• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The multiverse is more likely to be true than any religion.

serp777

Well-Known Member
I feel that the multiverse, as an explanation for our existence, has more evidence and explanatory power than the claims made by religions. I guess I exclude those obscure religions that postulate a multiverse since I know someone will bring up some infinitesimal religion that supports the idea of a multiverse. Anyways, here are several arguments:

1. This first argument is by no means the main justification here, but it should be noted that as technology has advanced, so too has our perspective of the size of the universe. At first humans thought that our solar system was the only one in existence. Then we thought that there was only one super cluster of stars. Next, we thought there was only one galaxy with a large number of nebulae. Judging from history, it seems unlikely that now we're at the end of the road.

2. Quantum mechanics suggests the many worlds hypothesis as an explanation for why certain probabilities are realized over the others.

3. Inflationary theory also heavily implies that inflation doesn't stop everywhere simultaneously, which means that inflation is always continuing somewhere. This is suggestive of eternal inflation, which gives significant credence to the idea of multiple universes popping into existence as inflation continues.

4. The multiverse explains nicely why particular constant appear to have somewhat random, but very particular and bizarre values. You would then expect all possible universes to exist, which means that ours also has to exist and thus we're here.

5. The Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe or WMAP might have some evidence of other universes that affected the microwave CMB shortly after the big bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

6. Other theories that many brilliant scientists are pursuing--string theory to name one.

So religious people--if you're going to have faith in something, why not the multiverse? At least the multiverse has some evidence and our most successful theories suggest its existence.
 

Aiviu

Active Member
God as the mechanism to access the multiuniverse after life as a transportation system. Beam me up! A good reputation in your actual 'verse will bring you to the roof of the universe which in fact is the downside of a earth like planet again. God's matryoshka system of a planet and its universe inside another planet with a 'verse. Size doesnt matter! Since nothing has no room the system layers taking forever.

Oh i really would like to see a movie to 'transport' the idea. Title 'Never've been on the outside'

Sorry i am not taking fun of you. I just like idea to create. And imagine it myself to get amazed and depressed in time.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I feel that the multiverse, as an explanation for our existence, has more evidence and explanatory power than the claims made by religions.
Ironic, given that many physicists and cosmologists feel the multiverse hypothesis is religious in nature:
"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science."
from the editor's introduction to Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.

1. This first argument is by no means the main justification here, but it should be noted that as technology has advanced, so too has our perspective of the size of the universe. At first humans thought that our solar system was the only one in existence. Then we thought that there was only one super cluster of stars. Next, we thought there was only one galaxy with a large number of nebulae. Judging from history, it seems unlikely that now we're at the end of the road.
The universe is by definition all that could possibly exist. This is a terminological issue in the literature, as often "multiverse" really refers to regions of the universe.

2. Quantum mechanics suggests the many worlds hypothesis as an explanation for why certain probabilities are realized over the others.
Actually, the opposite is true. Certain outcomes of observations in quantum physics are more likely given a particular preparation and measurement of a system. According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, every possible outcome should be realized in some branch of the universe. Yet there is no logical basis or explanation in such interpretations for the fundamental fact that given a particular preparation and measurment, certain outcomes are more likely. In other words, if the many-worlds interpretation were true, then for some bizarre reason that totally violates all logic particular universes should result more frequently than others because of observations in a single universe that is causally unrelated to the universes in which alternative outcomes are realized. It's like saying that all possibilities of experiments are realized, but for some reason those in our universe are more likely than in the universes that we can't measure, can't observe, and have no evidence for.

3. Inflationary theory also heavily implies that inflation doesn't stop everywhere simultaneously, which means that inflation is always continuing somewhere. This is suggestive of eternal inflation, which gives significant credence to the idea of multiple universes popping into existence as inflation continues.
Inflationary theory is based purely upon mathematical niceties. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for it, and even mathematical physicists like Penrose are highly critical of such convenient mathematical tricks.

