Is there a center of the universe?

Critical Rationalist @94, Nice try, but no cigar. You forgot to mention that Philip Ball acknowledges that Hugh Everett, who proposed the MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics did indeed propose the branching off of the many worlds and that he himself considers the MWI incoherent. For all possible worlds to exist before any one of them is instantiated seems like a complete cop-out into pure fantasy, populated by Greek gods, Disney characters, and anything/everything else one can dream up. As Philip Ball put it,

The science-fiction vision of a “duplicated quantum self” has nevertheless delivered some fanciful, and undeniably entertaining, images.

Apparently, you didn't read the rest of Philip Ball's article that pointed out the problems with MWI, including "splitting" (as also mentioned by Max Tegmark). Philip Ball asks:

For starters, about this business of bifurcating worlds. How does a split actually happen?

So, are you suggesting that Philip Ball didn't read his own article? Why don't you read the whole thing? -Q Querius

No, it doesn’t. From your own reference…

In this view, splitting is not an abrupt event. It evolves through decoherence and is only complete when decoherence has removed all possibility of interference between universes. While it’s popular to regard the appearance of distinct worlds as akin to the bifurcation of futures in Jorge Luis Borges’ story “The Garden of Forking Paths,” a better analogy might therefore be something like the gradual separation of shaken salad dressing into layers of oil and vinegar. It’s then meaningless to ask how many worlds there are — as the philosopher of physics David Wallace aptly puts it, the question is rather like asking, “How many experiences did you have yesterday?” You can identify some of them, but you can’t enumerate them.

So, universes do not get created. They already exist. They become differentiated when a branching occurs. And they appear from our perspective when we branch as well. You might want to actually read the articles you reference, as this one doesn’t say what you think it says. critical rationalist

Critical Rationalist @92,

Except, that’s not what the MWI suggests.

Yes, it does: https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-has-many-problems-20181018/ -Q Querius

Essentially an infinite number of complete universes appear every microsecond.

Except, that’s not what the MWI suggests. I’d point you to a video that clears this up, but a link has already been posted, already. Multiple times. In this very thread. For example, see #18. What gives? Again. It’s unclear how this reflects the end of science. Apparently, because that’s the way you prefer it, and you’re bound and determined to remain ignorant of it? critical rationalist

As I said in @81,

The MWI is the end of science . . . anything and everything with a non-zero probability can be explained by the MWI. It’s functionally equivalent of God to atheists.

There's a branch for every interaction, every probability, and nothing that happens isn't absolutely deterministic in its own branch. Essentially an infinite number of complete universes appear every microsecond. Let me assure you that this is the most egregious violation of the parsimony principle imaginable! How could you possibly falsify it? -Q Querius

What I mean is, if MWI is true, would the particular universe we happen to inhabit, considered on its own, be deterministic?

As soon as you stop considering the multiverse, you stop considering the MWI. Which is what you seem to be asking. However, as I've indicated, all branches evolve according to the same laws of physics. For example, an electron will never convert into a proton, as it would violate conservation of mass, the conservation of charge, etc. That will never happen in the MWI. But, in a more fundamental sense, the laws of physics includes quantum mechanics. So the entire multiverse evolves according to the wave function, which is deterministic. That's what it means to say the MWI is just taking the wave function seriously. You'd have to add something to the wave function to explain why observers can cause collapse, how they can stand outside it to observe it, etc. To flip the question on its head, why don't observers evolve according to the wave function? critical rationalist

There is an obvious logical flaw here.

Would the obvious logical flaw of not actually indicating what the logical flaw in in question, disqualify an individual from any common sense discussion. Given that the MWI is an interception of quantum mechanics, not a competing theory, perhaps you could explicitly indicates exactly what logical flaw you're referring to?

anything and everything with a non-zero probability can be explained by the MWI. It’s functionally equivalent of God to atheists.

First, this seems to be a concession that God could be used to explain anything and everything. So, God is indeed a bad explanation? Second, it's not clear what you mean by "anything and everything with a non-zero probability." For example, unlike the Copenhagen interpretation, probability is not the way to think about outcomes in many worlds interpretation, because there is no collapse. So, this reflects a kind of category category error. Furthermore, from some existing branch in the tree, the multiverse could only branch in ways that does not violate the laws of physics. This is significantly more limiting than explaining "anything and everything with a non-zero probability." Specifically, it prohibits branches evolving in ways that leap to some point in the tree only possible several steps down the branching path, etc. How does this reflect "anything and everything with a non-zero probability"? IOW, it's unclear how the many worlds interpretation could anymore reflect "the end of science" than the Copenhagen interpretation. But, by all means, feel free to elaborate on this further. critical rationalist

CR @

Perhaps you mean, would the particular universe we happen to inhabit appear deterministic to us?

