The Pale Blue Dot and Four Cosmological Displacements
Through astronomy there have been four cosmological displacements:
1) The Copernican theory of the heliocentric universe defended by Galileo. (1600’s). Man was no longer the center of our particular solar system.
2) The discovery that our solar system is not central to the Milky Way galaxy, but located on the periphery; out on a spiral arm. (c. 1900). Man was not even central in his own galaxy.
3) The discovery that our galaxy is only one of billions of galaxies. (c. 1930’s). Man isn’t even central to the universe as a whole.
4) The possibility that there are an infinite number of universes, called a multiverse. God is no longer needed.
37 comments:
John said,
To those who object like Prup does (one last time)
I don't see Jim's name in the contributor list any more; is this what you meant by him objecting one last time?
Prup is just too much of a freethinker (a value I share, BTW). But he is simply his own individual and does not care if he disagrees with everything I write, and I find that to be uncharitable as a guest at DC. Sure we disagree with each other from time to time. That's to be expected among intelligent people. But I hardly ever disagree publically with any member here at DC, even though I could from time to time. I look for the things we agree on as much as possible, and if I disagree I let the person defend their own post. But Prup is at it again. I really didn't want to do it. I gave him every opportunity.
There's no censorship here. He just wastes my time, takes up too much space at DC, and doesn't do what we do...disagree in private.
If this supposition is correct, the whole notion of God as an explanation of the universe isn't needed because there are a potentially infinite number of universes, and ours just happened to be the lucky one that resulted in us being here to wonder why we exist at all.
I find the multiverse concept intriguing. Imagine a world where dinosaurs survived in North and South America, George Washington was killed during the Revolutionary War, or the Holocaust never happened.
So many possibilities....
John,
With all due respect, your policy of discouraging disagreement amongst contributors makes no sense to me.
I've seen this policy before, in the context of administrative decisions by forum admins. It makes sense there, because such a requirement for consensus before taking action prevents arbitrary decisions from being made. But in the context of discussions of the type of issues that DC addresses, I see no value in creating an artificial appearance of consensus among the contributors.
You say that Jim will be allowed to disagree with you now that he's been demoted from contributor status, so the problem doesn't seem to be disagreement in and of itself. Why should contributors have to trade the ability to disagree for the ability to contribute articles? I have found Jim's past articles to be valuable contributions to the collection here at DC, and it saddens me that he must sacrifice the ability to contribute articles just so he can comment freely.
As Jim said not so long ago, many people visit DC because of its encouragement of free-thinking. If they want enforced consensus, they get more than enough of that from church leaders. I feel that your policy undermines the encouragement of free-thinking.
Lastly, I now wonder what insights from the other contributors the public readers have missed out on because of this discouragement of disagreement.
btsai said, You say that Jim will be allowed to disagree with you now that he's been demoted from contributor status, so the problem doesn't seem to be disagreement in and of itself.
You're correct. The reason is because I do not disagree with other team members here in public. Team membership. That's what we have here. If there are not a host of things we can agree about then we shouldn't be together here in the first place. I value Jim's contributions too, and I learn from him. But I am convinced he looks for disagreement, and that's not a team member (you wouldn't believe how two other former members lit into us). It's about me having the same freedom to disagree right back at him, since as a team member I don't do this in public.
Actually the more you defend him the less I like him for putting me on this spot when he has repeatedly been asked not to do it anymore. He asked for this (today twice). The only thing that will change (besides not posting) is that he will not be able to do something I cannot do in return. Bring it on. Now you may see some real fire, since I am used to disagreements and not opposed to arguing my case with anyone in public (except team members).
You see, I'm only asking members to do the same thing I do here, so there's no double standard.
Lastly, I now wonder what insights from the other contributors the public readers have missed out on because of this discouragement of disagreement.
Whatever insights you may have missed are surely to be found elsewhere, or on their own blogs. This however, is my main blog.
John,
Dropping the policy of discouraging public disagreement would also allow you to fire back at Jim, if that's what this was about. And this would also give the contributors greater commenting freedom. A win/win, as far as I can tell.