4. The multiverse explains nicely why particular constant appear to have somewhat random, but very particular and bizarre values. You would then expect all possible universes to exist, which means that ours also has to exist and thus we're here.
This is completely false. Multiverse cosmologies that attempt to deal with the fine-tuning problem explain nothing; they are constructed such that the particular constants and parameter values which are problematic cease to be so because infinitely many alternatives are defined into existence without evidence just to make the appearance of the values of such parameters and constants explainable. To assert multiverse cosmologies explain fine-tuning issues is like saying that there is no solution in algebra for x/0=? because division by 0 is by definition not defined. You can't "explain" anything by defining the result to be true because it is.

5. The Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe or WMAP might have some evidence of other universes that affected the microwave CMB shortly after the big bang.
This has no relevant explanatory power.

6. Other theories that many brilliant scientists are pursuing--string theory to name one.
String theory is not only currently untestable, it also makes no predictions and cannot make any prediction even in theory because there are infinitely many ways to compactify the necessary extra spatial dimensions. In fact, string theory is so far from explaining ANYTHING that it isn't even known what the mathematical equations SHOULD be such that we would need to solve them to be able to formulate a consistent model.

So religious people--if you're going to have faith in something, why not the multiverse? At least the multiverse has some evidence and our most successful theories suggest its existence.
Because it is as supported by evidence as "god did it" or "it's turtles all the way down."
 

Terese

Mangalam Pundarikakshah
Staff member
Premium Member
The multiverse theory is accepted in my religion, as it is in our scriptures.
 

idea

Question Everything
In the case of the multiverse - everything exists (including God) ... in the case of no multiverse, fine tuning exists soooooo either way, chances are God exists.

The point of religion is not to explain existence (I am a Christian, but do not believe that we exist because "God did it" - the word "create" in the Bible is better translated as "organize what eternally is" not "ex-Nihlo create").. the point of religion is to find the best way to exist and progress. It is about refining the spirit, about building character, - about love one another, blessed are the humble and the meek etc. etc.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I feel that the multiverse, as an explanation for our existence, has more evidence and explanatory power than the claims made by religions. I guess I exclude those obscure religions that postulate a multiverse since I know someone will bring up some infinitesimal religion that supports the idea of a multiverse. Anyways, here are several arguments:

1. This first argument is by no means the main justification here, but it should be noted that as technology has advanced, so too has our perspective of the size of the universe. At first humans thought that our solar system was the only one in existence. Then we thought that there was only one super cluster of stars. Next, we thought there was only one galaxy with a large number of nebulae. Judging from history, it seems unlikely that now we're at the end of the road.

2. Quantum mechanics suggests the many worlds hypothesis as an explanation for why certain probabilities are realized over the others.

3. Inflationary theory also heavily implies that inflation doesn't stop everywhere simultaneously, which means that inflation is always continuing somewhere. This is suggestive of eternal inflation, which gives significant credence to the idea of multiple universes popping into existence as inflation continues.

4. The multiverse explains nicely why particular constant appear to have somewhat random, but very particular and bizarre values. You would then expect all possible universes to exist, which means that ours also has to exist and thus we're here.

5. The Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe or WMAP might have some evidence of other universes that affected the microwave CMB shortly after the big bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

6. Other theories that many brilliant scientists are pursuing--string theory to name one.

So religious people--if you're going to have faith in something, why not the multiverse? At least the multiverse has some evidence and our most successful theories suggest its existence.

After every other atheist theory of cosmogony failed; static, eternal, steady state, big crunch... the multiverse was always going to be the last resort- inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific testing.

I agree with Krauss on Hawking 'if your theory requires an invisible infinite probability machine.. it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

I also agree with Hawking on Krauss 'That moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard!'
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Ironic, given that many physicists and cosmologists feel the multiverse hypothesis is religious in nature:
"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science."
from the editor's introduction to Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.


The universe is by definition all that could possibly exist. This is a terminological issue in the literature, as often "multiverse" really refers to regions of the universe.


Actually, the opposite is true. Certain outcomes of observations in quantum physics are more likely given a particular preparation and measurement of a system. According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, every possible outcome should be realized in some branch of the universe. Yet there is no logical basis or explanation in such interpretations for the fundamental fact that given a particular preparation and measurment, certain outcomes are more likely. In other words, if the many-worlds interpretation were true, then for some bizarre reason that totally violates all logic particular universes should result more frequently than others because of observations in a single universe that is causally unrelated to the universes in which alternative outcomes are realized. It's like saying that all possibilities of experiments are realized, but for some reason those in our universe are more likely than in the universes that we can't measure, can't observe, and have no evidence for.


