Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts on Ethan Siegel’s multiverse, in response to Gunter Bechly’s observations:
My version of what Gunter said is this argument:
In an infinite universe, somebody somewhere has figured out how to talk from one universe to another. That technology can then collect the information in every universe, and become the Borg. But since there are infinite universes, this machine has infinite information. A machine with infinite information is omniscient and likely omnipotent and obviously omnipresent. Little finite minds like ours would see it as God. So the omniverse proves the existence of God, if that is what Ethan Siegel wants to do.
Of course, if God is inevitable, then the right question Ethan should ask, is how should he behave toward this being, aka morality. I’m not judging, but denying its existence doesn’t seem the wisest course of action.
![The Long Ascent: Genesis 1â 11 in Science & Myth, Volume 1 by [Sheldon, Robert]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51G-veeEcdL.jpg)
Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent
See also: Logic vs. the multiverse: Gunter Bechly offers some insights: For example, how can we “partition an infinite multiverse so to arrive at the finite probabilities we observe and require (e.g. for quantum mechanics) because in an infinite multiverse everything that can happen happens an infinite (with the same cardinality) number of times?”
and
The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Anything that is logically conceivable is possible with infinite statistical power
It doesn’t even have to be the borg or a machine for that matter
The multi-verse is capable of giving Genesis to anything that exist including a being capable of transcending physics or at least the physics of its universe
This being could continue to grow in power and absorb others of its kind or ilk becoming a Maximumly infinite being. Once something like this starts to exist, the one that made it to that point first could theoretically stop all others from doing the same and even stop the multiverse from continued production of universes. This would not be out side it’s grasp.
Again anything conceivable is possible.
Not exactly. From what you say, it sounds like the super-Borg-like hive-mind to which you allude, would have arisen somewhere within the multiverse not created it from without. So it would not lend support to the Christian concept of God.
The other problem, of course, is that the Borg had no chosen people, no favored creatures. They simply said “Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctives to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” Maybe such an advanced super-intelligence would mean us no harm but it’s highly unlikely we would have the power to stop them if they did. So maybe we shouldn’t be talking to such an intelligence if they did attempt contact, whether they presented themselves as an alien species or some kind of god. At least, not until we had clarified their intentions.
Of course, it may already be too late. Maybe we’ve already been assimilated and, instead of being filled with Borg prosthetics and implants, we’ve been plugged into a Matrix-like simulation which is what is running now. The possibilities are endless.
Au Contraire Seversky,
The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of other universes to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of this universe also insures, through the ontological argument, the 100% probability of the existence of God:
As mentioned previously, where this argument has gained purchase is in the materialist’s/atheist’s appeal to the multiverse (an infinity of possible worlds) to try to ‘explain away’ the extreme fine tuning that we find for this universe. Simply put, the atheist cannot argue it is logically impossible for God to exist since he has already conceded that it is logically possible for an infinity of other possible worlds to exist.
As well, as the following humorously makes clear, the multiverse is another prime example of the fact that assuming atheism as a starting position in science drives the atheist, yet again, into catastrophic epistemological failure:
An infinite number of universes doesn’t mean that “anything that is logically possible will eventually happen. This is not monkeys at typewriters. If there are laws that constrain the branching of each moment into an infinite number of next moments in parallel universes, or which constrain some unknown process that has produced other universes separate from ours (not necessarily infinite), then there may very well be (and this is likely) things that could not possibly happens for reasons other than just logic.
I will once again refer to Conway’s game of life. If somehow an infinite number of random beginning generations were seeded, (which is possible because this takes place on the infinite coordinate plane), and then each beginning generation was extended for an infinite number of generations, there still might be ending configurations or even parts of configurations that can never develop.
So I think this argument about multi-verses meaning that eventually anything that is not logically impossible will happen is quite wrong.
Hazel:
“So I think this argument about multi-verses meaning that eventually anything that is not logically impossible will happen is quite wrong.”
In another universe: “So I think this argument about multi-verses meaning that eventually anything that is not logically impossible will happen is quite right.”