Team membership? The top of this site states, With the diversity of our combined strengths we seek to debunk Christianity. This diversity is diminished when contributors are not allowed to disagree with one another. As we so often say to the believers, you should welcome people challenging what you say and what you believe. If your arguments are good, they will have no problems with scrutiny. And if not, the scrutiny will enable you to sharpen and refine your arguments.
Scientists subject each other's ideas to scathing scrutiny, because this is how one discovers the best ideas, the best hypotheses, the best theories. When you discourage public disagreement from fellow contributors, you lose the benefit of their scrutiny. To me, this loss far outweighs any perceived benefit from an artificial appearance of consensus.
Btsai:
Thank you for the kind words. I have written to John explaining why I think the decision to remove me from the team was a mistake, using many of the same arguments.
However, it IS John's blog and he is free to do what he wants -- though I wish he had left my post so everyone could see how minor a quibble it was that i expressed.
As a practical matter, since it had been months since I had made a post here -- I feel I am better as a commentor, anyway -- the only real result is that I now have to fill out the @$*&!# word verification everytime I comment. Unless John decides to ban me, I'll still be around, and will enjoy doing what should be the main task here "Debunking Christianity."
This is what Prup wrote:
John:
I would not have included the 'multiverse' because that is still simply speculation, while the others are proven fact.
On the other hand, I'd argue for including an earlier one, the discovery that the world was round and its size -- both done by pre-Christian Greeks. This showed the 'known world' of the Middle East and the Mediteranean and Babylonia was a small part of the actual world, and again displaced man from the center of a large flat plain to the inhabitant of a small part of a large world.
---------------
I had responded:
To those who object like Prup does (one last time), Dawkins simply says they “have not had their consciousness raised by natural selection.” Victor J. Stenger argues that the existence of multiple universes “is consistent with all we know about physics and cosmology.” “In fact, it takes an added hypothesis to rule them out—a super law of nature that says only one universe can exist. But we know of no such law.” He continues, “The hundred billion galaxies of our visible universe, each with a hundred billion stars, is but a grain of sand on the Sahara that exists beyond our horizon, grown out of that single, original bubble of a false vacuum. An endless number of such bubbles can very well exist, each itself nothing but a grain of sand on the Sahara of all existence. On such a Sahara, nothing is too improbable to have happened by chance."
If this supposition is correct, the whole notion of God as an explanation of the universe isn't needed because there are a potentially infinite number of universes, and ours just happened to be the lucky one that resulted in us being here to wonder why we exist at all.
------------
I started to delete all of these comments but stopped and couldn't put these two back in their places.
It's not the nature of this one comment from Prup though. It's the fact that Prup does this practically all of the time (twice yesterday). It is simply annoying. I'll never forget how much time I had spent talking about the heretic trials and he argued against me.
People who don't understand won't understand, but since Prup hasn't posted in such a long time nothing will change except that I will be free to argue against him.
btsai, Think on this. Exapologist, Former_Fundy, and Ed Babinski are agnostics. D, Holman and I are atheists. Do you really want us to FOCUS on our disagreements rather than on what we agree about? We agree that Christianity needs debunked. Isn't that good enough? If we started arguing here at DC about what conclusions we should come to after the debunking is done this site would be sidetracked from it's stated goal, and less effective.
Maybe I've overacted, I don't know. Again it wasn't just here, but also there, and there, and there. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was just a straw. But I'm tired of it. Once he even threatened to write a post disagreeing with a member on some triviality. Why?
I wish Prup well.
As an example of what I'm talking about, look at how this particular post has gotten sidtracked because of this discussion. Yes, I was involved in this sidetracking. But there isn't any real discussion about the "Pale Blue Dot."
I don't want to continue to get involved in the discussion of my removal and won't after this. I will say that I think John both exaggerates and misunderstands my disagreements with him. I DO agree with him 95% of the time. I also think that he is such a good writer that if he says something I agree with, there is no need, in most cases, for me to add comments. As I've mentioned repeatedly, I am frequently pressed for time. When I do have something to add, I like to say it, and sometimes it seems like disagreeing -- and sometimes it is.