What I mean is, if MWI is true, would the particular universe we happen to inhabit, considered on its own, be deterministic? Origenes

Forget about the multiverse nonsense for a moment. Let me try it one more time: If MWI is true, do we find ourselves in a fully determined universe?

If the MWI is true, then all of that “multiverse nonsense” is true. That’s a necessary consequence of the interpretation. The multiverse is the most fundamental part, not universes, which emerge from it. "Universes" are convenient ways for human beings to think about specific aspects of the multiverse. So, there is no singular, most fundamental “The Universe” as implied in your question. The many worlds theory is completely deterministic theory of quantum mechanics. But that doesn't add to anything to what I've already said. Perhaps you mean, would the particular universe we happen to inhabit appear deterministic to us? But, again, I'd suggest evaluating that on a universe basic would be unnecessarlly narrow. Adding randomness of some kind to our universe, quantum or otherwise, doesn't help as our choices would be, well, random. critical rationalist

CR @84

Ori: If MWI is true, is each universe fully determined? IOW do we find ourselves in a fully determined universe?

I’m not sure if that is the right question in regards to free will, which I’m assuming you’re alluding to. Specifically, In the MWI, the multiverse is more fundamental than each universe that emerges from it.

My question was not: "what is more fundamental the multiverse or each universe that emerges from it?"

For the sake of argument, let’s pick some convenient initial conditions to assume the multiverse is uniform., such as the Big Bang ...

Forget about the multiverse nonsense for a moment. Let me try it one more time: If MWI is true, do we find ourselves in a fully determined universe? Origenes

Given that anything that would falsify the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics would also falsify the MWI, is the Copenhagen interpretation the end of science as well?

There is an obvious logical flaw here. Making this logical mistake disqualifies the individual from any common sense discussion. He posts a logical non-sequitur. jerry

I'd note BA still yet to explain how I’m referring to the wrong kind of locality in regards to the evidence he is claiming refutes the MWI. What gives? If he is more knowledgable, then he should have no problem doing so. But if he did, he would need to concede that there are different kinds of locality, even proposed by Bell himself, which I've elaborated on at length. And that would be highly problematic for his claim, as it's based on a false dilemma. However, despite this, it will just be a matter of time before BA make the same claim regarding this evidence, as if this thread had never happened. Details are only relevant when they suit BA's purpose. critical rationalist

The MWI is the end of science . . . anything and everything with a non-zero probability can be explained by the MWI. It’s functionally equivalent of God to atheists.

Given that anything that would falsify the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics would also falsify the MWI, is the Copenhagen interpretation the end of science as well? critical rationalist

If MWI is true, is each universe fully determined? IOW do we find ourselves in a fully determined universe?

I'm not sure if that is the right question in regards to free will, which I'm assuming you're alluding to. Specifically, In the MWI, the multiverse is more fundamental than each universe that emerges from it. For the sake of argument, let's pick some convenient initial conditions to assume the multiverse is uniform., such as the Big Bang. At which point, the multiverse would start to branch and the first distinct "universes" would emerge. Those branches would branch. And those branches would branch, etc. From that distant past, all the way to the present moment, no resulting branch would have diverged in a way that violated the laws of physics. So, how could any choices we would have made have an influence on the resulting branching that occurred since then? IOW, I'd suggest the question is: do our choices make a difference in the multiverse, which then impacts which universes emerge as branches? Imagine If anything like what we call life had not appeared? Everything that could happen, within the limits of the laws of physics, would happen. A splits into A and B, which then split into A, B, C, and D, and so on, a forever-branching tree with no differentiation whatever. However, let's add a living thing into the multiverse. If life is knowledge, in that knowledge is information that plays a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium, then the resulting tree of branches will no longer be distributed in the same way. From the perspective of what causes a branch, a plant effectively makes choices. Plants are not people, so those variations are random, to any particular problem to solve, but they still reflect the growth of knowledge. Variation reflects conjecture and natural selection reflects criticism. So, there will be more "universes" with plants that have survived, than would have been otherwise. The same can be said with people, who also create knowledge via conjecture and criticism. Those choices are more likely the kind you appear to be alluding to. For example, if someone contemplates jumping off a cliff, there will be universes where they actual do jump. But there will be more resulting universes in which they chose not to jump, than would be expected otherwise. Rather, they are different in other ways. So, it's by looking beyond just a single branch that we would see how our choices affect the multiverse, despite the MWI being deterministic. The multiverse makes the crucial difference, in that good choices can have a key impact. This simply isn't possible in a classical world, or even other interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is in contrast to suggesting someone's choice is undermined. If that refers to some kind of random collapse, this just means someone's choice is random. IOW, if choice really is based on randomness, based on QM or something else, it's unclear how our choice wouldn't actually be an illusion. It would just be, well, unpredictable. critical rationalist

Origenes @80, The MWI is the end of science . . . anything and everything with a non-zero probability can be explained by the MWI. It's functionally equivalent of God to atheists. -Q Querius

CR @ If MWI is true, is each universe fully determined? IOW do we find ourselves in a fully determined universe? Origenes

How seriously do you take the many-worlds interpretation (MWI)?