Inflationary theory is based purely upon mathematical niceties. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for it, and even mathematical physicists like Penrose are highly critical of such convenient mathematical tricks.


This is completely false. Multiverse cosmologies that attempt to deal with the fine-tuning problem explain nothing; they are constructed such that the particular constants and parameter values which are problematic cease to be so because infinitely many alternatives are defined into existence without evidence just to make the appearance of the values of such parameters and constants explainable. To assert multiverse cosmologies explain fine-tuning issues is like saying that there is no solution in algebra for x/0=? because division by 0 is by definition not defined. You can't "explain" anything by defining the result to be true because it is.


This has no relevant explanatory power.


String theory is not only currently untestable, it also makes no predictions and cannot make any prediction even in theory because there are infinitely many ways to compactify the necessary extra spatial dimensions. In fact, string theory is so far from explaining ANYTHING that it isn't even known what the mathematical equations SHOULD be such that we would need to solve them to be able to formulate a consistent model.


Because it is as supported by evidence as "god did it" or "it's turtles all the way down."
Despite the philosophical call to admit "We don't know," physicists are often employed to figure out possible answers to questions about the universe--it's their job to try to come up with explanations that will really explain what we find when we study to universe. But so far, what they are finding is so bizarre that they can't even begin to formulate explanations, or they have to come up with explanations that are inherently untestable (or at least untestable with current technologies).

Fortunately or unfortunately, the sciences philosophically have a great aversion to tautologies (the universe is this way because it's this way...and we've got a lot of ways of potentially explaining why it might be this way, without being able to eliminate all but one of the possible explanations) and infinite regresses (it's all a multiverse, or it's turtles all the way down...).

We do have the argument that within any meaningful system of logic, there are assumptions that cannot be proven within that system of logic...which means that we need to come up with a new system of logic that incorporates our current knowledge, but that explains "We exist because we exist."

I still wonder whether humans are even capable of understanding such a logical system, whether it's even possible for us to avoid the cosmic tautology/infinite regress problem...
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
A major role of religions is to address questions and topics relevant to day to day human lives (for which "truth" is frequently not the point, by the way). Thus a question I have is in what way is the possible existence of multiverses at all significant for day to day human life?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
So religious people--if you're going to have faith in something, why not the multiverse? At least the multiverse has some evidence and our most successful theories suggest its existence.
You have excluded my religion in the first paragraph which is sad. My religion has no problem with Big-Bang, Multi-verse, Evolution, Plate tectonics or anything that science knows. I do not have Gods or Goddesses. What makes me interested is 'creatio ex-nihilo'.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I think and agree with LegionOnomaMoi that the multiverse position is still speculative and untestable.

Mathematically it is true, hence it is theoretical, but there are no evidences to support multiverse cosmology, therefore it is still hypothetical.

And while I do find multiverse to be fascinating subject, it is only show to be true in sci-fi or fantasy.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You have excluded my religion in the first paragraph which is sad. My religion has no problem with Big-Bang, Multi-verse, Evolution, Plate tectonics or anything that science knows. I do not have Gods or Goddesses. What makes me interested is 'creatio ex-nihilo'.
Except that none of the fields in science that you have listed, advocate creatio ex-nihilo.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Thus a question I have is in what way is the possible existence of multiverses at all significant for day to day human life?

This is probably the biggest reason why there is no deep philosophy in Heathenry (Germanic and Anglo-Saxon), Norse Paganism, Ásatrú, or whatever we call the religions from the north. The people of those regions had enough to do to survive day to day without contemplating, to no valuable end, the nature of the universe and reality. It served no purpose in their day to day human lives.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
This is probably the biggest reason why there is no deep philosophy in Heathenry (Germanic and Anglo-Saxon), Norse Paganism, Ásatrú, or whatever we call the religions from the north. The people of those regions had enough to do to survive day to day without contemplating, to no valuable end, the nature of the universe and reality. It served no purpose in their day to day human lives.