QED
Exactly. By the way you don’t get to add rules to prevent something from happening all it takes in a statistical model is something like a singularity or a cosmological wormhole to happen that statistically can happen and will happen if you were dealing with an infinite number of universes
That only has to happen with us once and we cease to exist
That is not debatable
And if you have to ad hoc rules to prevent this from happening you need to reevaluate a lot of the models of the universe because now you are fine-tuning the multi-verse which the whole reason for the multi-verse is to explain why our universe is so fine tuned
Besides the fact that atheists wind up in catastrophic epistemological failure with their appeal to the multiverse, as is shown in the following video, atheists also have no compelling scientific evidence for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth.
In fact, as was also shown in that video, there are some fairly strong lines of logical and scientific evidence that can be mustered against most of their claims for parallel universes and/or multiverses.
But for the most part, as George Ellis and many others have noted, multiverse theories simply are not science since they are not falsifiable:
And whereas, atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various extra dimensions, parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth, Christians, on the other hand, (as is shown in the following video), can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.
In fact, besides Christians being able to appeal to our most precisely theories ever in the history of science, (and as was also touched upon in the preceding video), Christians can also appeal to Near Death Experiences of people who have died for a short while to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension:
In fact, as Dr Egnor touched upon in the preceding article, we have far more observational evidence for the reality of Near Death Experiences than we do for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can generate functional information. Moreover, the transcendent nature of ‘immaterial’ information, which is the one thing that, (as every ID advocate intimately knows), unguided material processes cannot possibly explain the origin of, directly supports the transcendent nature of the soul:
The following line of evidence for the reality of Near Death Experiences is particularly interesting to look at.
In the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were ‘false memories’ by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary.
Simply put, they did not expect the results they got: to quote the headline ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real”
The reason this is so interesting is because, as has been pointed out numerous times to materialists who try to claim that consciousness is just an illusion, for anything to be “real” for us in the first place, you must first be conscious.
Thus, exactly how is it even possible for something to become ‘even more real than real’ for a person having an NDE unless the infinite Mind of God truly is the basis for all reality? Atheistic Materialists simply lack a basis to even properly address the question, whereas the Christian should rightly expect things to become “even more real than real” in the presence of God.
A few quotes on the ‘even more real than real’ aspect of Near Death Experiences,
Verse:
Dr Sheldon,
This depends on what kind of multiverse is being proposed. In some models, it’s simply impossible because the universes are completely disconnected. Similarly, even if we lived in an infinite multiverse, no one would ever be able to square the circle.
I’m not sure what this means. There’s no guarantee that this technology would be able to collect an infinite amount of information, in any case.
Holy non sequitur, Batman!
But is such a machine (assuming it could possibly exist) actually a god? Would you worship such a being?
hazel:
Most materialists would disagree as they have posited the infinite multiverse for just that.
That’s fine but that is not an argument. And you are also talking to the wrong people.
@Ronvanwegen #5
And in that other universe, YOUR position might be reversed as well.
BA77 @ 7 raises an interesting point about the ‘hyper reality’ of the world encountered during a near death experience.
I have seen a number of materialistic explanations for this, along the lines of:
“Well, the heightened reality is just due to the neuronal bombardment of the anterior central thingummy, giving rise to evoked potentials in the superior whatdidyacallit, so there’s a very simple material explanation for this. Move along please, nothing to see here.”
What the materialists never do is to flag up the possibility that an overactive thingummy and a compromised whatdidyacallit might be causing our sense of ‘normal’ waking reality being ‘realer’ than dreams.
IOW, if the heightened reality of the NDE world is an illusion, then maybe our everyday reality is also an illusion, and the ‘real reality’ is the dream world.
Bornagain77 @ 3
Quite right, we can argue and once we have finished arguing, all we have left is an argument, which may or may not be valid, depending on whether it is properly formed but whose truth – if any – can only be determined by external verification of the constituent claims.
So let’s take a closer look at this argument:
Leaving aside the question of what is meant by a “maximally great being” – is a maximally great being capable of the greatest evil, for example – I will concede for the sake of argument that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.
This is more or less a restatement of the first proposition. I would argue to exist at all means to exist in a world even if you are the sole occupant. But again, for the sake of argument, if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it is possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Not quite.
First, it should be rephrased for consistency to read, “If it is possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it is possible that a maximally great being exists in every possible world”
But while it is possible that every possible world may include a maximally great being, there is no reason given why we should assume that it must be the same being manifested in all possible worlds.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it is possible it exists in the actual world. But we still have no reason to think it is the same maximally great being.