Anyway, John and I are okay with the situation, and still friends -- I never have had a friend I didn't like to argue with, and wouldn't want one. So back to the main thread, and my disagreement here -- made stronger by his explanation -- in the next comment.
John said,
It's not the nature of this one comment from Prup though. It's the fact that Prup does this practically all of the time (twice yesterday). It is simply annoying. I'll never forget how much time I had spent talking about the heretic trials and he argued against me.
You've used the word "annoying" repeatedly in reference to Jim. I cannot help but conclude that his demotion has more to do with your personal annoyance with him disagreeing with you than anything else. Frankly, I find this unbecoming of the owner of a blog that purports to encourage skepticism and free-thinking.
People who don't understand won't understand, but since Prup hasn't posted in such a long time nothing will change except that I will be free to argue against him.
There are a number of other contributors who have not posted anything in a long time. Many whose absence is even longer than Jim's. Will you be demoting them as well?
Exapologist, Former_Fundy, and Ed Babinski are agnostics. D, Holman and I are atheists. Do you really want us to FOCUS on our disagreements rather than on what we agree about?... If we started arguing here at DC about what conclusions we should come to after the debunking is done this site would be sidetracked from it's stated goal, and less effective.
A slippery-slope argument, and a fallacious one, at that. Few, if any, of the articles I've read during my time here work only from an agnostic POV, or only from an atheist POV. The approach that seems to be taken most often is discrediting Christianity by pointing out problems from the Christian POV. As you put it, its *internal* problems. Given this, I find it unlikely that allowing public disagreement from contributors would've automatically led to side-tracking of discussions over arguing whether the agnosticist POV is better than the atheist POV and vice versa.
As an example of what I'm talking about, look at how this particular post has gotten sidtracked because of this discussion. Yes, I was involved in this sidetracking. But there isn't any real discussion about the "Pale Blue Dot."
John, it was your demotion of Jim, not his disagreement, that got us started on this side-track.
As Jim said, it's your site, and you can do whatever you wish. But I don't feel you have addressed my points about why this policy does more harm than good, and how dropping it would advance this site's cause. Earlier, you had said to me:
Whatever insights you may have missed are surely to be found elsewhere, or on their own blogs.
I think I will take your advice and go elsewhere. I find that I have no desire to participate at a site where the owner discourages disagreement from fellow contributors. John, Jim, fellow skeptics, I wish you well on Debunking Christianity.
My point in the comment was that the multiverse concept was entirely different from the other four -- counting my own addition to the list. The others are proven scientific concepts, complete with evidence that is indisputable. (In the case of the world's roundness and heliocentrism, now that we have satellites, actual observable evidence they are true.)
The multiverse is different -- at least as far as I know, and if I err here, I hope I will be corrected. There is no physical evidence supporting it. It is a philosophical concept that may eventually be proven by hard scientific evidence -- I suppose if I really wanted to get picky, I could describe the God concept the same way -- but that evidence does not exist yet. I thought including it in the group -- whether it were true or not -- weakened the very powerful argument the other 'displacements' made.
John's defense only strengthens my case, I'm afraid, and is the only reason I am going further with this. These arguments are 'philosophy' not science. I have seen equally 'strong' arguments for the existence of a God made by Christian philosophers, and by others. Again, they are nothing more than 'wordplay' unless there is hard evidence supporting them.
In fact, I could argue as strongly that the existence of the 'multiverse' -- if in fact it does exist -- would be a very powerful argument FOR the existence of God, since it would eliminate the argument that 'a perfect being could not create an imperfect thing.' Such a Universe, being 'complete' would be 'perfect.' (This would not advance the cause of the Christian God as much, of course, but that concept is far from 'perfect.'
This is why I am 'science-oriented' and not 'philosophy-oriented.' You can find a philosopher to support any idea you want to believe in, and one to argue against anything you don't.
I'll always be the person who 'brings in the horse,' and John, unless you can bring in the horse, the prints of one, or even some horse shit -- which would be a good thing in this case -- I'll remain unconvinced.
Btsai: I entirely disagree with your decision and hope you will return at once. You are and have been far more valuable here than have I and John is not banning me -- which would be his right -- but simply moving me to the commenter position.
