“Someone has (I think quite condescendingly) just told me that “Multiverses are suggested by pure math.. They are not ‘made up’.”

(Obviously, the key word here is “suggested”. But in what sense might this be considered a true statement?)”

Math holds a special place in the heart of most Modernists or Materialists, because math is entirely unmaterial, unphysical, and yet seems to partake of pure truth. If you speak to a mathematician, he will undoubtedly tell you he is a Platonist, that Math is something you discover, not something you invent. So when a materialist wants to tell you that something is absolutely, unalterable true, he has no better place to go than Math. That is why your friend is invoking his most precious god when he says that “multiverses are suggested by pure math”. But is this true? Would Plato have believed in multiverses?

No! Because Plato believed in unity. If Math is the god that rules the realm of Truth, there could never be multiple realms. Especially multiple realms with different math! Plato would have been appalled at the jobs given to multiverses. It would be like hiring Plato to clean toilets. Historically, this “One Truth” has been so influential, that nearly all Platonists would say “God is simple, He doesn’t have any parts.” or “All truth is God’s truth” etc. Multiverses are an abomination to Plato, and frankly, to most Metaphysicists.

Dr. Sheldon as to this comment from your article:

This ‘unity’ somewhat touches on a question that I had asked an atheist the other day:

Earlier this year niwrad had touched on this subject:

Pastor Joe Boot states the insurmountable problem for atheists this way,,

And indeed why should we even think there should be an overarching absolute truth, i.e. an overarching ‘theory of everything’ that unifies all these seemingly different facts into a coherent whole if randomness and chaos were truly the cause for all the order we see around us? Professor Steve Fuller comments on this mysterious intuition for unity we all seem to have here:

Moreover, that ultimate theory of everything, i.e. that absolute truth, that all people, even atheists, intuitively know must exist,,,

this absolute truth, this unity, according to Godel’s incompleteness theorem,,,

this absolute truth cannot be a purely mathematical theory of everything, i.e. a purely mathematical absolute truth as Plato seemingly held. This ‘incompleteness’ proof from Godel is a fact that even Hawking himself has admitted to in the past but has now apparently subsequently forgotten.

i.e. If there is to be a ‘theory of everything’, an absolute truth, a unity, that unifies all the different mathematical facts about the universe into a coherent whole, then it must be based in a ‘personal agent’, i.e. in must be based in God. The following quote from Dr. Bruce Gordon conveys this ‘intuitive’ fact in a very concise fashion:

An interesting sidelight to the incompleteness theorem and to God having to ‘breathe fire into the equations’, it is interesting to note that our two best mathematical descriptions of reality required higher dimensional mathematics in order to be formulated. Thus strongly suggesting that whatever is ‘breathing fire into the equations’ resides in a higher dimension:

Moreover, if we allow that God ‘can play the role of a person’ as even Godel himself allowed when he chided Einstein for having an ‘abstract’ god,,,

,,if we allow that then we find a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a ‘theory of everything’, i.e. into an ‘absolute truth’. Into a ‘unity’ that we intuitively know must exist:

Verses and music:

Except that, as Philip Kitcher explains beautifully in his criticism of Thomas Nagel here, it is a philosophically defensible option to

nothave an absolute or final theory of everything:That’s the key: not some absolute final theory that explains everything, but “an enormous and heterogeneous family of models,” each of which explains something.

as to:

I read the article. IMHO, It is a horrendous piece of tripe. If you really think Philip Kitcher truly offers a ‘philosophically defensible option’, I strongly suggest that you burn your degree in philosophy and look for a new career. Perhaps flipping burgers is more your calling?

For prime instance of the tripe used to try to refute Nagel, what evidence does Kitcher reference to refute Nagel’s claim that the materialistic version of Darwin’s theory cannot explain consciousness? Why the materialistic version of Darwin’s theory of course!:

I suggest Kitcher, after he burns his degree in philosophy, read Talbott to get an inkling of how incoherent he is:

Related notes:

I don’t see any tension between Kitcher and Talbott — both of whom I admire considerably. (I’ve been in correspondence with Talbott — very sweet guy! – and I also know Kitcher personally.)

I mean, I see how Talbott is interested in describing the phenomenology of life — of

livingness— and Kitcher is interested in explanations — in particular, he’s interested in explaining what it is to explain. So they’re just doing different things, and I don’t see why those conflict.“It is not only not right, it is not even wrong,”

Wolfgang Pauli – physicist

Is (6) supposed to be a reply to my (5)?

On finding mathematical unity where, given atheistic materialism/naturalism, none should have ever been found:

Moreover Euler’s Identity, rather than just being the most beautiful equation in math, finds striking correlation to how our 3D reality is actually structured and operates. For instance, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to be a circular sphere which ‘coincidentally’ corresponds to the circle of pi within Euler’s identity:

This ’roundness’ for the universe was predicted in the Bible long before it was ever discovered:

As well, an unexpected flatness for the universe, which also ‘coincidentally’ corresponds to the diameter of pi in Euler’s identity, was recently found;

This exceptional ‘flatness’ found for the universe was also predicted in the Bible long before it was discovered by modern science:

This following video shows that the universe also has a ‘unexpected’ characteristic of expanding/growing equally in all places, which ‘coincidentally’ strongly corresponds to the ‘e’ in Euler’s identity. ‘e’ is the constant that is used in equations of math, specifically compound interest, for finding what the maximum rates of growth are:

This following video shows how finely tuned the ‘4-Dimensional’ expansion, i.e. ‘growth’, of the universe is (1 in 10^120);

Here are the verses in the Bible, which were written over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by ‘Dark Energy’, that speak of God alone ‘Stretching out the Heavens’; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 40:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is one of my favorites out of the group of verses:

As well, towards the end of the following video, Michael Denton speaks of the necessity of the square root of negative 1, which is also in Euler’s equation, for understanding the quantum behavior of this universe:

I find it extremely strange, even miraculous to borrow Wigner’s term, that the enigmatic Euler’s equation, which was deduced centuries ago, would find such striking correlation to how reality is actually found to be structured by modern science. In pi we have correlation to the ‘sphere of the universe’ as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned ‘geometric flatness’ within the ‘sphere of the universe’ that has now been found (Of note, we also find that pi is required in Einstein’s General Relativity equation).,, In ‘e’ we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is ‘expanding/growing equally’ in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a ‘imaginary number’, which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, as Michael Denton pointed out in the preceding video, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler’s identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine.

Moreover, even the 1 and the 0 in Euler’s equation find place in how the universe operates if one considers the zero/infinity problem between quantum mechanics and general relativity:

Yet if a person allows that, as Godel held, ‘God can play the role of a person’, then, as somewhat pointed out in post #2, a reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity readily pops out when one considers the relation between 1, 0, and infinity:

The mystery/beauty doesn’t stop there, this following video shows how pi and e are found in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 respectfully:

verse and music:

They don’t like the math of QM. They think math suddenly got fuzzy and mysterious, so metaphysical inferences must be considered dubious at best. ‘Supernaturalness, non-locality, indeed! Whatever next?’

Who doesn’t, Axel?

People who think everything can be reduced to equations.