multiverse v God

Physicist Paul Steinhardt said, “Our universe has a simple, natural structure. The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.”
Wolchover, N, et al. (2014). In a Multiverse, What Are the Odds? Quanta Magazine. [link to www.quantamagazine.org (secure)]

The multiverse is God. God is the multiverse.

Mathematician David Hilbert said, "Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought".
Hilbert, D (2nd Ed., 1925). Philosophy of mathematics: On the infinite. Cambridge University Press. [link to math.dartmouth.edu (secure)]

I agree with all you've written on your thread.

'the multiverse' and endlessly bifurcating unviverses are confections of physicists who are unable to otherwise get their figures to tally. Back to the drawing boards boys.

Exactly.

Here is professor Ivan Karpenko, PhD, “It is worth mentioning that the many-worlds interpretation, apart from being hard to prove, comes across another serious difficulty. The very concept of probability loses its sense within such an interpretation. If all possible outcomes are real, why do any of the outcomes become more or less probable? Being statistical by its nature, quantum calculations show that during a repeated experiment, a particle would most likely appear in a certain place, however, the probability of some outcomes may be higher than others. So the particle will not necessarily appear in the most probable place, but it will get there more often. Nevertheless, with the mandatory execution of all outcomes the meaning of such probability – the foundation of quantum mechanics – vanishes.”
Karpenko, I (2015). The Concept of the Space Interpretation Problem In Some of the Modern Physics Multiverse Hypotheses. National Research University, Basic Research Program Working Papers. [link to www.hse.ru (secure)]

They are two hypotheses. One requires the supernatural, god. The other doesn't require it but doesn't rule it out. So you could have both or neither or one. Neither is proven to be true so I will withhold belief in either though they are interesting.

I can appreciate that.

For your consideration...

Here is another example where an infinity leads to inaccurate results. The difference between “impossible” and “zero probability” ("[T]his event indeed has zero probability of happening, but it’s still true. This phenomenon is because of the following geometric fact: it’s possible to have a non-empty set with zero “volume”.") Guo, A, et al. (2011). The difference between “impossible” and “zero probability”. No Layman Left Behind. [link to nolaymanleftbehind.wordpress.com (secure)]

The mathematicians here (from Duke) are using the word “true” loosely and inaccurately because of their reliance on infinity. Their example allocates total probability measure one over a finite interval. The interval is a continuum with infinitely many points, each of which is possible, but each of which has probability measure zero because a point has no length. Any sub interval has a positive, non-zero probability, because a sub interval has a nonzero positive valued length.

The example illustrates the idealization of reality by a probability model. This sort of idealization (which invokes a continuum in two or more dimensions) is done often in science, but always the model is only an approximation of reality.

In reality there is no way you can physically select a random number in such a way that all values within an interval are possible. There are a finite number of particles in the universe, and any number selected by any real world physical process will be restricted to a finite set of possibilities, each with a nonzero positive probability. For example, you just may not be able to identify let alone choose some number with a gazillion decimal places in a universe with less than a gazillion particles. Such a number has no meaning or accessibility in a practical sense.

So the notion of a possible event with probability zero is merely the consequence of a mathematical abstraction, a simplification of the real world.

Physicists argue that spacetime is quantized, not continuous, and that all things possible require a ridiculously large but not infinite number. Mathematical models of physics on the other hand employ simplifying equations that involve continuums and necessarily an infinity of possibilities. But the infinity is just their mathematical illusion.

The multiverse theory strikes these two key words -- "in God" -- from this equation: "In God anything is possible". And the cost of that 'intellectual proposal' (i.e., the "infinite multiverse theory" without a just God) is the focus of human minds toward believing in 'infinitely' unjust and exponentially torturous universes - where things so unspeakable occur that they would 'shatter minds into infinite pieces'. That is not sustainable for minds. We must remember, in this universe, the focus of the observer is part of the equation. That's a huge clue to us as breathing, sentient thinkers who desire to be in harmony with nature and active participants in reality. A scientist who preaches with confidence something exponential that he cannot prove is engaged in something very similar to a priest. As evidenced by man's long history of preaching everlasting hell, there is a danger that real people in this real universe will believe in the multiverse and act upon the belief of moral relativism. It was the belief in everlasting hell that motivated medieval torturers during the dark ages -- the torturers thought they were actually 'helping heretics' avoid a worse fate in a presumed afterlife. So, history shows a tangible, practical danger from presenting 'everlasting torture' logic to sentient beings on earth.

I think the multiverse belongs in science fiction. It does not have a reliable mathematical footing, and it cannot be tested empirically, so it is not appropriate for physicists to present the multiverse as anything other than raw, unadulterated speculation. I would liken it to saying that two parallel lines "meet at infinity” -- it's just raw, un-mathematical speculation. Or it is like saying the value of 0/0 has infinite answers -- that is just raw, un-mathematical speculation.

How does man claim to understand or see infinity, except by illusion?

Not the brightest dude...

Infinities are everywhere...

Can you provide an example of an observed infinity?

Every serious mathematician and scientist on the planet agrees that infinity has never been observed.

Are you willing to recognize that infinities were artificially inserted into calculus? Does this change your assessment that 'infinities are everywhere'?

Nope.

Do you know Leibniz´s Monad?

Do you believe the division of subatomar particles will ever reach a finite value?

Is there a finite set of harmonic division in the wave spectrum?

You might wanna learn about the fractal nature of reality...

Fractal means 'repeating', not infinite.