Your decision hurts me and hurts us here far more than what John did, and I BEG you to reconsider.
btsai said...You've used the word "annoying" repeatedly in reference to Jim. I cannot help but conclude that his demotion has more to do with your personal annoyance with him disagreeing with you than anything else. Frankly, I find this unbecoming of the owner of a blog that purports to encourage skepticism and free-thinking.
Jim said he only disagrees with me about 5% of the time. Well, I disagree with him about 15% of the time. Do I point it out every time I disagree? No. Why does he do so with me? It's like he's looking for a disagreement, and that's a personality disorder that annoys me.
There are a number of other contributors who have not posted anything in a long time. Many whose absence is even longer than Jim's. Will you be demoting them as well?
Probably. I do so monthly. Sometimes it goes unnoticed by anyone else because these people don't participate much. Would you have a reason or a right to object if I decided to take this Blog over myself, like it used to be when I first started it?
A slippery-slope argument, and a fallacious one, at that. Few, if any, of the articles I've read during my time here work only from an agnostic POV, or only from an atheist POV.
Exactly! That's because unlike Prup, we are all "team players" here.
John, it was your demotion of Jim, not his disagreement, that got us started on this side-track.
Nope. It was Prup who decided against the repeated warnings to do what he always seems to do.
I don't feel you have addressed my points about why this policy does more harm than good, and how dropping it would advance this site's cause.
This site has a specific goal, to debunk evangelical Christianity. It is not to advance political agendas (or else there would be wide disagreement). It is not to advance conclusions when the debunking is done (or else there would be wide disagreement, since I have had two Deists and one New Age thinker here). This site is a mirror image of Babinski’s book, where the authors all agree that evangelical Christianity is a delusion. It’s a limited goal, sure, but I find it to be an effective goal, much more effective than just telling everyone to say whatever they want to. You have a right to disagree, but I don’t think a site like that would get as much accomplished at all. Anyone who is an ex-Christian is invited to participate so long as she accepts these limited goals. I think that’s rather generous of me, don’t you? And it is not to have a loose cannon on the deck who takes potshots at the rest of us, not just me, and not just once, but too many times to be counted! If you prize him, like I do, for freethinking, then I fault him for uncharitableness and nit-picky faultfinding.
The fact that Prup disagrees with the multiverse theory does not bother me at all. What does bother me is that I grant him the chance to be here in the first place, and all he can do is to disagree with me, while I try not to do likewise. Even though he disagrees with me only 5% of the time, he gives the appearance that he disagrees with me ALL OF THE TIME. I am simply under enough pressure as it is. I don't need a "Judas" on board my ship who continually takes shots at me. Take it elsewhere.
I think I will take your advice and go elsewhere. I find that I have no desire to participate at a site where the owner discourages disagreement from fellow contributors.
Remember, there is no double standard here. I’m only asking that team members do as I do for effectiveness. They have complete freedom to write as they wish when it comes to our common goal. There is so much we agree about why should we open it up to discuss those minor issues that we disagree about? We do not need to agree about everything to have shared goals. Why do you demand that it should be otherwise? Start your own blog and have Prup on it if you want to.
HI all,
I want to quickly go on the record to say
I support John in his decision to retire prup.
Am I the only one here who thinks the discussion that John started is more interesting than whether or not I remain a member? John's point -- except for the multiverse, IM(NS)HO -- is a very important one, can we PLEASE get back to it????
Hi Prup,
I argue that the discovery that world was not round is important but does not fit the category of "cosmological". And I would argue that your insistence that it was mistake to add the multiverse is characteristically quarrelsome of you because john clearly differentiates the DISCOVERY and HYPOTHESIS from the POSSIBILITY. The point still stands and is not weakened by the inclusion of the possibility. The effect of displacing mankind from its self-importance is the result.
How does the possibility of an infinite number of universes preclude God? Where did these universes come from? What was the impetus that started these universes moving? There needs to be an "Uncaused Cause" for all of those universes, and this "divine being," whether it be God or not, is the reason for existence.