I think it's our current, best interpretation of quantum mechanics. For example.....

Like the textbook formulation, Everettian quantum mechanics (MWI) also comes with a list of postulates. Here it is: – Quantum states are represented by wave functions, which are vectors in a mathematical space called Hilbert space. – Wave functions evolve in time according to the Schrödinger equation. That’s it! Quite a bit simpler — and the two postulates are exactly the same as the first two of the textbook approach. Everett, in other words, is claiming that all the weird stuff about “measurement” and “wave function collapse” in the conventional way of thinking about quantum mechanics isn’t something we need to add on; it comes out automatically from the formalism.

So, I've tentatively adopted it, like everything else. This means taking it seriously, including necessary consequences of the theory itself. But, I don't think that knowledge is justified, true belief. Which seems to be the context in which you asked your question. So, we seem to be comparing oranges and apples. For example, I don't think science proves things are true. It just proves things are false. And, even then tentatively. Even then, before a new theory replaces another, it must not only explain everything the current theory does, just as well, but also explain why we thought the theory was true in the first place. A concrete example of this is the OPERA experiment, in which observations suggested that neutrinos traveled faster than light. However, this didn't result in falsifying Einstein's speed limit in a vacuum. Why? Because that observation didn't automatically result in a replacement theory, which explained everything else, just as well, but also explained why neutrinos traveled faster than light in the OPERA experiment, but not all other experiments.

Do you think that it is likely that you exist in an infinite number of parallel universes?

No. That's a misconception of the theory. Each version of me would be, well, separate at the level of the multiverse. There are other "universes" where other versions of you asked the same question and other versions of me are responding in the same way. But there are other differences in which they diverge. However, one key point is that use of the term "universe" is that it's a convenience for us. It's a helpful way of understanding the multiverse, which is more fundamental. To quote Sean Carroll...

That’s what you have to agree on if you believe in many worlds. You notice that many worlds never appeared in that characterization, that’s because how we take the quantum state of the universe and divide it up into worlds is a human convenience, it is a human convenience in exactly the same way that talking about the box of gas as a fluid or a gas with a temperature and a density is a human convenience, we don’t have to do it. There’s not even as comprehensive and detailed description as talking about all the individual molecules, but it is still true, it’s a higher level emergent description. And there’s a reason why David Wallace, who is the leading many worlds guy, former podcast guest, his book on everybody in quantum mechanics is called The Emergent Multiverse, because that multiverse description that dividing the wave function into branches is an emergent thing. And in that case, the whole thing about emerging phenomena is they provide a true handle on what is going on, but at a approximate level, at a way that you ignore some information or don’t need to know all the information and can still get some truth about what is going on.

Or does the idea strike you as counterintuitive?

Why should something be rejected for currently seeming counterintuitive? Or, to flip the question on its head, why should reality, nature, or even God, hinge on what we find intuitive? It seems to me that you're including some implicit assumption about knowledge to reach that conclusion. For example, I'm guessing you believe in the Trinity. If so, do really find that intuitive? critical rationalist

First...

You would think that one of the zillions of parallel CRs would have known something simple like that. Oh well. CR. one last word, I’ll gladly let my posts speak for themselves. I feel I have more than made the case for Theism. This is my last post to you on the subject. Far be it from me to try to be reasonable with someone who really does believe he is existing is a zillion different universes simultaneously.

Yes. They do speak for themselves. BA cannot even keep the many worlds interpretation straight between subsequent paragraphs in the same comment! If BA doesn't actually care about accurately presenting the details, then it's unclear how the actually cares about the details in his rejection of it. Second, we still haven't heard BA explain how I'm using the wrong kind of locality in regards to the evidence he is referring to. So, apparently he is walking way from his claim that evidence has falsified the MWI. After all the MWI is a competing interpretation of quantum mechanics, not a theory that competes with quantum mechanics itself, which is what Einstein was trying to develop for in regards to his hidden variables approach. Loopholes for some competing theory is what has been closed by the evidences BA is referring to, not the MWI. IOW, if the experiments that BA is referring to really had falsified the MWI, then it would have falsified quantum mechanics as a whole. Yet, I'm guessing this isn't what BA believes. Why not? It doesn't suit his purpose. Will he stop making this claim?

