, but they really mean nothing and serve no purpose other than to make things easier for us to understand. Furthermore, it is silly and illogical to read our own bias and manmade constructs into the fabric of the universe.

Quote
The curious thing is that humankind did start seeing the world around us as sheer chaos to be feared and appeased. Then philosophers glimpsed some order in chaos - and that is why you had to know geometry "Only he who is familiar with geometry shall be admitted here". With the increase of complexity in the knowledge of this order matter could be analysed more closely. And when we observe creation in its intrinsic selfness we observe that it is... almost nothing, just a foam of possibilities. When we observe large scales it also dissolves into paradoxes.

I think you may be misunderstanding the scientific concept of law. This is a common equivocation that religious people make. The "laws" of the universe are not laws in the judicial sense that X is given by someone or something, and that X MUST happen. Rather, a scientific law is merely a phenomena that, according to continual repetition, has been shown to behave in the same way every time. However, we have no way of knowing definitively if things will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today. Geometry, math, science, and every other manmade human invention is based off of these laws. But when it really comes down to it, these laws are not grounded. We operate off of the blind faith that everything will stay the same. We don't know whether or not things will always be like this, and thus we can't deduce anything transcendent, "intelligent," or unique about our universe.

Quote
What we learn from that is that the physical universe does not have an essence of its own, being just chance that, yet, despite all that, acquires form and repeated form. There is a logos that orders all that quantic chaos. It is "just" mathematical in most cases but at least in one case it is far more than that.

That's just speculation arising from our own manmade feelings and labels ascribed to the objective universe. "Form" and "order" are just our labels.

Quote
As C.S. Lewis said, the only phenomena of nature that we can look from inside is ourselves. And we see consciousness, feelings, morality, aesthetics and life. It is clearly a different form of ordering than the mere mathematical of the rest of matter around us. A kind of.... logos.

C.S. Lewis was not a physicist, philosopher, or even theologian. The sense of uniqueness and value that you are ascribing to our consciousness, feelings, morality, and other existential things is again merely manmade and not objective or scientific, incapable of being derived from the universe we observe. We need to stop reading our own feelings and manmade values into objectivity.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Multiverse
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2014, 11:20:07 PM »
You're assuming our universe or Earth is a "perfect house" when in reality terms like "perfect" are merely manmade and subjective. The universe and Earth just are. They are not perfect and they are not imperfect. You cannot logically personify the natural world, unless you want to be like polytheists. The way our Earth and Universe are is merely one way our of millions that it just as easily could have been. It's like drawing a card from the deck and being amazed that you got the Ace. While it's cool at first, in reality, there is nothing unique about it. The only reason the Ace carries any value is because we've ascribed value to it, and we just as easily could have drawn the 6 or Jack card. Same with our universe and Earth. If it were different, we'd say that that was "perfect" and "unique" too. This argument gets even stupider when people being intelligent design into it--the universe is intelligently designed because God did it; God did it so it's intelligently designed. It's a circular argument.

These remarks of yours are fundamentally atheist.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline JamesR

  • The Second Coming of Jason
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,924
  • Remember me?
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Multiverse
« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2014, 11:29:10 PM »
You're assuming our universe or Earth is a "perfect house" when in reality terms like "perfect" are merely manmade and subjective. The universe and Earth just are. They are not perfect and they are not imperfect. You cannot logically personify the natural world, unless you want to be like polytheists. The way our Earth and Universe are is merely one way our of millions that it just as easily could have been. It's like drawing a card from the deck and being amazed that you got the Ace. While it's cool at first, in reality, there is nothing unique about it. The only reason the Ace carries any value is because we've ascribed value to it, and we just as easily could have drawn the 6 or Jack card. Same with our universe and Earth. If it were different, we'd say that that was "perfect" and "unique" too. This argument gets even stupider when people being intelligent design into it--the universe is intelligently designed because God did it; God did it so it's intelligently designed. It's a circular argument.

These remarks of yours are fundamentally atheist.