For example, a tree is fractal, but it does not consume all of time and space. Rather, the tree grows fractally (golden ratio) according to its design/code to its measurable height. And it produces seed, which regrow similarly upon fertile ground. In this manner, fractals repeat within environments conducive to their non-collapse.

Only God could claim to be infinite. And God is not exactly measurable, is He?

Well not a good example if you dont look further :P

And a fractal is exactly infinite - in itself repeating over and over in itself...

It seems you have a hard time to wrap your head around infinities within a boundary.

Well go ahead then...

Take something and start dividing in half... No matter how often you divide... It will never be zero bc there is always something. You cant divide to zero - get it?

I mean a God(s)/whoever could have created the multiverse. I don't think the two ideas are incompatible.

There are many examples of fractals (i.e., extinct species, transmitted light waves) that do collapse and fail repeat because they reach the limit of their conducive environment.

You've cited to Zeno's paradox (i.e., how can a person ever travel from A to B when there are hypothetically an infinite number of points between A and B? Because a person cannot traverse infinity, it suggests the hypothetical is an illusion). Further, there is no tool of observation smaller than the width of a photon, so that's why principles like the Planck length recognize fundamental limits of perspective as we know it.

The key point (across Zeno's paradox and others) is that infinity is always assumed, never observed.

In science, it's very important (and honest) to recognize when we are making assumptions.

The reason these two concepts (God and multiverse) are incompatible is that the multiverse indiscriminately predicts that 'everything that could exist' actually 'does exist' (therefore the multiverse by definition claims there is unspeakable torture so unfathomable it is infinite).

By contrast, the literal text of the bible educates us that God is just and does not engage in infinite torture. Rather, God measures out judgment and finite punishment proportionally: [link to www.logicalhierarchy.com (secure)]

Certain religious people falsely teach everlasting hell based on cooked mistranslations (wrought with assumptions), which is why the multiverse is the new age version of that false teaching.

The common denominator in 'religious everlasting hell' and 'multiverse infinite hell' is the assumption of infinity.

I meant to say incompatible but typed compatible. Or perhaps auto correct did. Lol.

Never really agreed with Einstein when he said God doesn't play dice. I mean who knows really. But maybe an all-powerful being does. If you have the power to do whatever well.. why not play dice I figure? One set of possibilities might get boring.

Not a religious person myself anymore but probably somewhere between a Deist and an agnostic. Hell I don't know what I'd call it myself honestly. But imagine the ways people see things could be relevant to belief in a mulitverse.

I don't know if the mulitverse is real. Just find the possibility intriguing and enjoy theorizing about it

It may not be an either or situation. All is consciousness that is comprised of energy. The energy congeals and slows vibration to take the form of matter. Humans think of infinite possibilities (Multiverse), but it is the Creator (source energy) that selectively implements the possibilities to be materialized. So yes, there is a multiverse of possibilities of which only a portion are implemented by the Creator as it wills.

Yes, that matches my understanding as well -- the Creator controls the possibilities.

In that manner, the Creator protects us from infinite hell. He protects us from infinite outcomes including infinite torture (i.e., multiverse).

Last Edited by Copperegla on 01/03/2022 02:02 PM

You seem convinced that existence is the primary objective, experience is what's important. How many dimensions it takes to get the message across is irrelevant. They're all as holographic as the next.

The universe is a simulation and god is its programmer. The multiverse is his forethought of omnipotent outcomes hence why he is all knowing. Though heaven and even hell reside in thier own separate dimensions/simulations

Just because the universe shows holographic qualities does not mean the holography is infinite. Indeed, to claim the holography is infinite would be an unobserved assumption. Here is an example of the limited information that has been observed:

Afshordi, N, et al. (January 2017). From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 041301. [link to journals.aps.org (secure)] (university scientists claim to have found strong evidence that implies three-dimensional reality is a holographic depiction on a two-dimensional cosmic surface).

God is the multiverse

A holographic universe

All potentials are possible, infinitely

Don’t let these demons on this particular speck of sand, jab you and keep you here

Your body is God given and it’s capable of traversing the infinite

This gene therapy manipulation is destroying your ability to get out

The problem with your position ("All potentials are possible, infinitely") is that literally an infinite number of those "potentials" would be unspeakably torturous and unjust. If that is the doctrine you wish to preach, at the very least you should make it clear that your doctrine is rooted in your personal assumptions. The multiverse is not based on observation.

Just as the ancient priests were so eager to swallow 'everlasting life' for themselves and their followers, they swallowed 'everlasting hell' in the same gulp (via mistranslation). So too new-agers swallow 'infinite possibilities' (both the infinite fluff and the infinite sadistic torture). Not exactly fertile ground for psychology, is it?

I can’t emphasize this enough: if the gospel was going to suggest infinite torment, the apostle writer could have done so literally by saying ‘time that does not end’ or ‘time that cannot end’. Or something along those lines. But those words do not appear in the literal gospel anywhere in regards to punishment. Rather, only the Father (and those who live in the Father, namely the Son) are described with special words indicating perpetual life. The fallen do not have perpetual life or perpetual torment, but rather the wage of sin is death.

Accordingly, those who preach infinite punishment or torment do so of their own assumptions and dogma because their assumptions are not supported by the literal gospel. The Messiah invited us to follow His word, not the translator’s word. At best, the word is written on our hearts — I don’t think it’s possible to write a desire for infinite torment of creatures on a loving heart.

Last Edited by Copperegla on 01/03/2022 02:41 PM

Our souls are like individual photons on God's rays radiating into a creation like sun does