Okay, Lee, you've caused me to write a much longer post on what was originally a 'throw-away' post, a 'minor quibble.' I objected to mixing concrete, fact-supported, evidence-supported discoveries with a pure speculation. The first three John mentioned did seriously change humanity's view of itself -- once they were proven. (In fact, onew of the more obnoxious factors about most Christianities and other religions is that they have yet to assimilate helio-centrism or the size of the Universe. (In fact, Rushdoony and some other Christians remain geocentrists to this day, and not just the total fringe elements -- which Rushdoony sadly wasn't.)
I am not being 'quarrelsome' but consistent in challenging the concept of the 'multiverse.' It is a 'possibility,' yes, but so is the existence of a theistic God -- so is solipsism, for that matter. But there is precisely as much evidence for the multiverse as there is for a theistic God -- NONE! Both 'are convenient hypotheses -- they explain so many things,' but anyone can come up with six unproven hypotheses before breakfast -- especially if you ignore Occam's Razor.
John argues that the multiverse 'leaves no room for God.' I don't see this at all. The arguments 'from Creation' still hold -- as weak as they are -- and the objection that 'a perfect God could not create an imperfect Universe' no longer applies. (In fact, as I'll show tomorrow -- sorry, I have a medical appointment and need some sleep -- the most common -- though least supportable -- concept of the multiverse REQUIRES a god, or at least an extra-temporal, omniscient, interfering 'guiding intelligence' for it to work at all.)
But in fact, the most important thing about the multiverse concept -- unless it is possible for two distinct universes to interact, which has not been shown even theoretically -- is that it is not merely unprovable, but the question 'is it true' is in the strictest and most literal sense irrelevant and meaning-free. (In this it is precisely the same as the concept of a strictly deistic, i.e., non-interacting, Creator. There is no way of distinguishing this from a self-existant Universe, and because the deity does not interact, it, in the deepest sense, does not matter if it exists or not.)
Think about it. We exist in one, distinct universe. If there are a billion, billion billion exactly identical 'us's on other, discrete, non-interacting Universes -- and there must be at least that many if we rule out the 'guiding intelligence' as I'll explain tomorrow --
SO WHAT?
We can't prove they are there, we can't interact with them in any way (which is WHY we can't prove they are there) and they in no way affect us.
The multiverse is not a concept that 'frees us from God,' it is a concewpt that does nothing except give us yet another myth to speculate on -- unless interaction is possible.
Don't we have better and more productive uses of our time?
(definitely to be continued.)
Hi Prup,
I objected to mixing concrete, fact-supported, evidence-supported discoveries with a pure speculation.....
According to my understanding,
Its not pure speculation since mathematically it works out in a number of ways.
It is a 'possibility,' yes, but so is the existence of a theistic God -- so is solipsism, for that matter. But there is precisely as much evidence for the multiverse as there is for a theistic God -- NONE! Both 'are convenient hypotheses -- they explain so many things,' but anyone can come up with six unproven hypotheses before breakfast -- especially if you ignore Occam's Razor.
From what I've read, the background radiation measurements have the potential to prove or disprove at least a couple of factors that multiverse theory depend on. And supposedly, using multiverse theory does away with some problems which make it the simpler solution.
So in my opinion, it has more going for it than god does.
I may have to delay my further discussion until evening, since my appointment is getting closer. But I can respond to Lee -- and thank him for realizing that, while I may be wrong, my position is not pure 'quarrelsomeness.'
Lee:
Of course, were there to be evidence showing the actual existence of such Universes, I would have to accept it. (I would say the same about a god or gods. I'm not going to fall into the William Lane Craig trap John describes in another post -- which is identical to the position of the Cardinals who would not look through Galileo's telescope.)
But we should be careful to avoid Copernicus' mistake -- because it was not Copernicus who overthrew the medieval concept of the Universe. He accepted the idea that 'heavenly bodies' were of a different nature than earthly ones, and that they must, therefore, move in the 'perfect' circular paths -- and that modifications to this must be also circular, hence 'epicycles.'. All he did was to establish that a heliocentric Universe required fewer epicycles than did the Ptolemaic view. It was Kepler's abandonment of 'circles of perfection' and showing the planets, in fact, moved in elliptical orbits -- or rather that their orbits could be explained through this assumption -- that began to shake the idea that the 'heavens' were made of different stuff than the 'earthly realms.' And it was Galileo's telescope that demonstrated this was, in fact, so, and was why the Cardinal balked.