The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics that suggests that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" or "universe." This interpretation is one way to address the peculiarities of quantum mechanics, such as superposition and wave function collapse. The EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox is a thought experiment that involves non-locality, or "spooky action at a distance," as Einstein called it. This non-locality is observed in entangled particles, where a change in the state of one particle seems to instantaneously affect the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them. This phenomenon appears to violate the principles of locality and realism, as well as the speed-of-light limit in Einstein's theory of relativity. In the years since the EPR thought experiment, various experiments have been conducted to test the predictions of quantum mechanics, such as the Bell tests. These experiments aim to close the so-called "loopholes" that might allow for alternative explanations for the observed correlations between entangled particles. As these loopholes are closed, the results continue to support the predictions of quantum mechanics, including the phenomenon of non-locality. However, it's important to note that these experiments do not directly falsify the Many Worlds Interpretation. The MWI is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, not a competing theory. It agrees with the standard predictions of quantum mechanics and does not make different predictions that could be experimentally tested. Instead, it offers a way to understand the underlying nature of reality in light of the results of experiments like the EPR tests and the Bell tests. In summary, while the removal of loopholes in non-locality in EPR experiments provides further evidence supporting the predictions of quantum mechanics, it does not directly falsify the Many Worlds Interpretation. The MWI remains one of several interpretations of quantum mechanics, and its acceptance or rejection is often a matter of personal philosophical preference rather than empirical evidence.

Want some online references? Wallace, D. (2003). Everett and Structure. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34(1), 87-105. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0107144 This paper provides an overview of the MWI and its implications for understanding the structure of quantum mechanics, including entanglement and EPR-type experiments. Tegmark, M. (1997). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words? Fortschritte der Physik, 46(6-8), 855-862. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709032 This paper discusses the MWI in the context of various interpretations of quantum mechanics and presents an argument for why the MWI is a viable interpretation that is consistent with experimental results, including those from EPR tests. Vaidman, L. (2014). Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/ Although not a paper, this encyclopedia entry provides an extensive overview of the MWI and its implications, including a discussion of entanglement and non-locality. It also addresses how the MWI is consistent with the results of EPR experiments. Deutsch, D. (1997). The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications. Penguin Books. http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm While not strictly an academic paper, this online chapter from Deutsch's book provides an accessible introduction to the MWI and its compatibility with experimental results in quantum mechanics, including EPR tests. As for God healing amputees, why is this supposedly such a rare occurrence? After all God supposedly heals cancer patients at a significantly greater rate. So, why doesn't God heal amputees as often as, say, cancer patients or other diseases? Also, wouldn't regrowing limbs be at the top of the list to report? It seems that there would be a greater correlation between limb regrowth and reports than, say, curing cancer, etc. Furthermore, neither of those references includes specifics from my comments such as as.... - God doesn't need to perform miracles on a case by case basis. - Regrowing limbs doesn't violate the laws of psychics. We grow limbs in the womb and some species of salamanders can regrown them when lost - God could simply give us the knowledge to achieve this. - If we take creationists seriously, God supposedly already gave salamanders the ability to regrow limbs - Salamanders cannot conceive of having a disability. We can. IOW, my criticism was BA's arbitrary appeal to "God could have some good reason to do x, which we cannot comprehend." We could just as well appeal to that in regards to God creating the multiverse. It's unclear how BA knows that God has some good reason to give salamanders the ability to regrow limbs, but couldn't have some good reason to create the multiverse. What gives? Of course, I don't want to put words into his mouth. Does BA not think God must have had some good reason to give salamanders the ability to regrow limbs, but not human beings? critical rationalist

CR Would you say that MWI is deterministic in the sense that things in each Universe are (super)deterministic? IOW if MWI is true, each universe is fully determined. Origenes

Browntim @47,

“How do we know that the Big Bang was not “triggered by something”? Do we know anything about what went on before that?”

According to current theory, there were no “before that” since time didn’t exist before Big Bang. Human mind has harder time to comprehend that there was something “before” time existed.

Yes, exactly! According to the current consensus among astrophysicists and cosmologists, space and time (space-time) BEGAN 13.8 billion years ago. As far as science is concerned, space-time simply popped into existence from nothing (non-existence). Bornagain77 @75,

You would think that one of the zillions of parallel CRs would have known something simple like that. Oh well.