Doesn't necessarily make them incorrect. I'm not saying God doesn't exist, just that these intelligent design uniqueness of the universe arguments aren't very sound.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Multiverse
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2014, 11:35:38 PM »
What does intelligent design have to do with it? Look at your own remarks, not your reactions to IDers, but ways you yourself are describing reality. Anything of meaning, anything moral, anything orderly are contemptible lies according to you. Anyone who observes reality to have meaning or order is blind with arrogance and believes a lie. This is not only an accusation against God but an abhorrence of humankind.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline xariskai

  • юродивый/yurodivy
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
  • יהוה עזי ומגני
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Multiverse
« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2014, 11:46:42 PM »
There cannot be more than ONE UNIverse. It's sorta the point of the UNIverse.
I'll have to agree with JamesR that our semantics are not the ultimate arbiter of the way things are. For example, that

"the name atom comes from the Greek ἄτομος (atomos, "indivisible") from ἀ- (a-, "not") and τέμνω (temnō, "I cut"),[3] which means uncuttable, or indivisible, something that cannot be divided further.[4]"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

...did not hinder the splitting of the atom.

Quote from: JamesR
I think we need to be careful about our feelings and subjective manmade concepts like beauty or uniqueness clouding the objectivity of things when it really comes down to it.
Again agreeing with JamesR, except insofar as the problem of induction is in play pure objectivity is elusive. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

Quote from: JamesR
Occam's Razor would determine that the simpler solution is more likely to be true-
There is a reason, however, that philosophers of science have also called this Occam's Eraser; heuristic value notwithstanding on a methodological level, its symmetrical relation to ontology is a metaphysical question, and unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense.


looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, we are just one card of many. If we choose to ascribe value to our card--like we do with the Ace card--that's fine and all, but it doesn't mean anything objectively or scientifically. It's just our subjective feelings.

...I'm not denying the way our universe is; it's amazing. I'm just saying that from an objective standpoint, it's no more special, unique, or great than the other potential ways it could have been--the other cards we could have drawn.
Again with reference to Sir Karl Popper propensity interpolation of probabilistic induction -powerful though it undeniably is in modelling when it is nearer to representing some equality- is still impinged upon by the problem of induction -all the more so as we begin to plug infinities into our formulae.

Without question a contemporary Who's Who have appealed to the metaphysics of a theoretical infinity of unobservable universes as removing the edge from the fine tuning dilemma. On the other hand are some cosmologists who have argued an infinite number of unobservable universes would not of itself provide a completely satisfactory solution to fine tuning such as it has been specifically mathematized (before presenting the reasons for this I should point out that I am not of the "apologetic school" or theological tradition of "natural theology" that regards it important to theology that discursive rationality of itself must provide convincing pointers *on that level* -of discursive rationality. At the same time looking at both sides my feeling is that the dissent has a strong basis). For time's sake I'll quote my blog without dwelling on this point too much with the relevant point bolded:

=========
Among the most philosophically challenging scientific data of the last half century are those relating to the physical constants  of the universe (listed below) which allow it to be a cosmos instead of utterly disordered chaos. These constants were “finely tuned” to their present values when the universe came into existence out of absolutely nothing roughly 13.7 billion years ago. You cannot derive their values from something more basic; they simply occurred as “givens” from the first second of our universe’s existence. These values did not develop but were present full-blown at singularity. They did not evolve: they simply were.
Cosmologists Barrow and Tipler wondered what would happen if they were slightly different. Tinker ever so slightly with the values of any of the basic physical constants, and life would have been impossible, not just life of our kind, but life of any kind that involves complexity.

Because of their highly ordered nature, random origin of the constants has been widely conceded to be effectively zero probability (cf. physicist Donald Page has calculated the odds as 1 in 10,000,000^124. By comparison, there are 10^18 seconds since the creation of the universe and around 10^80 atoms in the observable universe).

Mathematician Emile Borel affirmed that anything with odds of happening less than one in 10^50 is impossible (Borel is best known for creating the the first effective theory of measuring sets of points beginning the modern theory of functions of a real variable). Random origin of the constants is well beyond this threshold -by orders of magnitude; selection by lottery would only overcome this statistical obstacle if there were an infinite number of unobservable universes from which ours was selected, yet a universe generating “machine” would also have to be exceptionally highly ordered too, and some contemporary physicists have also recently suggesting that multiple universes would be clones of one another rather than infinitely variable as the infinite unobservable multi-universes lottery selection theory requires.  In effect, however, this remains at the current time a metaphysical argument for the validity of an empirically demonstrable zero-probability event by postulating something in principle unobservable (non-scientific/metaphysical).