Sorry for wandering -- four hours sleep and being awakened by telemarketers does that to me. Anyway, if there is, in fact evidence of the actual existence multiverse, it would not only need to be accepted -- provisionally, like all science -- but it would imply that there was interaction between the various Universes, and remove that problem.
However, as I'll try and show later, the concept might involve some interesting ramifications, and I wonder if they have been considered.
(Btw, some of you might be interested in the first fictional handling of this idea. It was Murray Leinster's Sidewise in Time. The story, as I remember it, is rather crude, but the science behind it, and the consequences of that science are remarkable considering it was published in 1934. It looks at the idea more deeply than does almost any modern treatment.)
Late, gotta go, later.
So maybe I'm completely off track here...but if the multiuniverse theory "displaces mankind from its self-importance", wouldn't that support the basis of Christianity? The idea that "we" should be less concerned about ourseleves, is one of the central themes of the bible.
And I'm not sure how having multiple universes somehow displaces God. If He is in fact omniscient, wouldn't that further support the plausibility of His existance?
curious...
Prup, some philosophers are now arguing that the answer to the age old question “why is there something rather than nothing at all” can be answered scientifically. Bede Rundle argues that “there had to be something.” Frank Wilczek answers that the reason why something exists is because “’nothing’ is unstable.”
Victor J. Stenger explains: “Since nothing is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable.” Because of this, “the probability for there being something rather than nothing can actually be calculated; it is over 60 percent.” As such, “only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.” If this is the case, then why can’t there be more than one universe, or even a potentially infinite number of universes?
Victor J. Stenger explains: “Since nothing is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable.” Because of this, “the probability for there being something rather than nothing can actually be calculated; it is over 60 percent.”
Man, I would LOVE to see that calculation.
"The idea that "we" should be less concerned about ourseleves, is one of the central themes of the bible."
That's a bit of a stretch. Expand the definition of "central theme" that far, and you can make any observed fact fit one of the many "central themes" of the Bible.
Shygetz, I'll have to admit I have not seen these calculations, and if I did I probably wouldn't understand them. I'm only relating what he has found as a physicist. You can order his books along with Rundle's to see these things argued for. If you can understand them and show them incorrect, then have at it. ;-)
Prup,
I forgot something. I have some questions for you. Would you please get in touch with me at bitsai@hotmail.com?
Thank you for your kind words (and flattering over-estimation of my worth), but I think my decision is final. If there were doubts, John removed them for me. His last posts show more of the same intolerance for disagreement that drove me to speak up in the first place. I feel that such an attitude is anathema to free-thinking and truth-seeking. As I have but finite time, I choose to spend it at venues where the owners are more tolerant of disagreement.
Just remember, there is no double standard here. The goals are well stated and that's that. Prup was intolerant of the accepted goals here, and so are you.
It would be akin to a blog that sought to defend homosexuality but included a blogger who repeatedly wanted to defend Christianity on it, when others were non-believers. Such a thing would be counter-productive. It wouldn't be any different if there were a blog attacking Bush's policies that had a blogger on it who wanted to advocate New Age thinking. Blogs, like organizations and magazines must come to some shared goals to be effective, and that's that. I find your ignorance about this to be juvenile, I really do. And I like Prup less and less for putting me on this spot.
John,
Victor J. Stenger is apparently a prolific author. Do you remember in which book he made that claim?
Shygetz, I'll show you a trick. Go here and do a search for the word "Rundle." Then click on either page 132 or 136 to see Stenger's claim. You can pursue the references as you see fit. ;-)
Shygetz, then go here, do a search for "Supplement H." When there go to page two number 19 and click on it, then back up a few pages to see the math. Good luck!