And all these magical parallel universes, multiverses, and multiple universes are conjured as "explanations" without the slightest concern that conjuring entire universes is probably the most egregious violation of Occam's Razor or the parsimony principle imaginable to science! This is apparently not a problem at all for a lot of die-hard atheists. -Q Querius

Oh my gosh. One of the zillions of parallel CRs tries his hand at theology, (supposedly to disprove God and prove that he exists in a zillion parallel universes), and it ain't pretty, i.e. "on one hand, God supposedly heals patents of cancer and other diseases, etc., but he won’t heal amputees." And yet,

Craig Keener: "In terms of the specific kind of example like God healing amputees,,, There are some reports of limbs growing back, actually, or especially, more specifically, of withered limbs, shriveled limbs, within a day, or sometimes within an hour or so, filling out. " https://apologetics315.com/2012/10/craig-keener-interview-on-miracles-transcript/ Why Won't God Heal Amputees?? (#5) response Excerpt: Dr. Craig keener notes, in his massive two-volume work on miracles, restoration accounts of limbs are rare but they do get reported. In one of these reports a leg severed below the knee grew back and in other reports shriveled limbs sort of like miraculously filled out and started to work again,,, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAH-3nDRSdo

You would think that one of the zillions of parallel CRs would have known something simple like that. Oh well. CR. one last word, I'll gladly let my posts speak for themselves. I feel I have more than made the case for Theism. This is my last post to you on the subject. Far be it from me to try to be reasonable with someone who really does believe he is existing is a zillion different universes simultaneously. bornagain77

I wrote....

First, some kind of dualism could be true, despite God not existing. It’s unclear why he thinks these things are joined at the hip. Regardless, BA’s claim that “MWI was invented, first and foremost, to avoid God” appears to be a false dilemma that is pulled out of thin air.

BA:

CR:.. “despite God not existing.”...

Of course, this is a figure of speech. My point was, it could be that God does not exist, yet dualism could be true. I don't have to actually believe God doesn't exist to take that theory seriously for the purpose of criticism. But if BA didn't already knew that, then why did he quote mine me? What gives? Apparently, dualism is just flat out crazy talk, if God doesn't exist, but it's peachy keen if he does? Perhaps a better question is, what doesn't BA think is crazy if God doesn't exist, and why? critical rationalist

CR: I’m quite happy to let my posts stand as stated. All hidden variable theories, including Wiseman’s current one, are shown to be false.

First, just a reminder: the many worlds interpretation doesn't have any hidden variables, including the kind in the MIW / Pilot wave theory or the kind that Einstein proposed. But, again, details like this are irrelevant to BA. It's just crazy. Second, in regards to the appeal to "good reasons we cannot comprehend" I'd also point out that, on one hand, God supposedly heals patents of cancer and other diseases, etc., but he won't heal amputees. Why not? After all, if we take the claims of creationists seriously, God supposedly created human beings. So, restoring limbs would be child's play. (Even less than child's play, as God is supposedly infinite, exists outside of time, knows everything that could possibly be known, etc. Saying God wouldn't even "break a sweat" wouldn't even come close.) But, even then, God wouldn't need to perform some great miracle time after time. After all, we know regrowing limbs wouldn't violate the laws of physics because some species of salamanders do it So, God could just make a few changes in the human genome to give us the ability to regrow limbs as well. Or better yet, he could just reveal that knowledge to us, along with the knowledge of how to make those changes in human beings. Right? I mean, assuming we do not destroy ourselves first, it's something we can figure out eventually, like how to cure cancer. So why heal cancer patients, but not amputees? If you doubt this, we can again take creationism seriously. If it's true that God created the biosphere, then God also intentionally created that species of salamanders with the necessary genes (but not other species of salamanders?). So, he must already possess the knowledge of exactly which genes are necessary, to result in just the right proteins that will result in just the right features to regrown limbs. And he must already possess the knowledge of how to bring about those changes in living things. Otherwise, how did that knowledge end up in salamanders, giving them that ability, in the first place? Of course, this also means the opposite is true. When God created human beings, he intentionally omitted that knowledge. . Now, let's let that sink in for a few moments, shall we? When we do this, creationists are left with an implicit theory that we're supposed to accept. Specifically, I'm supposed to believe is that God intentionally gave some species of salamanders (but not others?) the ability to regrow their limbs, despite the fact that salamanders cannot conceive of disability. They don't feel awkward, left out, frustrated, incapacitated, depressed, inadequate and even suicidal. All of those reflect concepts that only people (which includes human beings) can experience. Salamanders cannot experience them. Yet, God decided not to give those genes to human beings, who can and do experience them. So, if we take creationism seriously, God could have given those genes to human beings. Which is something he supposedly already knows how, has already done and could do without performing miracle after miracle (which is supposedly something God does when he heals cancer and other diseases.) So why didn't he? The best the theist can do is, God must have some good reason we cannot comprehend. Of course, should someone apply this to God and the MWI, theists like BA apparently somehow knows God couldn't possibly have some good reason to create the multiverse that we cannot comprehend. Rather, they're crazy. Doesn't this strike you as being, well, a bit arbitrary and even hypocritical? critical rationalist