    “‘I can’t believe that!’ said Alice. ‘Can’t you?’ the Queen said in a pitying tone. ‘Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.’ Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said: ‘one can’t believe impossible things.’ ‘I daresay you haven’t had much practice, said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'” -Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass



The slightest alteration of the following physical constants would result in a universe incapable of supporting life -not just life of our kind, but life of any kind that involves complexity, and in a universe that would be chaos rather than cosmos:

Gravitational Coupling Constant
Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant
Weak Nuclear Force Coupling Constant
Electromagnetic Coupling Constant
Ratio of Protons to Electrons
Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass
Expansion Rate of the Universe
Entropy Level of the Universe
Mass of the Universe
Uniformity of the Universe
Stability of Protons
Fine Structure Constants
Velocity of Light
Distance Between Stars
Rate of Luminosity of Stars
8Be, 12C, and 4He Nuclear Energy Levels.

An infinite number of unobservable universes -even were it the case- would not, of course, necessarily “belong” to our atheist friends who need it so badly to account for zero probability of random origin of the universe’s physical constants  at singularity; in fact it would be a perfect case scenerio of the ancient Augustinian cosmological theodicy of pleroma, which posited all possible varieties and ranges of entities might actually exist; we will leave that subject for a  possible future post; let us now move along to consider the central topic of this essay.
=========

Quote
There are thousands of factors with literally infinite number of variables that would cause not just the world to be different, but the very fabric of the universe to be different and cause nonexistence.

I'm not necessarily sure I believe in the multiverse either. AFAIK it's still just a hypothesis, not even a theory yet....

Furthermore, it also seems like a knee-jerk reaction by the nihilistic-minded irreligious community to sense of sanctity and value that Christianity ascribes to the world. The irreligious lately seem to be having a field day trying to prove that we are less valuable than religion makes us think, and that to see ourselves as unique is selfish. Maybe they're right. Who knows? Regardless, I'm agnostic about the multiverse and I'm just saying that I think the intelligent design/unique universe is also fallacious and not very logically grounded.
I also see no reason to simply believe in an infinity of unobservable universes except for the sake of coherence, but the project is purely metaphysical no less than medieval discussions about how many angels can sit on the edge of a pin. Contingent finitude cannot on an ontological level empirically observe an infinity of universes.

Quote from: JamesR
a common equivocation that religious people make. The "laws" of the universe are not laws in the judicial sense that X is given by someone or something, and that X MUST happen. Rather, a scientific law is merely a phenomena that, according to continual repetition, has been shown to behave in the same way every time. However, we have no way of knowing definitively if things will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today.
Again hats off to your analysis; you are clearly doing your philosophical homework. This also was Hume's point about the epistemological status of supposing the sun will rise again, or (Bertrand Russell's example) whether our eggs will nourish us again on the basis that they always have. Laws in contemporary philosophy of science are statistical categories.

Quote from: JamesR
Quote
As C.S. Lewis said, the only phenomena of nature that we can look from inside is ourselves. And we see consciousness, feelings, morality, aesthetics and life. It is clearly a different form of ordering than the mere mathematical of the rest of matter around us. A kind of.... logos.

C.S. Lewis was not a physicist, philosopher, or even theologian. The sense of uniqueness and value that you are ascribing to our consciousness, feelings, morality, and other existential things is again merely manmade and not objective or scientific, incapable of being derived from the universe we observe. We need to stop reading our own feelings and manmade values into objectivity.
It is impossible, though, not to read with man-made values if, as contemporary philosophy of science has concluded, science for us is not and cannot be wertfrein ("value-free"). Michel Polynyi is a major philosopher who might be worth a look with regard to the relevance of personal knowledge.

Great post, James; interesting discussion. I will disagree with the idea that JamesR is thinking atheistically; he appears to be more interested in how sound the various arguments he is discussing are at the end of the day. One does not have to believe in natural theology or provability of theism via discursive rationality in order to be a theist or an Orthodox Christian. The converse verificationalist presupposition was more successful in Aquinas' day than it is in contemporary academia.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2014, 12:17:10 AM by xariskai »

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Multiverse
« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2014, 08:48:20 AM »
Perhaps, but your deck of cards analogy fails. When pulling from a deck of cards, you have a 1 in 13 chance of getting an Ace. You know they exist within the deck. Even if you put together 1 million decks of cards and took out all the Aces but one, there is still a defined chance that an Ace can be pulled. That is probability.