It’s possible, yes, because we have no way of ruling it out as impossible.
Non sequiter
See above.
If you want a simpler counter, let’s try a substitution argument:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being (the Dark Lord Sauron) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, The Dark Lord Sauron exists.
Have we just proven that the title character of Tolkien’s novel actually exists?
Well Seversky, you have just proven yourself equally inept at philosophy as you are at science.
Moreover, in your attempted philosophical rebuttal, the elephant in the living room problem for atheists just sat on you.
The atheist, in his concession that it is possible for an infinity of other possible worlds to exist, concedes the necessary premise in the ontological argument in order for the ontological argument to be considered successful, i.e. it is logically possible for God to exist:
Moreover Seversky, in your futile attempt to ‘logically’ prove that it is impossible for God to exist, you further shoot yourself in the foot in that logic itself cannot be based in your atheistic materialism but must instead be based in Theism. Needless to say, you cannot logically prove anything about God without first using his logic. 🙂 ,,, As the old joke goes about God’s response to scientists who claim they do not need him anymore,, “get your own dirt”, but in this case God’s response to the scientists would be, ‘get your own logic’
Verse and quote:
This was in another multiverse-related discussion but it fits here too:
Why is this obsession with multiverse ?
What does the multiverse buy?
Does it explain away the fine tuning thing?
Ok, but does the fine tuning explain the OOL or the appearance of eukaryotic cells?
It may be a necessary condition but it’s far from being sufficient.
So let’s say this universe is one of an infinite number of universes. It happens to have the fine tuning all set. Ok. But then what?
The origin of the prokaryotic or the eukaryotic cells is not the same as throwing dice. It’s not an statistic issue. It’s a Humpty Dumpty problem on steroids. No infinite number of attempts would do it. Had that been the case, scientists would have figured out by now how to put it together having all the components. They haven’t and they don’t even have a clue.
First let’s get to work and try to understand exactly how the biological systems work, let’s figure out the complex functionality of the functional complexity that is observed. The fast technological progress allows scientists to see deeper into the biological systems in real time. Let’s take advantage of that and study seriously what is observed to understand it well. That’s serious science with valid purpose.
We have many important medical questions waiting to get resolved. We need more biology-related research.
And it must be scientifically directed, so that they don’t make the mistakes that have been made before, that have squandered so much valuable time and resources barking up the wrong trees following wrong assumptions based on biased unproven claims associated with particular worldview positions. Some neo-Darwinian ideas kept biology researchers ignoring things that later were found very important. Humble open mindedness must be the basic attitude in serious evidence-based scientific research.
Leave the multiverse stuff to the folks that enjoy science fiction and fairytales. Some folks don’t know how to use their available time productively. They get bored easily. Perhaps multiverse can be their entertainment. That’s ok. Let it be. Maybe someday they’ll wake up and smell the flowers too.
The first step of the scientific method is “Observe something.” No other universe of any kind has been observed, so the entire concept is not science. It is FICTION!
‘The first step of the scientific method is “Observe something.”
But… but… Richard Dawkins said the world only LOOKS designed.
Sharing infinite information can’t solve the halting problem, and you need something like a halting oracle to get CSI.
Plus, information by itself is inert, and doesn’t do anything by itself. The most information friendly metaphysic, Platonism, still needs a demiurge to make stuff happen.
Bornagain77 @ 13
Simply re-iterating an argument doesn’t make it any better than it was the first time. Neither does it address the points I raised against it.
Strawman, I’m afraid. I have never claimed nor tried to argue that it is impossible for God to exist. In fact, at one point in my life, I believed He did. Now, I see no compelling reason to believe in such a being any more than I believe in the Dark Lord Sauron.
Seversky, the ontological argument, in order for it to be successful, only requires that an atheist concede that it logically possible for God to exist. You conceded that point, i.e. “I have never claimed nor tried to argue that it is impossible for God to exist”
You act as if the argument can continue after you have literally knocked yourself out of the argument by conceding the primary premise of the ontological argument, i.e. that it is logically possible for God to exist.
Logic, along with science and philosophy, apparently does not appear to be your strong suit Seversky.