Of related note, through the last decade or so, I have really appreciated Dr. Egnor explaining some of the more ancient arguments for God's existence,

The Divine Hiddenness Argument Against God's Existence = Nonsense - Michael Egnor - Oct. 4, 2021 Excerpt: We will set aside Scriptural revelation and personal experience (given that atheists like Dillahunty discount these anyway) and consider the ways in which God shows Himself in nature (i.e., the ten ways that God’s existence can be known that I listed during my debate with Dillahunty. Here are three excellent references for the details of these various arguments: Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, (Edward Feser), Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Edward Feser), and Letters to an Atheist (Peter Kreeft). These and other works cover evidence such as Aquinas’ First Way (by change in nature), Aquinas’ Second Way (by cause in nature), Aquinas’ Third Way (by contingent existence), Aquinas’ Fourth Way (by degrees of perfection), and Aquinas’ Fifth Way (by design in nature) as well as the Thomistic argument from existence, the Neoplatonic argument (from the order of things), the Augustinian argument (from abstract objects), the rationalist argument (from the principal of sufficient reason), and the argument for Moral Law (from the reality of objective moral obligation). Each of these proofs of God’s existence is revealed to us through our intellect. Is the information that God provides in these ways sufficient to convince a reasonable person of His existence? Consider the ten ways that simple everyday experience provides inexhaustible evidence for His existence: Every change in nature proves His existence. Every cause in nature proves His existence. Everything that exists in nature proves His existence. Every degree of perfection in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of natural design proves His existence. Every realization of possibility in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of organization in nature proves His existence. Every abstract concept proves His existence. Every reason for anything in nature proves His existence. And every twinge of human conscience proves His existence. Natural science provides massive evidence for His existence as well. The Big Bang — i.e., the creation of the universe from nothing in an immense primordial flash of light — is a remarkable confirmation of the beginning of the book of Genesis. Astrophysicists have discovered dozens of physical forces and properties in the universe that must have very specific values to permit human life — and of course these forces and properties do have exactly the values necessary for our existence (as if Someone rigged physics just for us). The DNA in living things is an actual code — in every meaningful sense like a computer code with letters and words, grammar and phrases, sentences and punctuation. And life forms’ intracellular metabolism is run by an astonishingly intricate and elegant system of biological nanotechnology. So my question to Dillahunty and to other atheists who endorse the Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence is this: What is it about God’s existence that you still consider hidden? https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/the-divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence-nonsense/

bornagain77

CR:

Several authors, including Wheeler, Everett and Deutsch, call many-worlds a theory or metatheory, rather than just an interpretation (...) Deutsch dismissed the idea that many-worlds is an "interpretation", saying that to call it an interpretation "is like talking about dinosaurs as an 'interpretation' of fossil records." [wiki]

For a fallibilist, a "metatheory" is close to beyond criticism. So, here is Deutsch, a guy who is more than willing to doubt that cogito ergo sum is true, proclaiming that MWI is a "metatheory." Talking about selective hyper skeptics .... Origenes

CR:,,, "despite God not existing.",,, Confidently claims the man who, apparently without any hesitation, imagines himself to be a veritable god who exists in an infinitude of parallel universes. :) CR, not to spoil the delusions of grandeur that zillions of parallel CRs must possess for you, but you do realize that the arguments against God's existence are paper thin, and even self-refuting, do you not?

Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists - November 8, 2016 Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism.,,, What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,, The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism. Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars. https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/elite-scientists-dont-have-elite-reasons-for-being-atheists/ March 2021 Since Atheists have no real scientific evidence to support their belief in Darwinian evolution, or to support their belief that the universe spontaneously arose, ‘elite’ atheistic scientists are stuck with fallacious philosophical arguments against God that, upon close inspection, fall apart. Two of these fallacious philosophical arguments against God, that Atheists are dependent on, are the ‘God of the gaps argument’, and the ‘argument from evil’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/free-excerpt-from-steve-meyers-new-book-return-of-the-god-hypothesis/#comment-726833

Whereas, on the other hand, the arguments for God's existence are extremely deep, multifaceted, and even compelling.