And that's exactly why I don't think our universe is necessarily unique. The order of our universe is just one card out of a deck of many. Probability would dictate that we just as likely could have been non-existent or in a universe where everybody was purple, opposed to the way our universe is. The value is solely a manmade concept that we ascribe to the way of the universe--like beauty or ugliness. But our universe is neither beautiful, ugly, or unique. It just is. Science doesn't tell you those things. Thus, looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, we are just one card of many. If we choose to ascribe value to our card--like we do with the Ace card--that's fine and all, but it doesn't mean anything objectively or scientifically. It's just our subjective feelings.

Quote
In the universe, you have a distinct, incomprehensibly ordered universe that consistently abides by rules and mathematical constants.

And it just as easily could have been entirely different. You are ultimately ascribing your own value to something that is intrinsically valueless in an attempt to make it seem unique when it is just one card out of many. I'm not denying the way our universe is; it's amazing. I'm just saying that from an objective standpoint, it's no more special, unique, or great than the other potential ways it could have been--the other cards we could have drawn. I think we need to be careful about our feelings and subjective manmade concepts like beauty or uniqueness clouding the objectivity of things when it really comes down to it.

Quote
It doesn't need to do that; if things were different, we wouldn't be saying that it is "perfect or unique", we wouldn't be saying anything because we wouldn't exist.

This isn't necessarily relevant because there isn't anything objectively "unique" or "special" about our existence. Our existence is just one possible outcome--and the outcome that did in fact happen out of many potential ones. Again, the value we ascribe to our existence is merely manmade, not objective or scientific. Just like the value ascribed to different cards.

Quote
There are thousands of factors with literally infinite number of variables that would cause not just the world to be different, but the very fabric of the universe to be different and cause nonexistence.

See above

Quote
The solution put forward to understand why this is the case is to posit that there are an infinite number of universes. That is like owning the Ace of Spades and postulating an infinite number of different cards in the deck. I'm not a believer in the intelligent design movement, but if you think that it is any more "scientific" than postulating an infinite number of universes, I've got a quantum bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

I'm not necessarily sure I believe in the multiverse either. AFAIK it's still just a hypothesis, not even a theory yet. It seems like an example of the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy hidden under a scientific veil, and it begs the question of how we define the universe. If several universes exist--which seems semantically impossible given the *uni*--one could still philosophically argue that it is all just part of one universe that is larger than we ever imagined, NOT separate universes. Furthermore, it also seems like a knee-jerk reaction by the nihilistic-minded irreligious community to sense of sanctity and value that Christianity ascribes to the world. The irreligious lately seem to be having a field day trying to prove that we are less valuable than religion makes us think, and that to see ourselves as unique is selfish. Maybe they're right. Who knows? Regardless, I'm agnostic about the multiverse and I'm just saying that I think the intelligent design/unique universe is also fallacious and not very logically grounded.

If in a truly random system you picked the Ace one million times in a row, that would suggest that although the system has the potential to be random, something is tinkering with it.

Not necessarily. Hume dealt with this. You can't objectively conclude a miracle or outside intervention UNLESS all internal and natural possibilities have been objectively ruled out. If there is still that ten billionth or whatever of a chance that mere probability caused you to pick the Ace card a million times in a row, you can't logically start looking for an external "outside" solution. In fact, Occam's Razor would determine that the simpler solution is more likely to be true--which, in this case, is that probability gave you a million Aces in a row, since it involves less variables than the notion that an outside or external force is intervening.

Quote
The fact that in a universe that is intrinsically chaotic there are laws of physics and mathematics is the first big hint that it is not just a matter of us being a particular state of chaos analysing other forms of chaos in a biased way.

"Chaos" and "law" are just human, manmade ways of looking at things that have no real objective basis in science or logic. All we objectively know is that things happen--sometimes in certain ways and sometimes in others. If we choose to ascribe value or to personify those things via terms like "chaos" or "law" then we can, but they really mean nothing and serve no purpose other than to make things easier for us to understand. Furthermore, it is silly and illogical to read our own bias and manmade constructs into the fabric of the universe.