This seems to be the case for Paganisms in general. Or rather, where there are creation stories, what they are meant to do is tell us things about how we relate to to things around us or how other things relate to each other. In a sense, the idea of multiverses could be used in that fashion, and is in many respects analogous to the concept of the otherworlds found in many Pagan cultures. A lesson of the otherworlds is that there is more to reality than meets the eye, and to never grow arrogant as humans in thinking we know what's what. Another lesson is that given there are things beyond what we notice, to be aware that things can influence our lives that we aren't paying attention to.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So religious people--if you're going to have faith in something, why not the multiverse? At least the multiverse has some evidence and our most successful theories suggest its existence.
I am religious person and I see the multiverse belief as a separate subject. Religion to me is about the nature of my reality and how to best live my life. Multiverse theories (which are compatible with my religion by the way) have nothing to do with the things religion is concerned with. Religion is about my life in this universe.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
3. Inflationary theory also heavily implies that inflation doesn't stop everywhere simultaneously, which means that inflation is always continuing somewhere. This is suggestive of eternal inflation, which gives significant credence to the idea of multiple universes popping into existence as inflation continues.

It's worth noting that the concept of an expanding universe was originally developed by a catholic preist. ;)
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So religious people--if you're going to have faith in something, why not the multiverse? At least the multiverse has some evidence and our most successful theories suggest its existence.

Faith, real faith is based on evidence, not speculation. The only universe known to exist is our own. The existence of our universe and its order, complexity, and natural laws point me to a grand Creator of supreme power and intellect.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
My own religion is not concerned with such matters, as my fellow pagans have explained.

As for the scientific theories, I take them with a pinch of salt. Cosmology, as opposed to basic physics, is heavily dependent on two axioms (i.e. claims you can't prove), namely the principles of spatial and temporal uniformity — the assumptions that, all other things being equal, what happens there and then will be the same as what happens here and now. Quantum mechanics is one thing, a speculative system based on it and a bundle of guesswork is quite another.

In the last analysis, I'd agree with Wittgenstein (now that's a rarity) that if all the questions that trouble scientists were answered today, the ones that concern ordinary people would still be there tomorrow.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I feel that the multiverse, as an explanation for our existence, has more evidence and explanatory power than the claims made by religions. I guess I exclude those obscure religions that postulate a multiverse since I know someone will bring up some infinitesimal religion that supports the idea of a multiverse. Anyways, here are several arguments:

1. This first argument is by no means the main justification here, but it should be noted that as technology has advanced, so too has our perspective of the size of the universe. At first humans thought that our solar system was the only one in existence. Then we thought that there was only one super cluster of stars. Next, we thought there was only one galaxy with a large number of nebulae. Judging from history, it seems unlikely that now we're at the end of the road.

2. Quantum mechanics suggests the many worlds hypothesis as an explanation for why certain probabilities are realized over the others.

3. Inflationary theory also heavily implies that inflation doesn't stop everywhere simultaneously, which means that inflation is always continuing somewhere. This is suggestive of eternal inflation, which gives significant credence to the idea of multiple universes popping into existence as inflation continues.

4. The multiverse explains nicely why particular constant appear to have somewhat random, but very particular and bizarre values. You would then expect all possible universes to exist, which means that ours also has to exist and thus we're here.

5. The Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe or WMAP might have some evidence of other universes that affected the microwave CMB shortly after the big bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

6. Other theories that many brilliant scientists are pursuing--string theory to name one.

So religious people--if you're going to have faith in something, why not the multiverse? At least the multiverse has some evidence and our most successful theories suggest its existence.

As a side note: we should be careful not to confuse the many worlds interpretation of QM with the Multiverse. They are not the same thing.

The multiverse hypothesys, when used in teleological contexts, is a real killer. It sweeps away all teleological arguments for the existence of God, e.g. the fine tuning argument, at once.

True, there is no real conclusive, or even possible, evidence for it, but it has, at worst, the same evidence of a God tuning things.

I don't like to use it because it is not fun, lol. Exactly because of its instant kill capabilities.

Ciao

- viole
 
Top