20 Arguments For God’s Existence - Dr. Peter Kreeft 1. The Argument from Change 2. The Argument from Efficient Causality 3. The Argument from Time and Contingency 4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection 5. The Design Argument 6. The Kalam Argument 7. The Argument from Contingency 8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole 9. The Argument from Miracles 10. The Argument from Consciousness 11. The Argument from Truth 12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God 13. The Ontological Argument 14. The Moral Argument 15. The Argument from Conscience 16. The Argument from Desire 17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience 18. The Argument from Religious Experience 19. The Common Consent Argument 20. Pascal's Wager http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/ Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God - (Lecture starts around the 12 minute mark) https://youtu.be/Qi7ANgO2ZBU?t=723 In this video, Dr. Chad McIntosh presents over 100 arguments for the existence of God. Each argument is presented in visual form followed by recommended sources for further research. At the end, we discuss what a similar list of arguments for atheism would look like (and what it would imply for the theistic list of arguments). Baylor ISR- Plantinga Conference: (2 Dozen or So Arguments) - (Nov. 7, 2014) - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPuZYzfOgzY&list=PL0JmtbsEea3gcN5eNq-0JXq2qTwDg7L_Q&index=12 Table Of Contents for TWO DOZEN (OR SO) ARGUMENTS FOR GOD: THE PLANTINGA PROJECT I. Half a Dozen (or so) ontological (or metaphysical) arguments (A) The Argument from Intentionality (or Aboutness) • Lorraine Keller, Niagara University • "Propositions Supernaturalized" (B) The Argument from Collections • Chris Menzel, Texas A&M • "The Argument from Collections" (C) The Argument from (Natural) Numbers • Tyron Goldshmidt, Wake Forest • "The Argument from (Natural) Numbers" (D) The Argument From Counterfactuals • Alex Pruss, Baylor University • "Counterfactuals, Vagueness and God" (E) The Argument from Physical Constants • Robin Collins, Messiah College • "The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability" (F) The Naive Teleological Argument • C. Stephen Evans, Baylor University • "An Argument from Design for Ordinary People" (H) The Ontological Argument • Elizabeth Burns, Heythrop College • "Patching Planting’s Ontological Argument by Making the Murdoch Move" (I) Why is there anything at all? • Josh Rasmussen, Azusa Pacific; and Christopher Gregory Weaver, Rutgers University • "Why is There Anything?" II. Half a dozen Epistemological Arguments (J) The argument from positive epistemic status • Justin Barrett, Fuller Seminary • "Evolutionary Psychology and the Argument from Positive Epistemic Status" (K) The Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability • Alex Arnold, The John Templeton Foundation • "Is God the Designer of our Cognitive Faculties? Evaluating Plantinga’s Argument" (L) The Argument from Simplicity and (M) The Argument from Induction • Bradly Monton, Independent Scholar • "Atheistic Induction by Boltzmann Brains" (N) The Putnamian Argument (the Argument from the Rejection of Global Skepticism)[also, (O) The Argument from Reference and (K) The Argument from the Confluence of Proper Function and Reliability] • Even Fales, University of Iowa • "Putnam's Semantic Skepticism and the Epistemic Melt-Down of Naturalism: How Defeat of Putnam's Puzzle Provides a Defeater for Plantinga's Self-Defeat Argument Against Naturalism" (N) The Putnamian Argument, (O) The Argument from Reference, and (P) The Kripke-Wittgenstein Argument from Plus and Quus • Dan Bonevac, University of Texas • "Arguments from Knowledge, Reference, and Content" (Q) The General Argument from Intuition. • Rob Koons, University of Texas at Austin • "The General Argument from Intuition" III. Moral arguments (R) Moral Arguments (actually R1 to Rn) • David Baggett, Liberty University • "An Abductive Moral Argument for God" (R*) The argument from evil. • Hud Hudson, Western Washington University • "Felix Culpa!" IV. Other Arguments (S) The Argument from Colors and Flavors • Richard Swinburne, Oxford University • "The Argument from Consciousness" (T) The Argument from Love and (Y) The Argument from the Meaning of Life • Jerry Walls, Houston Baptist University • "The God of Love and the Meaning of Life" (U) The Mozart Argument and (V) The Argument from Play and Enjoyment • Philip Tallon, Houston Baptist University • "The Theistic Argument from Beauty and Play" (W) Arguments from providence and from miracles • Tim McGrew, Western Michigan University • "Of Miracles: The State of the Art and the Uses of History" (X) C.S. Lewis's Argument from Nostalgia • Todd Buras, Baylor University and Mike Cantrell • "A New Argument from Desire" (Z) The Argument from (A) to (Y) • Ted Poston, University of South Alabama • "The Argument from So Many Arguments" V. "Or so": Three More Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument • William Lane Craig, Houston Baptist University • "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" The Argument from Possibility • Brian Leftow, Oxford University • "The Argument from Possibility" The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature • Bruce Gordon, Houston Baptist University • "The Necessity of Sufficiency: The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature" - Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project - Paperback https://www.amazon.com/Two-Dozen-Arguments-God-Plantinga/dp/0190842229