Quote
The curious thing is that humankind did start seeing the world around us as sheer chaos to be feared and appeased. Then philosophers glimpsed some order in chaos - and that is why you had to know geometry "Only he who is familiar with geometry shall be admitted here". With the increase of complexity in the knowledge of this order matter could be analysed more closely. And when we observe creation in its intrinsic selfness we observe that it is... almost nothing, just a foam of possibilities. When we observe large scales it also dissolves into paradoxes.

I think you may be misunderstanding the scientific concept of law. This is a common equivocation that religious people make. The "laws" of the universe are not laws in the judicial sense that X is given by someone or something, and that X MUST happen. Rather, a scientific law is merely a phenomena that, according to continual repetition, has been shown to behave in the same way every time. However, we have no way of knowing definitively if things will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today. Geometry, math, science, and every other manmade human invention is based off of these laws. But when it really comes down to it, these laws are not grounded. We operate off of the blind faith that everything will stay the same. We don't know whether or not things will always be like this, and thus we can't deduce anything transcendent, "intelligent," or unique about our universe.

Quote
What we learn from that is that the physical universe does not have an essence of its own, being just chance that, yet, despite all that, acquires form and repeated form. There is a logos that orders all that quantic chaos. It is "just" mathematical in most cases but at least in one case it is far more than that.

That's just speculation arising from our own manmade feelings and labels ascribed to the objective universe. "Form" and "order" are just our labels.

Quote
As C.S. Lewis said, the only phenomena of nature that we can look from inside is ourselves. And we see consciousness, feelings, morality, aesthetics and life. It is clearly a different form of ordering than the mere mathematical of the rest of matter around us. A kind of.... logos.

C.S. Lewis was not a physicist, philosopher, or even theologian. The sense of uniqueness and value that you are ascribing to our consciousness, feelings, morality, and other existential things is again merely manmade and not objective or scientific, incapable of being derived from the universe we observe. We need to stop reading our own feelings and manmade values into objectivity.
With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand how probability works. We are not just as likely to be in another type of universe or non-existent (a 50/50 proposition), we are infinitely more likely to be in another type of universe or non-existant. In order for our universe to be one card out of many, there HAS to be "many".  That is why there is the multiverse hypothesis; it answers that question of where the many are. Stating something is complex is not assigning a value to it, it is stating the degree of difficulty to achieve that result. You can't say our universe isn't unique and then turn around and state there is no multiverse, those two postulates are mutually exclusive.

All that being said, I don't believe ID is a valid scientific theorem, partially because its conclusions lie outside of the realm of science, partially because I believe it is impossible to "prove" God from physical data and partially because I think IDers are arguing a false dilema, but even modern scientific theories understand that in order for there to exist a universe such as the one we are in with the dimensionless physical constants that exist, it is implicit that there exists other universes with different constants or perhaps no constants at all.
God bless!

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: The Multiverse
« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2014, 09:44:27 AM »
There cannot be more than ONE UNIverse. It's sorta the point of the UNIverse.
I'll have to agree with JamesR that our semantics are not the ultimate arbiter of the way things are. For example, that

"the name atom comes from the Greek ἄτομος (atomos, "indivisible") from ἀ- (a-, "not") and τέμνω (temnō, "I cut"),[3] which means uncuttable, or indivisible, something that cannot be divided further.[4]"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

...did not hinder the splitting of the atom.

Actually, I think that semantics do matter in this case. When philosophers came up with concepts such as UNIverse and atom, they were talking about the thing the words refer to.

There was this smallest known bit of matter that we called atom. We split it and kept the name for easy reference, but the fact is that if it was splittable, then it is not the thing philosophers were talking about when they were talking about atoms.

Likewise, even if there are other sets of spacetime with their own unique constants (or no constants as Trisagion well remembered), it just means that for a long time we confused a specific set spacetime+certain constants to be the whole of existence while it was not. The UNIverse that philosophers talked about is the whole and unity of all that exists. If there are other spacetime bubbles then the whole set is the philosophical universe. If there are bubbles of these bubbles then this is the philosophical universe.

For a long time the universe/cosmos was thought to be a giant continent surrounded by infinite waters. Then it was a set of continents barely emerging from the oceans in a sort of spheric world. Then we found there were other planets. Then other solar systems. Then other galaxies. Then super-clusters... it may be there are other spacetimes or even things beyond that. The universe is the unitarian whole of everything that exists, whatever it is that exists.
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.