I see what he was getting at. He was defining "nothing" as a vacuum devoid of matter/energy; in this case, he is possibly correct. However, he does not envision "nothing" as being the absence of space itself (e.g. before expansion of space). We have no referent (that I know of) to make any predictions about the stability of a spaceless void, or even what such a concept means (as far as I know; for example, even the mathematical definition of "an empty set" requires the admission that a set exists), which is why I was surprised that he would make this statement. However, I saw that he qualified it in his book as only applying to empty space, so that's ok.
From what I saw, even Rundle's work that Stenger referenced requires "nothing" to actually mean "space". I don't know if humans can begin to envision the absence of space.
The more I get into theoretical physics, the more I begin to agree with H.P. Lovecraft. There are truths so terrible that the human mind recoils from them.
Are there really 4 cosmological displacements? I see three discoveries then a possibility. We have no proof of a single other universe much less infinite universes.
Thanks for the Carl Sagan video. Brought back lots of memories. Note that he accurately portrayed what the vast universe is telling us: "we are small beyond our ability to comprehend, so love one another, take care of your planet, it is the only one you may ever know". Is that not biblical?
The world lost a great intellectual when Carl Sagan passed away.
Jim Jordan:
This was precisely my original point, that John should not have included a possibility with three near-certainties. It was only after the problems the comment caused that I began looking more closely at the 'multiverse' concept.
As I looked at it more closely, I began to question both its liklihood and John's belief that it 'rules out the necessity for a God.' (I can just as easily see arguments that it requires the existence of some sort of theistic God -- though hardly the absurdity of the Christian one.)
I'd like to ask a few questions of the defenders of the concept:
1) is your concept 'parallel' (all the Universes in the multiverse exist from some staring point -- or 'eternally'. Presumably this would mean they were 'initially' identical and would begin to diverge: or,
1b) 'branching' with one initial Universe that in some, unexplained way, 'divides' at each divergence point.
2) If they are parallel, is the number of universes in the multiverse extremely large but finite, or actually infinite. (If branching, of course, the number is finite.)
3) Is the divergence and differentiation between universes caused by events on the atomic or sub-atomic level, through conscious, intelligent choices, or in some other way?
4) Is there a theoretical possibility of interaqction between divergent, differentiated universes on even an aomic or sub-atomic level? If not, how do you demonstrate the multiverse has an actual rather than a theoretical existence? If so, does this leave the possibility of interaction on the macroscopic level, travel between Universes by beings or instruments?
5)And finally, do the conservation laws hold:
a) within an individual universe -- which would make interaction unlikely
b) only within the multiverse as a whole -- which would make the possibility of an infite number of universes impossible
or c) not at all -- which has its own problems.
This is NOT as 'off-topic' as it seems, because I believe some of the answers do relate to whether the multiverse 'has no room for God,' requires a god, or is neutral on the question.
But rather than expolre all the possibilities, I'd like to know which are being considered probable.
Prup, if you want to do some research on the topic see here, and see here, okay? Then go here and debate it all you want to. Do this and let us know what you find, okay?
I never said the multiverse rules anything out, either. If you want to quote me, don't misquote what I said, and when you do so, interpret it charitably. I only meant that if the Pale Blue Dot places the need for God at a distance, then how much more so would a multiverse. And yes, we did discover this possibility in recent years with Hugh Everitt, I believe. It was unheard of prior to our era, and such a concept does in fact cause us to wonder how vast existence might be and where God might be in it.
I am not a physicist. Stenger and Dawkins are good enough for me. If you want to argue the concept, argue with them. I doubt very much there can be any scientific evidence for a multiverse, but then there are a host of things you believe without evidence too. Still, before we can find any evidence we need to search for it, and before we search for it we must know what to look for. Scientists are doing just that.
Maybe math is all the evidence we'll ever have, and Stenger's math shows that it's 60% probable that something exists given space. If space is infinite it would seem reasonable to conclude that there are a potential infinite universes out there. And Stenger argues, if I can paraphrase him properly, unless there is some rule of nature prohibiting space from being infinte, then it's probable there are more universes.
Probable. That's 60% probable.
That's all I have to say about this. If you are the authority on this topic that you want to appear to be, then go to that link and debate it all you want to.
Post a Comment