Feb. 2023 - Moreover, I hold that if we take the artificial blinders off of science, specifically take the artificially imposed blinder of ‘methodological naturalism’ off of science, and let the scientific evidence speak for itself, then the scientific evidence itself is also very good at pointing us to Theism, even to Christianity, not to atheistic naturalism, as the true explanation for reality. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/massive-early-galaxies-defy-prior-understanding-of-the-universe/#comment-776610 bornagain77

CR: I’m quite happy to let my posts stand as stated. All hidden variable theories, including Wiseman’s current one, are shown to be false.

And how did BA reach this conclusion? Surely, it was due to that evidence he was referring to, he can show how I was using the wrong concept of locality, etc? Right?

I could care less how many gears and knobs he attaches to his current theory to try and make it a little less insane than MWI is.

IOW, it's false because BA think it's insane. Not because of empirical evidence from some experiment, like he claimed. Go figure. Why didn't he just come out and say that in the first place? critical rationalist

Then when it was pointed our that MWI was invented, first and foremost, to avoid God, CR claims that “God couldn’t have decided to create the multiverse? How does BA know the mind of an infinite being? Why should God conform to what BA does or does not think is crazy?” So CR’s imagines his god to be some kind of cosmic trickster that creates zillions of parallel CRs every-time a photon is simply observed? No wonder CR does not believe in God. He imagines god to be a capricious, even a malevolent, cosmic trickster

First, some kind of dualism could be true, despite God not existing. It's unclear why he thinks these things are joined at the hip. Regardless, BA's claim that "MWI was invented, first and foremost, to avoid God" appears to be a false dilemma that is pulled out of thin air. It's unclear why God, being infinite, couldn't have some good reason why he created the multiverse that we mere mortals cannot understand. After all, theists make this kind of appeal all the time, when it suits their purpose. If God created the biosphere, where is he now? Why didn't he leave a signature in the designs of organisms? Why didn't he explicitly reference other conscious beings, like Shakespeare did in his works? Why did he create organisms in a way that is radically incompatible with Neo-darwinism? Why didn't the knowledge he supposedly put in living things also contain explanatory knowledge, which only people can create? Should I go on? Of course, the answer to this is that God could have but he must have had some good reason we cannot comprehend. It's funny how God conveniently becomes comprehensible that theists can rule out Second, apparently BA didn't get the right emphasis, which is "Why should God conform to what BA does or does not think is crazy?” Apparently, BA thinks reality not existing unless someone is looking at it isn't crazy. But, fortunately, we're not limited to BA's conclusions on unintuitive phenomena. Third, the MWI is the most direct interoperation of QM. Everything evolves according to the wave function. The observer splits, along with everything else and has the same experience as if the wave function collapsed. This goes back to empirical indistinguishability, which BA appealed to earlier in this thread. You can propose different centers of the universe, and those theories predict the same empirical observations. From the perspective of the observer, their experience will be same, despite the fact that each of those theories suggest the underlying, unseen realities that explain them are materially different. After all, astronomy isn't the science of what astronomers will experience. It's about what the universe is really like, out there, in reality. It wasn't that long ago that astronomers experienced stars as tiny white lights in the sky, not the massive “spheres of incandescent gas, millions of kilometres in diameter and light years away" that are necessary consequences of out theories of optics, physics, geometry, etc. This is why BA's view of science is flawed. “Instrumentalism, even aside from the philosophical enormity of reducing science to a collection of statements about human experiences, does not make sense in its own terms. For there is no such thing as a purely predictive, explanationless theory. One cannot make even the simplest prediction without invoking quite a sophisticated explanatory framework.” You can't even look at anything directly in front of you without implicitly invoking theories about optics, physics, electrochemical reactions, etc. This is because, it turned out our senses, which were supposed to be the infallible source of knowledge we could always turn to, of last resort, to not lead us into error, are actually based on highly complex, systems that reflect long chains of hard to vary explanatory theories. So much for Empiricism. critical rationalist

Origenes,

"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything." - Chesterton - paraphrased quote https://www.chesterton.org/ceases-to-worship/

bornagain77

Bornagain, CR

BA: ... in one of the veritable infinity of parallel universe, with zillions upon zillions of parallel CR’s, there is a CR who happens to be holding his breath. Moreover, there is a CR who happens to be holding his breath while he is riding on a pink unicorn.

Baffling that there is someone who actually believes this MWI madness and dares to call himself a "critical rationalist." Origenes